sustainability

Article
Factors Influencing Curriculum Leadership of Primary and
Secondary School Teachers from the Perspective of Field
Dynamic Theory: An Empirical Investigation in China
Junyuan Chen 1,† , Yanru Yang 1,† , Fenghua Xu 1, *, Wenzhe Xu 1 , Xiaolin Zhang 1 , Yao Wang 1 and Yishi Zhang 2, *

1 School of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China;

[email protected] (J.C.); [email protected] (Y.Y.); [email protected] (W.X.);
[email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (Y.W.)
2 School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
* Correspondence: [email protected] (F.X.); [email protected] (Y.Z.)
† Junyuan Chen and Yanru Yang contributed equally to this work and shared the first authorship.

Abstract: Teacher curriculum leadership is in urgent demand to promote the sustainable advance-
ment of curriculum reform, and an important guarantee for the sustainable development of students.
It is of important theoretical and practical significance to clarify the influencing factors of the use and
the development of teachers’ curriculum leadership. Based on Lewin’s field dynamic theory, this
study conducts a multiple linear regression analysis on the data of 19,521 primary and secondary
school teachers in 20 provinces of China, and investigates the influencing factors of teacher curricu-



lum leadership from individual and school fields. The results show that individual field factors


are the driving force for teachers to exert and develop curriculum leadership. When teachers have
Citation: Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Xu, F.; internal leading motivation, the school environment becomes an important inducing force. This
Xu, W.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y. finding confirms the realistic rationality of the field dynamic theory, and provides a clear direction
Factors Influencing Curriculum for formulating relevant policies and practical plans for enhancing teacher curriculum leadership.
Leadership of Primary and Secondary
That is, it is necessary to fully stimulate the internal motivation of teachers for curriculum leadership,
School Teachers from the Perspective
but also to create a school environment for teachers to exercise and develop curriculum leadership.
of Field Dynamic Theory: An
Empirical Investigation in China.
Keywords: teacher curriculum leadership; field dynamic theory; influencing factors; teacher profes-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007. https://
sional development
doi.org/10.3390/su132112007

Academic Editor: Eila Jeronen

Received: 26 September 2021 1. Introduction

Accepted: 25 October 2021 Teacher leadership has always been considered to play an important role in the
Published: 29 October 2021 sustainable promotion of teacher professional development [1–3] and school reform [4],
and thus has been widely considered in academic and practical circles. So far, relevant
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral researches have achieved rich results in the conceptualization [5], classifying development
with regard to jurisdictional claims in level [6], and exploring practical paths [7] of teacher leadership. With the deepening of
published maps and institutional affil- research, higher-quality studies on teacher leadership have become an urgent need [8].
iations.
Clarifying the influencing factors that promote or inhibit teacher leadership and proposing
effective strategies for teacher leadership development have increasingly become important
issues in the educational field [4]. Therefore, studying the influencing factors of teacher
leadership is of great theoretical significance and practical value.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Current researches on the influencing factors of teacher leadership are mainly reflected
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. in three aspects: Firstly, affirming and analyzing the promotion effect of principal’s support
This article is an open access article on teacher leadership. Providing teachers with an appropriate level of autonomy through
distributed under the terms and reasonable administrative management methods and establishing a productive relationship
conditions of the Creative Commons with teachers are an important manifestation of the principal support. Chamberland [9]
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
(p. 104) points out that even if the team has common goals and independent decision-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
making powers, the principal needs to constantly strive to encourage the leadership of
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112007 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 2 of 20

others. Gigante and Firestone [10] also believe that school administrators’ understanding
of the leading role of teachers is an effective driving force. Secondly, it is important to
clarify the dual roles of the working environment. Studies show that an overwhelming
workload is an important factor in hindering the development of teacher leadership [11].
As an important part of teachers’ working environment, school culture has an important
influence on teachers’ leadership. For example, Hart [12] finds, through empirical research
on two middle schools, that the health of school culture is a key factor affecting teacher
leadership. Brooks [13] and Podjasek [14] (pp. 22–24) further emphasize the influence of
school members’ shared vision and goals on teacher leadership. In addition, some studies
find through qualitative interviews that interpersonal relationships are also an important
factor affecting teacher leadership. For example, Brosky [15] points out that the rejection
and dissatisfaction of colleagues hinders the improvement of teacher leadership. Zinn [16]
(p. 59) also emphasizes that the degree of support received by teachers, the degree of
respect among colleagues, and the spirit of teamwork affect the effectiveness of teacher
leadership. Thirdly, exploring the influence of teachers themselves on their leadership. Both
the principal’s support and the working environment are external factors. Teachers should
be taken seriously as behavior subjects. Therefore, some scholars begin to pay attention to
the influence of teachers on their leadership. For example, Chamberland [9] (p. 104) points
out that teachers who are unable to calmly deal with the hierarchical management structure
cannot effectively perform their duties. Muiss and Harris [17] and Klinker [18] further state
that personal characteristics, such as a lack of confidence and a lack of experience, will
make it difficult for teachers to lead. O’Gorman and Hard [19] found through an empirical
investigation that teachers’ interpersonal skills, creativity, sensitivity, and advocacy are
conducive to the improvement of their leadership.
The researches above reflected the academic community’s extensive attention to the in-
fluencing factors of teacher leadership and laid a solid foundation for subsequent research.
However, it is obvious that these studies are based on teacher leadership in a broad sense,
but teacher leadership includes multiple practical areas. A recent meta-analysis shows that
among the 7 domains of teacher leadership, the improvement of the curriculum, teaching,
and evaluation by teachers is most closely related to student academic performance [20].
This shows that it is necessary to further focus on teachers’ leading roles and its influencing
factors in the curriculum field within the context of teacher leadership, namely teacher cur-
riculum leadership. However, due to the scarcity of focused research on teacher curriculum
leadership, the definition of such a term is still incomplete. Therefore, it is necessary to start
with the definition of teacher leadership to explore the definition of teacher curriculum
leadership. Based on the definition of teacher leadership by scholars such as Sinha [21],
Carpenter and Sherretz [22], and Durias [23] (p. 4), this study defines teacher curriculum
leadership as the ability of teachers to cooperate with stakeholders in the curriculum field to
promote the sustainable optimization of a curriculum and the sustainable development of
students and teachers. In addition, studies related to teacher leadership influencing factors
rarely adopt theoretical tools to conduct in-depth investigations. Through a combination
of the existing literature, it was found that the current fragmented and inductive analysis
of the impacting factors of teacher leadership can be better divided into two aspects: the
individual and the environment. This is very consistent with Kurt Lewin’s field dynamic
theory, which emphasizes the influence of the behavior subject and the environment and
their interactions in individual actions. Considering this, the research here attempts to
explore the influencing factors of teachers’ curriculum leadership with the guidance of field
dynamic theory in an empirical way, and then proposes effective strategies for improving
teachers’ curriculum leadership accordingly, hoping to provide a decision-making basis
for teachers’ professional development and the sustainable advancement of curriculum
reform, which may ultimately serve the sustainable development of students. In short, the
core questions of this research are: What are the factors that influence the exertion and
development of curriculum leadership of primary and middle school teachers? From the
perspective of field dynamic theory, what is the specific influence mechanism?
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 3 of 20

2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Kurt Lewin’s Field Dynamic Theory
Kurt Lewin’s field dynamic theory is mainly used to explain the changes in the rela-
tionship between an individual’s behavior and the surrounding environment. It is mainly
composed of two core concepts: the “psychological tension system” and the “life space”;
the former aims to emphasize the individual’s motivation, while the latter highlights the
influence of the environment on individual behavior [24]. When expressing the individual’s
psychological tension system, Lewin believes that only when the needs break the original
psychological balance will they cause internal tension, and then produce the behavior of
obtaining a new internal balance [24]. Lewin also analyzes individual behavior and the life
space generated by the behavior—that is, the “psychological life space”—and believes that
the life space can be divided into several areas with portable barriers. “Field” is a concept
of physics. Lewin borrowed this concept and transformed it into a “psychological field”,
thinking that it is a space in which individuals interact with the environment [25] (p. 11). To
understand or predict the right behavior, people and their environments must be regarded
as a collection of interdependent factors [24]. The totality of these factors is the individual’s
life space and is expressed by B = f (PE) = f (LS). Among them, B represents the individual
behavior; P represents the subject of the behavior; E stands for the environment in which
the individual is located; LS is the abbreviation of the life space; that is, the individual’s
behavior is affected by the individual and the environment. The life space consists of the
individual, the environment, and the interrelationship between them [26] (pp. 239–240).
Individual behaviors occur in space and are influenced by life or space. When analyzing
various behaviors, the generation and change of behaviors can be explained from the rela-
tionship between people and the environment. Therefore, the occurrence and development
of teacher curriculum leadership is not only influenced by the teachers themselves, but is
also inseparable from their environment.

2.2. Analysis Framework

According to Lewin’s field dynamic theory, teacher curriculum leadership is formed by
the interaction of individual teachers with their environment. School is the daily working
environment of teachers. Numerous studies have revealed the deep coupling relationship
between teachers and schools. Therefore, the main factors affecting teacher curriculum
leadership can be classified into two categories: individual field factors and school field
factors. Assuming that the teacher curriculum leadership is TCL, the subject of curriculum
leadership is teacher P, the individual field factor is E1, and the school field factor is E2;
then TCL = f (P E1 E2)—that is, teachers’ curriculum leadership is the function of the above
two fields.

2.2.1. Individual Field Factor Analysis

Teachers, as the main actors, must meet the following conditions to develop cur-
riculum leadership: Firstly, a higher professional level. Teachers with a high level of
professionalism (teachers who have achieved success in classroom teaching) can often es-
tablish prestige among all teachers and become “expert teachers” in the eyes of colleagues.
Their suggestions are more likely to be adopted by colleagues and then win colleagues’
respect and expand their influence [8]. Secondly, curriculum leadership willingness. Harris
and Muijs [27] found, through an empirical study, that unwillingness to lead to some
extent hinders the teachers in becoming school leaders, because some teachers only re-
gard themselves as classroom practitioners rather than school leaders, and think that the
leadership role should be borne by the school management team. Thirdly, the quality
of leading others, that is, teachers’ trust in colleagues and their ability to be trusted by
colleagues [15]. At the same time, teachers’ sense of self-efficacy can enable them to better
implement curriculum leadership [23] (p. 155). Finally, strong leadership skills, such as
self-planning and management skills, interpersonal skills, etc., are inevitable requirements
for the development of teacher curriculum leadership [19,28,29].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 4 of 20

2.2.2. Analysis of School Field Factors

Most teachers’ practices are happening in the school field. Thus, school plays an
important role in the generation and development of teacher curriculum leadership. To
be clear, firstly, a clear common vision and a school culture of mutual trust among mem-
bers. Schools lacking a unified vision will inhibit the generation of teacher curriculum
leadership [13], and cultivating the trust between colleagues, teachers, and students is a
key task within the school [17]. Secondly, a cooperative teacher development community.
When team members are unwilling to follow, it is difficult for a teacher to become a suc-
cessful leader [30]. Again, this is the flat school organization structure. The bureaucratic
organizational structure, on the one hand, tends to aggravate the indifference and alien-
ation of the relationship between colleagues, and is not conducive to promoting mutual
assistance between them [31] (pp. 16–17); on the other hand, the unidirectional obedience
relationship hinders the exertion of the teacher’s subjective spirit and inhibits the teacher’s
autonomy and creativity [32]; a democratic and equal school organizational structure can
enable teachers to achieve creative development. Finally, the principal’s support for teacher
leadership. The principal should become a “leader of teacher leaders”, discover teachers
with leadership potential, and provide support and opportunities to train them to become
leading teachers [33]. For example, daring to empower teachers. Providing an appropriate
level of autonomy for teachers to implement curriculum leadership is vital administrative
support [2], which helps encourage teachers’ leading behavior. Besides, trust and care
about teachers’ ability and behavior of leadership. Principals who try to encourage, trust,
and care about teachers can create a culture that supports teacher leadership abilities, which
is very beneficial to teacher leadership [2]. This also involves being good at listening to
and communicating with teachers’ feelings and experiences in implementing curriculum
leadership. Studies have shown that principal’s willingness to listen to, understand, and
respect the responsibilities and job descriptions of teacher leaders can increase teacher’s
identity and self-confidence [34] (p. 145). Lastly, a certain degree of reward can improve
the enthusiasm of teacher leaders. Borchers [35] (p. 108) believes that recognizing these
teacher leading behaviors in some way (material compensation or other ways) is conducive
to teacher leadership.
Based on the above analysis, this study constructs an analysis framework for measuring
the influencing factors of teacher’s curriculum leadership, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The analytical framework of teacher curriculum leadership influencing factors.

3. Methodology
In this study, we investigate and analyze the essential factors that influence Chinese
primary and middle school teachers’ curriculum leadership drawing upon the field dy-
namic theory. According to the theoretical framework shown in Section 2, we develop the
research instruments from two aspects: the individual field and the school field. Due to the
lack of mature questionnaires that could be directly used in this study, we enrich the vari-
ables and items under the individual field and school field by referring to a large number of
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 5 of 20

relevant literature and questionnaires. Then we use a large-scale nationwide questionnaire

survey and a hierarchical regression analysis concerning both the individual field and the
school field to clarify the influencing elements and mechanisms for the exertion and devel-
opment of Chinese teachers’ curriculum leadership under the key competencies-driven
new curriculum reform.

3.1. Data Collection and Participants

The data used in this study mainly come from a survey launched by the “Study on
Curriculum Leadership of Primary and Secondary School Teachers” Research Group from
January 2020 to April 2021 in Sichuan, Hubei, Guangxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Hunan, Beijing,
Ningxia, Guangdong, Xinjiang, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Guizhou, Chongqing, Hebei, Henan,
Shanghai, Anhui, Inner Mongolia, and Qinghai in China. To ensure that the research
samples are broadly representative, we adopt the stratified random sampling method.
Firstly, 20 provinces including Sichuan, Hubei, and Shandong are selected in the east,
middle, and west of China according to the geographical location and economic level;
secondly, among the 20 provinces, the more developed and backward cities or regions
are selected in a balanced manner according to the level of economic development; then,
elementary schools, middle schools, and ordinary high schools are randomly selected
from the selected cities; finally, a group survey is conducted by the teachers of the selected
schools. Considering the national epidemic prevention and control policy, we use online
electronic questionnaires for data collection. A total of 23,915 questionnaires are finally
collected, of which 19,521 are valid, and the effective response rate is 81.63%. The sample
characteristics are shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the teacher samples.

Characteristics Number of People (N) Percentage (%) Characteristics Number of People (N) Percentage (%)
Gender Chinese 6027 30.9
Female 5454 27.9 Math 4905 25.1
Male 14,067 72.1 English 2461 12.6
School location Physics 608 3.1
Urban area 16,555 84.8 Chemistry 482 2.5
Rural area 2966 15.2 Biology 515 2.6
Ethnic regions 6263 32.1 Ethics and Rule of Law 2295 11.8
Non-ethnic regions 13,258 67.9 Geography 477 2.4
School ranking History/ History and Society 657 3.4
Medium and below 5256 26.9 Music 1002 5.1
Above medium 10,868 55.7 Art 982 5.0
Best 3397 17.4 Sports and Health 1535 7.9
Teaching age Information Technology 560 2.9
0–5 years 5015 25.7 Science 1176 6.0
6–10 years 2711 13.9 Others 1144 5.9
11–15 years 2059 10.5 Position
16–20 years 2113 10.8 None 6580 33.7
21 years and above 7723 39.1 class teacher 7217 37.0
Lesson preparation team
School nature 1699 8.7
leader
Teaching-research team
Public school 18,728 95.9 1868 9.6
leader
Private school 793 4.1 Grade manager 766 3.9
Job title Dean/Deputy dean 903 4.6
Unrated 2762 14.1 Vice-principal 492 2.5
Third-level teacher 472 2.4 Principal 155 0.8
Secondary teacher 5833 29.9 Others 2670 13.7
Teacher education
First-level teacher 7513 38.5
background
Advanced teacher 2909 14.9 Yes 1648 84.5
Senior teacher 31 0.2 No 3032 15.5
Teaching period Highest degree
Primary school 11,268 57.7 Below college degree 82 0.4
Middle school 5385 27.6 College degree 2914 14.9
High school 2868 14.7 Bachelor degree 15,275 78.2
Teaching subject Above bachelor degree 1250 6.4
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 6 of 20

3.2. Instruments and Variable Definition

3.2.1. Instruments
In the compilation of the questionnaire items, we refer to related questionnaires that
are proved to be very reliable, mainly including “Shanghai School Curriculum Leadership”
evaluation index system and evaluation points [36], “Teacher Questionnaire of China Edu-
cation Panel Survey in School Year 2014–2015” launched by China Survey and Data Center,
Renmin University of China [37], “Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education”
(VAL-ED) developed by four professors from the Peabody School of Education, Vanderbilt
University in the United States [9] (p. 104).
The questionnaire used in this study is composed of three parts: PART I is the demo-
graphic characteristics of teachers. The items in this part mainly focus on the background
information of the teachers themselves, including gender, teaching age, professional title,
position, educational background, highest degree, school location, nature of the school,
teaching period, teaching subject (s), and school quality (ranking). Items include single-
choice and multiple-choice questions, corresponding to question 1–12 in the questionnaire.
PART II is the measurement of the realistic level of teacher curriculum leadership. This
part is based on the three-dimensional model of teacher leadership proposed by Sinha and
Hanuscin [21]. Items are set and measured from three dimensions of teacher curriculum
leadership views, practices, and identity, corresponding to question 14. (1–29), a Likert
5-point scale is adopted, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1 point) to “strongly agree”
(5 points). PART III is to measure the relevant factors that affect teacher curriculum leader-
ship. This part is based on Lewin’s field dynamic theory, within the framework shown in
Figure 1, indicators and items are set from the two dimensions; namely, the individual field
and the school field. Individual field factors are corresponding to question 13 (single-choice
form) and 14. (30–34) (Likert 5-point scale). School field factors are measured by items 14.
(35–42) in the form of a Likert 5-point scale. Since China initiated a new round of basic
education curriculum reform driven by key competencies in 2014 and updated the ordinary
high school curriculum plan and curriculum standards accordingly, this study uses key
competencies as a macro background for guiding the development of the questionnaire
and penetrates it into the expressions of specific items (See Appendix A for details).
In the reliability test, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Teacher Curriculum Lead-
ership Scale is 0.967, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Individual Field Factors
Influencing Teacher Curriculum Leadership Scale is 0.887, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient
of the School Field Factors Influencing Teacher Curriculum Leadership Scale is 0.962, the
Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Teacher’s Curriculum Leadership Influencing Factors Scale
is 0.958, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the total scale is 0.977. It can be observed
that the subscales and the total scale have good internal consistency (see Table 2). In
the validity test, the expert judgment method is used to judge the content validity of the
questionnaire. Five experts in the field of education and teaching are invited to evaluate
the correspondence between the questionnaire and the indicators, the scientific structure,
rationality, and language expression of the questionnaire. All the experts confirm that the
questionnaire can better reflect the research content. Therefore, the questionnaire used in
this study has good reliability and validity.

Table 2. Reliability test of the scales.

Measurement Dimension Internal Consistency Reliability Test (Cronbach’s α) Number of Items On the Scale (N)
Teacher curriculum leadership 0.967 29
Individual field factors 0.887 5
School field factors 0.962 8
Influencing factors of teacher
0.958 13
curriculum leadership
Total scale 0.977 42
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 7 of 20

3.2.2. Variable Definition

In this study, teacher curriculum leadership is taken as the dependent variable, and
individual field factors and school field factors are taken as independent variables. As
analyzed above, the individual field factors include six variables: professional level, lead-
ership willingness, trust quality, self-efficacy, self-planning and management ability, and
interpersonal skills. The professional level here is a dummy variable, represented by the
highest level of education and teaching awards the teacher has received so far, with “not yet
awarded” as the reference group. The remaining 5 are all quantitative variables. The school
field factors include eight variables: the school common vision, school cultural atmosphere,
teacher community, school organizational structure, principal-teacher communication,
principal’s support for teacher professional development, principal reward, and principal
empowerment, all of which are quantitative variables. The mean and standard deviation
of each variable are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of teacher curriculum leadership and influencing factors (N = 19,521).

Variables. Mean SD Variables Mean SD

Teacher curriculum leadership 3.76 0.577 School common vision 3.86 0.727
Individual field factors School cultural atmosphere 3.88 0.723
Leadership willingness 3.51 0.837 Teacher community 4.00 0.701
Trust quality 3.91 0.688 School organizational structure 3.82 0.794
Self-efficacy 3.96 0.679 Principal’s support for teacher development 3.88 0.769
Self-planning and management ability 3.90 0.695 Principal-teacher communication 3.84 0.797
Interpersonal skills 3.84 0.705 Principal empowerment 3.78 0.805
School field factors Principal reward 3.82 0.785

3.3. Analysis
This study applies a hierarchical linear regression model to analyze the influencing fac-
tors of teacher curriculum leadership. The specific econometric regression model expressed
in the matrix form is:
T T T
Y = βindividual Xindividual + βschool Xschool + βcontrol Xcontrol (1)

where Y represents the curriculum leadership of elementary and middle school teachers,
which is the overall level of teacher curriculum leadership views, teacher curriculum
leadership practices, and teacher curriculum leadership identity. According to Lewin’s
field dynamic theory, teachers’ motivation is the most important for the exertion and
development of their curriculum leadership, followed by the influence of the environment.
Therefore, in the hierarchical linear regression model, the individual variables are input first,
with the school field variables following up. Xindividual contains the core explanatory vari-
ables from the individual field, i.e., professional level, leadership willingness, trust quality,
self-efficacy, self-planning and management ability, and interpersonal skills. Xschool repre-
sents another core explanatory variables from the school field, including 8 sub-variables:
school common vision, school cultural atmosphere, teacher community, school organiza-
tional structure, principal’s support, empowerment and rewards, and principal-teacher
communication. Xcontrol represents the control variable set, including gender, teaching age,
urban and rural location, ethnic location, school nature, school ranking, teaching period,
professional title, professional background, subject background, position background, and
highest degree (which are converted into dummy variables when conducting regression).

4. Results
Using hierarchical regression analysis, 3 models are obtained (see Table 4). Model 1
is the case where only the control variables are input, and the explanatory power of the
model is 3.8% at this time. Model 2 is the case where the teacher’s personal factors are
added on the basis of controlling the relevant interference variables. At this time, the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 8 of 20

explanatory power of the model is significantly improved (adjusted R2 is 70.5%). Model 3

adds variables representing school field factors on the basis of Model 2, and the explanatory
power (adjusted R2 ) of the model rises to 72.8%. The results show that the application
and development of teachers’ curriculum leadership are significantly affected by the
comprehensive influence of the individual and the school fields. Next, we will analyze the
comprehensive influence of the individual field factors as well as the school field factors on
teacher curriculum leadership.

Table 4. Regression results of influencing factors of Chinese teachers’ curriculum leadership.

Dependent Variable: Teacher Curriculum Leadership

Independent Variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Control variables
Gender-Male 0.001 (0.281) −0.011 ** (0.157) −0.011 ** (0.151)
Highest degree—Below college degree −0.004 (1.829) −0.007 (1.013) −0.008 * (0.974)
Highest degree—College degree −0.033 *** (0.362) −0.015 *** (0.202) −0.014 *** (0.194)
Highest degree—Above bachelor degree 0.011 (0.498) −0.001 (0.276) 0.001 (0.266)
Teacher education background—Yes 0.002 (0.342) −0.001 (0.190) 0.002 (0.182)
Teaching age—6–10 years −0.017 (0.429) −0.004 (0.241) −0.004 (0.232)
Teaching age—11–15 years 0.000 (0.496) 0.006 (0.279) 0.005 (0.268)
Teaching age—16–20 years 0.000 (0.538) 0.012 * (0.302) 0.012 * (0.290)
Teaching age—21 years and above −0.020 (0.507) 0.031 *** (0.285) 0.035 *** (0.274)
School location—Rural −0.042 *** (0.348) −0.019 *** (0.193) −0.016 *** (0.186)
School location—Ethnic −0.003 (0.254) −0.003 (0.141) −0.001 (0.136)
School nature—Public −0.022 ** (0.610) −0.007 (0.338) −0.008 * (0.326)
Teaching period—Middle school −0.048 *** (0.290) −0.028 *** (0.161) −0.020 *** (0.155)
Teaching period—High school −0.070 *** (0.387) −0.032 *** (0.216) −0.015 *** (0.209)
School ranking—Medium and below −0.196 *** (0.370) −0.048 *** (0.208) −0.020 *** (0.202)
School ranking-Above medium −0.128 *** (0.328) −0.033 *** (0.183) −0.018 *** (0.176)
Teaching subject—Multidisciplinary −0.040 *** (0.317) −0.013 *** (0.176) −0.009 * (0.169)
Post—With administrative position (s) 0.020 ** (0.255) 0.004 (0.142) 0.002 (0.137)
Title—Third-level teacher −0.011 (0.824) 0.001 (0.461) 0.004 (0.444)
Title—Secondary-level teacher −0.069 *** (0.426) −0.008 (0.257) −0.001 (0.247)
Title—First-level teacher −0.062 *** (0.533) −0.016 (0.317) −0.006 (0.305)
Title—Advanced teacher −0.022 (0.640) −0.020 * (0.376) −0.010 (0.362)
Title—Senior teacher 0.031 *** (3.005) 0.003 (1.675) 0.002 (1.610)
Individual field factors
Professional level—School level awards 0.005 (0.286) 0.005 (0.275)
Professional level—County/District level awards 0.006 (0.256) 0.008 (0.246)
Professional level—Municipal awards 0.019 ** (0.273) 0.022 ** (0.262)
Professional level—Provincial awards 0.008 (0.313) 0.011 * (0.301)
Professional level—National awards 0.028 *** (0.331) 0.031 *** (0.319)
Leadership willingness 0.282 *** (0.100) 0.273 *** (0.098)
Trust quality 0.202 *** (0.151) 0.160 *** (0.149)
Self-efficacy 0.108 *** (0.165) 0.083 *** (0.160)
Self-planning and management ability 0.131 *** (0.156) 0.093 *** (0.152)
Interpersonal skills 0.272 *** (0.149) 0.152 *** (0.163)
School field factors
School common vision 0.135 *** (0.184)
School culture 0.017 (0.202)
Teacher community 0.046 *** (0.175)
School organizational structure −0.027 *** (0.175)
Principal’s support for teacher development 0.000 (0.204)
Principal-teacher communication 0.047 *** (0.186)
Principal empowerment 0.056 *** (0.155)
Principal reward 0.016 * (0.146)
Sample size 19,521
Adjusted R2 0.038 0.705 0.728
* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.*** p <0.001. The number in the bracket denotes the standard error.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 9 of 20

4.1. Individual Field Factors Have Significant Positive Impacts on Teacher Curriculum Leadership
As shown in Model 2, in the case of controlling gender, highest degree, professional
background, teaching age, school location, school nature, teaching stage, school ranking,
teaching subject (s), position (s), and title, the 6 factors that reflect teacher’s personal factors
together explain 70.5% of the variance of teacher curriculum leadership. Moreover, each
variable has a significant positive impact on teacher curriculum leadership. Among them,
leadership willingness has the highest explanatory power (β = 0.282, p < 0.001), indicating
that teacher’s leadership willingness level best predicts the level of curriculum leadership.
Since the standardized regression coefficient is positive, it indicates that the stronger the
teacher curriculum leadership willingness, the higher the teacher curriculum leadership
level. The rest are interpersonal skills, trust quality, self-planning and management skills,
self-efficacy, and professionalism. Since the level of professionalism is a dummy variable,
the report of its explanatory power needs to refer to the reference group. The reference
group for the professional level variable in this study is set as “not yet awarded”. Re-
sults show that teachers who have won municipal and national awards demonstrate a
higher level of curriculum leadership compared with those who have not yet received
any education or teaching awards. However, teachers with the other awarding levels
(school, district/county, and provincial level) reveal no significant difference in curriculum
leadership level compared with the teachers who have not yet received any awards.

4.2. The Comprehensive Influence of Individual Field Factors and School Field Factors on Teacher
Curriculum Leadership
As shown in Model 3, when the disturbance variables are controlled, the 6 variables
reflecting the teacher’s personal factors and the 8 variables reflecting the school field factors
together explain 72.8% of the variance of the teacher’s curriculum leadership, showing that
the model explanatory power increases by 2.3% when school field factors are added.
In terms of schools, among the 8 variables invested, only 6 factors reach the significant
level; namely, the school common vision, teacher community, school organizational struc-
ture, principal–teacher communication, principal empowerment, and principal rewards.
Among them, the school common vision has the strongest explanatory power, with a stan-
dardized regression coefficient of 0.135 (p < 0.001). The rest are principal empowerment,
principal–teacher communication, teacher community, school organizational structure, and
principal rewards. From the orientation of prediction, the influence of school organizational
structure on teacher curriculum leadership is negative, and the rest are positive. This shows
that a high degree of agreement among the school-running philosophy, training goals,
and curriculum goals is particularly important for the development of teacher curriculum
leadership. In addition, the principal’s curriculum empowerment, exchanges with teachers
on curriculum improvements, appropriate rewards for teachers, and mutual help among
teachers all have significant positive impacts on the improvement of teacher curriculum
leadership, but the school organizational structure (that is, “school management will fully
absorb the opinions of teachers when making curriculum decisions”) has a significant
negative impact on teacher curriculum leadership. In terms of teachers, after adding school
field factors, all variables of teachers’ personal factors are adjusted, and the explanatory
power decreases. For example, the explanatory power of teachers’ willingness for leading
becomes 27.3%. However, the explanatory powers of most variables of teacher’s individual
field factors are still higher than those of the variables of school field factors.

5. Discussion
Through a hierarchical regression analysis on the data of 19,521 primary and middle
school teachers in China, this study shows that the teacher’s curriculum leadership is
simultaneously affected by the subject and the school environment, and the subject has
a greater impact on his/her curriculum leadership. These are highly consistent with
Lewin’s field dynamic theory. This section will focus on this discovery, combined with
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 10 of 20

field dynamic theory and related literature, to carry out in-depth discussions, and then
propose strategies to improve teachers’ curriculum leadership.

5.1. Field Analysis of Influencing Factors of Teacher Curriculum Leadership

5.1.1. Teachers’ Willingness to Lead Is the Driving Force behind Their Curriculum
Leadership Development
Model 2 and Model 3 together show that teachers themselves are the core explanatory
variables that affect their curriculum leadership. More specifically, teacher’s willingness
to lead is the driving force for the use and improvement of curriculum leadership. No
matter in Model 2 or Model 3 with the addition of school field factors, teachers’ curriculum
leadership willingness has the strongest explanatory power (β = 0.282, p < 0.001 in Model 2;
β = 0.273, p < 0.001 in Model 3), indicating that compared with the remaining explanatory
variables, whether a teacher exerts or develops curriculum leadership depends more on
whether the teacher has the corresponding subjective desire. This conclusion further
confirms the field dynamic theory. According to the field dynamic theory, whether the
external environment becomes a motivating factor for individual behavior depends on
the magnitude and direction of the internal dynamics. If the individual lacks behavioral
motivation, external factors will not be able to boost the individual, and may even result in
the opposite effect [38]. In terms of the overall comparison between teacher individual field
factors and school field factors, the situation is similar. As shown in Model 3, in addition
to leadership willingness, the explanatory power of teachers’ trust quality (β = 0.160) and
interpersonal skills (β = 0.152) also exceed all explanatory variables in the school field,
whose maximum is the school common vision (β = 0.135). The explanatory power of
teachers’ self-efficacy (β = 0.083) and self-planning and management ability (β = 0.093) far
exceed other explanatory variables in the school field.
Through further analysis, the 6 variables that reflect teachers’ personal factors can be
classified into 4 areas: leadership willingness, leadership quality, leadership skills, and
professional level (see Figure 2). The relationship between these four aspects and teacher
leadership or teacher curriculum leadership has also been explored by other studies. This
study confirms and develops some of the conclusions of related researches.
In terms of leadership willingness, Meirink et al. [6] conduct an informal curriculum
leadership survey on 12 novice teachers in Dutch middle schools and found that whether
teachers can become curriculum leaders not only depends on administrative support, but
is also based on the teacher’s own leadership motivation and willingness. This is consistent
with the conclusion of this study. However, through a large-scale empirical investigation,
this study further points out that teachers’ curriculum leadership willingness dominates,
and its importance far exceeds other external factors.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of individual field factors influencing teachers’ curriculum leadership.

In respect of leadership quality, on the one hand, this study finds that teachers’ self-
efficacy has a positive predictive effect on their curriculum leadership. Teachers with high
self-efficacy have a higher curriculum leadership. On the contrary, if teachers’ self-efficacy is
low, the curriculum leadership is also low. This finding positively confirms the conclusions
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 11 of 20

of related studies. For example, Durias [23] (p. 167–170) points out that teachers’ self-
confidence is relevant to curriculum leadership, and if teachers’ confidence is insufficient, it
will hinder the exertion of leadership ability. Chamberland [9] (p. 104) and Brosky [15] also
hold similar views, believing that teachers who lack a positive and calm attitude cannot
lead effectively. On the other hand, since leadership is a cooperative enterprise, successful
leadership cannot be without the cooperation of leaders and followers. Therefore, the
teacher’s trust in curriculum stakeholders, such as colleagues, is also a necessary quality.
The data of this study shows that teachers who fully value and trust the professional
suggestions of colleagues in curriculum decision-making tend to have high development
and exercise of their curriculum leadership. In contrast, related researches refer more to
the trust of principals or colleagues in teachers, while this study has made a meaningful
exploration from another perspective.
For leadership skills, first of all, since leadership is an interpersonal behavior, teachers’
interpersonal competence is also an important condition for the use and promotion of their
curriculum leadership. A survey study explores the obstacles and support for teachers to
implement distributed leadership in Queensland, Australia. In the reflections of 13 teachers
participants, the researchers found that teachers’ interpersonal skills are one of the facilitat-
ing factors of teacher curriculum leadership; especially, actively cooperating with parents
can help teachers better exert their leadership skills [19]. This study also finds that the
importance of teachers’ interpersonal skills ranks among the top three. When the school
field factors are not added, its importance is second only to the leadership willingness.
After the school field factors are added, its importance is second only to the leadership
willingness and trust quality. Secondly, self-planning and management ability to a certain
extent represents the teacher’s self-leadership, which is also a prerequisite to ensure that
teachers can successfully lead other curriculum subjects. Because the development and
application of leadership requires a time guarantee, if teachers cannot plan their daily work
reasonably, they will have no time to lead because they are stuck in busy work. However,
there is less research on this point.
Considering professionalism, as has been revealed by existing researches, teachers
who succeed in classroom teaching are more likely to gain the respect and trust of their
colleagues, and this kind of respect and trust enable teachers to lead their colleagues more
effectively [8]. In addition, professional knowledge and abilities can also promote teachers’
curriculum decision-making [39]. This study confirms through a large amount of data that
the professional level of the curriculum is a basic condition for the teacher’s curriculum
leadership.
Generally speaking, in terms of teachers’ personal factors, this study not only confirms
some conclusions of related research, but also gains in-depth insights by using the field
dynamic theory as an analysis tool. That is, it firstly confirms the significant predictive
effect of the above factors on teacher’s curriculum leadership, and at the same time further
clarifies the dominant position of teachers’ own factors, especially teachers’ leadership
willingness. This not only provides empirical support in the domain of education for field
dynamic theory, but also has important referential value for teacher development policies.

5.1.2. Stimulation of the School Environment Is an Inducing Force for the Development of
Teacher Curriculum Leadership
School is the first field of teachers’ activities, and has thus become the main space
for teachers to adopt and improve curriculum leadership. As shown in Model 2 and
Model 3, adding school field factors on the basis of personal factors improves the goodness
of fit of the regression model, indicating that when teachers have the internal motivation
to exercise and develop curriculum leadership, the school environment plays a positive
role in motivating them. This further confirms the view of the field dynamic theory
that internal dynamics are dominant and at the same time are controlled by the external
environment [38]. However, although school field factors as a whole promote teacher
curriculum leadership, not all variables are positively related when viewed separately, and
not all variables have an impact on teacher curriculum leadership (see Figure 3).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 12 of 20

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of school field factors influencing teachers’ curriculum leadership.

First of all, school culture (school common vision, cultural atmosphere) is a factor that
has attracted much attention in many studies. In this study, school culture is mainly mea-
sured by two variables, namely, the school’s common vision and the cultural atmosphere.
Regression analysis shows that school common vision has a significant positive impact on
teachers’ curriculum leadership, but the relationship between school cultural atmosphere
and teachers’ curriculum leadership does not reach statistical significance. This finding can
be mutually confirmed in related studies. In terms of shared vision, Brooks et al. [13] nega-
tively state that schools lacking a unified vision will inhibit teachers’ curriculum leadership.
Studies have also shown positively that the shared vision of the school is conducive to
enhancing collaboration, thereby enhancing teachers’ improvement and leadership of the
school curriculum [12,40]. The conclusion of this study on the relationship between school
common vision and teacher curriculum leadership is consistent with the researches above.
However, in respect of school cultural atmosphere, this study may confirm the notion that
the relationship between the cultural atmosphere and the teacher leadership is uncertain.
This is because related researches have reached opposite conclusions. Supporters believe
that a cultural atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation helps to cultivate and develop
teachers’ curriculum leadership [17,39]. The opposite shows that a school culture of col-
legiality and cooperation is a necessary but insufficient condition for improving teacher
leadership [41].
Secondly, the analysis of this study shows that the formation of teacher community
plays a positive role in promoting the development of teacher curriculum leadership.
This conclusion is also in line with many studies. A study reveals that mutual help
between teachers helps them to carry out leadership activities, and when team members
are unwilling to follow, it is difficult for teachers to become successful leaders [30]. Tonna
and Bugeja [42] show that through the community, teachers are no longer in self-isolation,
but can promote the exchange and complementation of the high-quality resources and ideas
that each other have, thereby promoting their own teaching improvement and leadership
development.
Thirdly, the school organization structure is also a factor that has been often explored.
Different school organizational structures have different effects on teachers’ curriculum
leadership. Generally speaking, a democratic and flat organizational structure helps release
teachers’ leadership vitality, while hierarchical, top-down or bureaucratic structures inhibit
teachers’ autonomy and leadership [31,32,43]. However, in this study, the democratic
and open school organizational structure—“the school management will fully absorb
teachers’ opinions in curriculum decision-making”—shows a negative effect on teachers’
curriculum leadership. This intriguing result needs more explanations. A study on teachers’
participation in joint decision-making finds that the structure of democratic decision-
making does not necessarily lead to teacher leadership. This is because the teacher’s desire
to lead in a common decision-making environment is related to his or her perception of
risks, costs and potential benefits. In addition, participation in the decision-making process
itself is not enough to attract teachers’ participation. Teachers need to obtain confirmation
that his or her participation does have an impact on decision-making [44]. Looking at the
finding of the study from this respect, one possible explanation may be that even though
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 13 of 20

the school provides a democratic curriculum decision-making mechanism, teachers may

give up participation or choose “surface participation” as they are not sure that their voice
will be fully respected and adopted.
Finally, the principal is also an important factor influencing teachers’ curriculum
leadership. In this study, three principal-related factors, namely, exchanging ideas with
teachers on curriculum improvement, providing opportunities for teachers without posi-
tions but with outstanding professional abilities to participate in curriculum management
and decision-making, and giving appropriate rewards to teachers for their efforts, demon-
strate a positive predictive relationship with teacher curriculum leadership. These findings
have also received theoretical and empirical support in relevant studies. For example,
Meirink et al. [6] and Cheng and Szeto [45] point out that when teachers strive for leader-
ship, the interplay between principal and teacher behavior is very important. Szeto and
Cheng [46] also show that the interaction between principal and teachers is the key to the
successful development of leadership roles. Buckncr and McDowcllc [47] clearly point
out that teacher leadership means the redistribution of school power, whether there are
conditions and opportunities to support and encourage teacher leadership in the school
affects the practice of teacher leadership, and principal’s identification, support and train-
ing of teacher leaders play a more significant role. Regarding teacher rewards, some
studies have confirmed the findings of this study from the negative side. These studies
believe that the lack of rewards or incentives is not conducive to teachers’ leadership
activities [48] (p.78–106). Wasley [49] (pp.99–102) points out that incentive measures and
rewards for teacher leadership must be clear. However, this study finds that the factor
that principal provides conditions and support for teachers’ professional growth does
not show a significant correlation with teacher curriculum leadership. Combining related
researches and interviews with teachers in this survey, one possible explanation is that
there are other mediating factors between principal’s support and teacher’s curriculum
leadership. Among them, the lack of time for teachers to enact and develop leadership
skills is a key factor. In an empirical study on 25 teacher leaders, Ovando [50] finds that par-
ticipating teachers often use planning and meeting times for leadership activities and lack
time and resources to complete the clerical duties involved in leadership work. Although
teachers have professional development opportunities, they lack the chance to improve
their leadership skills. Similar findings have also been validated in the studies of LeBlanc
and Shelton [51], Moller and Katzenmeyer [52], Ovando [50], and Smylie and Denny [53].
In our survey, teachers also frequently mentioned that they “have no time” because the
teaching task is already overwhelmed, yet they need to spend more time and energy on
family–school communication, and to welcome inspections, etc. This is because the lack of
time guarantees that even if the principal creates conditions to support the professional
development of teachers, teachers are often unable to make full use of this support.
Based on the analysis above, in terms of school field factors, some of the conclusions
of this study further confirm the relevant research findings; but to some extent, it also
challenges some inherent consensuses. These confirmations and challenges are equally
important for deepening the understanding of school factors that affect teachers’ curriculum
leadership. At the same time, they provide evidential support for school-level policies to
promote teacher curriculum leadership.

5.2. Effective Strategies to Enhance Teachers’ Curriculum Leadership

The study shows that both the individual and the school fields affect the development
of teachers’ curriculum leadership, but the influence of the individual field is stronger.
Drawing upon the analysis and the results from this study, we try to propose the following
strategies that are expected to be effective for teachers’ curriculum leadership enhancement.

5.2.1. Fully Stimulating Teachers’ Internal Motivation for Curriculum Leadership

It can be concluded from this study that teachers’ internal motivation for curriculum
leadership should be fully stimulated in practice. To achieve this, on one hand, teachers’
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 14 of 20

confidence and identity of curriculum leadership should be cultivated through theoretical

study and practice, and their psychological field needs should be cared for. The awakening
of teachers’ curriculum leadership willingness and the shaping of their identity requires
teachers to conduct in-depth examination and reflection on their own curriculum practices,
so that they can spontaneously and consciously participate in curriculum leadership [54].
On the other hand, the trust quality of teachers should be cultivated and harmonious
interpersonal relationships should be built to promote the positive development of teachers’
internal motivation. Without trust, teachers may be more inclined to protect themselves
than to create relationships with other teachers for better teaching [55]. Good interpersonal
relationships can create a comfortable and improved environment, which helps solve
problems in reality. Therefore, it is necessary to build an exchange and cooperation platform
for teachers on the premise of mutual respect and mutual understanding. In addition,
teachers themselves should pay attention to reflection. Reflection can promote democratic
interaction and communication among educational stakeholders, so that teachers can
become leaders in educational reforms [56,57]. At the same time, teachers can also use
professional training or exchanges and cooperation with colleagues to fully tap into the
available learning resources and to establish a powerful learning support network that is
helpful for personal development.

5.2.2. Creating a School Environment for Teachers to Exercise Curriculum Leadership

This study also implies that a school environment for teachers to exercise curricu-
lum leadership should be created in practice. To achieve this, we argue that distributed
management mechanisms should be actively explored, true and effective democratic cur-
riculum decision-making should be carried out, and the inducing effect of organizational
empowerment should be released. What needs to be made clear is that the “distribution” of
distributed leadership is not only in spreading the power and responsibilities of leadership
to more people, but in distributing the functions of leadership to people with different
expertise (sources of influence), so as to achieve the effect of complementary expertise
and synergy [9] (p. 104). In addition, the role of the principal should be changed, the
principal should be taken as an important facilitator of teacher curriculum leadership,
and the improvement of the culture and work field on which teachers depend should be
promoted. The principal is a key element to promote the generation of teachers’ curriculum
leadership. The development of teachers’ curriculum leadership is inseparable from the
support and encouragement of the principal [58]. Therefore, principals need to improve
their professional abilities, update their educational concepts, and scientifically endow
teachers with curriculum powers, shift from traditional administrators to curriculum lead-
ers, and provide teachers with the necessary support. In addition, it is possible to build
a professional community by relying on collective lesson preparation and cooperative re-
search to promote the optimization of the atmosphere of mutual help among teachers and
the enhancement of joint efforts. Collective lesson preparation and cooperative research
are not only an important manifestation of teachers’ curriculum leadership practice, but
also the core grasp and important support of teachers’ professional community, which can
provide community support for the development of teachers’ curriculum leadership.

6. Conclusions
Teacher curriculum leadership can provide sustainable professional support for cur-
riculum reform and student development. Guided by Lewin’s field dynamic theory, this
study reveals the influencing factors of teachers’ curriculum leadership from the perspec-
tive of the two levels of mutual influence of the individual field and the school field,
through a questionnaire survey and regression analysis of 19,521 Chinese elementary and
middle school teachers. On the whole, the personal factors of teachers are the dominant
ones affecting their curriculum leadership, and the school environment is an important
auxiliary factor. From a field perspective, at the individual field level, teachers’ professional
level, leadership willingness, leadership qualities, and leadership skills all have significant
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 15 of 20

positive impacts on their curriculum leadership, and leadership willingness demonstrates

the strongest explanatory power. At the school field level, the school common vision, a
community of teachers who help each other, and the principal’s communication, empow-
erment, as well as rewards, are the five specific factors that predict teachers’ curriculum
leadership. The democratically negotiated curriculum decision-making structure hinders
teachers’ substantive participation due to the imperfect mechanism (such as teachers’ opin-
ions cannot be fully absorbed), thus presenting a negatively predictive relationship with
the use of teachers’ curriculum leadership.
Compared with existing researches, the possible contributions of this study are as
follows: Firstly, the field dynamic theory proposed by Kurt Lewin is used as the analytical
framework to explore impacting factors of teacher curriculum leadership from the two
interactive fields of the individual and the school, breaking through the static and planar
orientation of previous studies. Secondly, focusing on teachers’ curriculum leadership in
the context of teacher leadership and exploring the factors that influence the development
and use of teachers’ curriculum leadership and its mechanism have stronger practical
significance for the sustainable implementation of curriculum reform. This study also
has some limitations. For example, the samples of teachers are not evenly distributed in
regions, and the proportion of western provinces far exceeds that of the central and eastern
provinces. In the future, it is necessary to increase the investigation of teachers in the
central and eastern regions of China, balance the spatial distribution and further enhance
the representativeness of the samples, and deeply explore the linkage mechanism between
location factors and the development of teacher curriculum leadership. Meanwhile, due
to the lack of literature specifically on teacher curriculum leadership, this study mainly
initiates dialogue with the study of teacher leadership. As the focused exploration of
teachers’ curriculum leadership increases, future research will continue to conduct in-
depth discussions with the related literature.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.C. and Y.Y.; methodology, J.C., F.X., W.X., X.Z. and
Y.W.; formal analysis, J.C. and Y.Y.; investigation, F.X., J.C., W.X., X.Z. and Y.W.; writing—original
draft preparation, J.C. and Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, J.C., Y.Y. and Y.Z.; visualization, Y.Y.;
supervision, Y.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the General Projects of National Philosophy and Social
Sciences Foundation of China in 2018 “Study on Curriculum Leadership of Primary and Secondary
School Teachers from the Perspective of Key Competencies”, grant number BHA180120.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due
to that the research does not deal with vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to all the primary and middle school teachers who actively participated
in the questionnaire survey for providing reliable data support for this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Questionnaire on Curriculum Leadership of Chinese Primary and Secondary School
Teachers
1. Your gender is:
(1) Male (2) Female
2. When did you start working as a teacher?
3. Your school is located at:
(1) Ethnic regions (2) Non-Ethnic regions
4. Your school is located at:
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 16 of 20

(1) Urban area (2) Rural area

5. The nature of your school is:
(1) Public school (2) Private school
6. Compared with other schools in this region (city/town/country), what is the
ranking of your school in recent two years?
(1) Medium and below medium (2) Above medium (3) Best
7. What subject (s) are you teaching now? (Multiple choice)
(1) Chinese (2) Math (3) English (4) Physics (5) Chemistry (6) Biology
(7) Ethics and Rule of Law/Ideological and Political Course (8) Geography
(9) History/History and Society (10) Music (11) Art (12) Sports & Health
(13) Information Technology (14) Science (15) Others (please note here)
8. What is your current teaching period?
(1) Primary school (2) Middle school (3) High school
9. Your highest degree is:
(1) Junior high school and below (2) Technical secondary school (3) Technical school
(4) Vocational High School (5) Ordinary high school (6) College degree
(7) Bachelor degree (8) Master degree (9) Doctoral degree
10. Do you have a professional background of teacher education?
(1) Yes (2) No
11. Your current title is:
(1) Unranked (2) Third-level teacher (3) Secondary-level teacher
(4) First-level teacher (5) Advanced teacher (6) Senior teacher
12. Your current concurrent post (s) is/are: (Multiple choice)
(1) None (2) class teacher (3) Lesson preparation team leader
(4) Teaching-research team leader (5) Grade manager (6) Dean/Deputy Dean
(7) Vice-principal (8) Principal (9) Others (please note here)
13. What is the highest award you have received for teaching?
(1) Not yet awarded (2) School level awards (3) County (district) level awards
(4) Municipal awards (5) Provincial awards (6) National awards
√
14. Please mark “ ” on the column that best meets your actual situation.

Items Strongly Disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly Agree

(1) You have mastered the advanced and frontier
educational concepts and curriculum ideas.
(2) You have mastered the latest national and local
curriculum policies, curriculum plans and subject
curriculum standards.
(3) You can communicate curriculum policies to students
and parents in a timely and appropriate manner.
(4) You lead students, parents or colleagues to work
together to form and implement a curriculum vision
based on key competencies.
(5) You always carry out unit instructional design based
on your overall understanding of the key competencies
and the students in your class.
(6) You make full use of existing curriculum resources
(schools, communities, Internet, etc.) to maximize the
effect of cultivating students’ key competencies.
(7) You discuss and share curriculum schemes based on
key competencies with your colleagues.
(8) In your class, most students are highly concentrated
and speak enthusiastically.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 17 of 20

Items Strongly Disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly Agree

(9) You pay attention and respond to the learning needs of
different students.
(10) You make good use of modern information
technology in the implementation of the curriculum to
guide students to gradually achieve self-development.
(11) You make good use of the products of
teaching-research in the implementation of the curriculum
to guide students to gradually realize independent
development.
(12) You often adjust the teaching progress or method in
time according to the teaching reality.
(13) You evaluate the quality of curriculum practice and
student development based on the effectiveness of the
curriculum vision.
(14) You conduct curriculum evaluation based on teaching
data, growth records and other evidence.
(15) You carry out information collection, teaching
diagnosis, or curriculum evaluation simultaneously in the
teaching process.
(16) You will optimize the curriculum planning based on
the results of curriculum reflection.
(17) You meet the individual development needs of
students by developing school-based curriculum
(undeveloped curriculum please select “strongly
disagree”).
(18) You are actively developing new curriculum
resources to enhance the cultivation effect of students’ key
competencies (undeveloped curriculum please select
“strongly disagree”).
(19) You develop curriculum scientifically according to
discipline curriculum standards and other relevant
regulations (undeveloped curriculum please select
“strongly disagree”).
(20) After developing a new curriculum, you always
invite experts to check the quality (undeveloped
curriculum please select “strongly disagree”).
(21) You understand the key competencies of Chinese
student development.
(22) You understand the key competencies of the teaching
subject.
(23) You have a certain understanding of teacher
curriculum leadership.
(24) You know how to use curriculum leadership to
cultivate students’ key competencies.
(25) You know the significance of teacher curriculum
leadership for developing students’ key competencies.
(26) You believe that teachers as a professional group can
and should participate in curriculum leading,
management and decision-making.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 18 of 20

Items Strongly Disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly Agree

(27) You believe that only with administrative positions
can teachers enact curriculum leading, management and
decision making.
(28) You believe that teachers who actively participate in
the construction of the curriculum community are
“curriculum leaders”, even if they do not own
administrative positions.
(29) You believe you can and should be involved in
curriculum leading, management and decision-making.
(30) You have a strong willingness to lead the curriculum.
(31) You fully value the professional advice of your
colleagues in making curriculum decisions.
(32) You believe that with the necessary effort you can
effectively accomplish all your tasks.
(33) Even if you are busy at work, you can still plan your
daily work reasonably.
(34) You always get support from and cooperation with
students, parents, colleagues, leaders or experts in your
curriculum practice.
(35) Your school has a high degree of compatibility
between the school philosophy, training goals
(educational goals) and curriculum aims.
(36) Your school has formed a cultural atmosphere of
mutual trust.
(37) In your school, teachers help each other and develop
cooperatively.
(38) In your school, the management level will take
teachers’ opinions into account when making curriculum
decisions.
(39) Your principal provides sufficient conditions for the
professional growth of teachers.
(40) Your principal often exchanges ideas on curriculum
improvement with different teachers.
(41) Your principal provides opportunities for teachers
who do not have positions but have outstanding
professional abilities to participate in curriculum
management and decision-making.
(42) Your principal will give appropriate rewards to
teachers for their efforts.

References
1. Edge, K.; Mylopoulos, M. Creating cross-school connections: LC networking in support of leadership and instructional develop-
ment. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2008, 28, 147–158. [CrossRef]
2. Beachum, F.; Dentith, A.M. Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. Educ. Forum 2004, 68, 276–286.
[CrossRef]
3. Singh, A.; Yager, S.O.; Yutakom, N.; Yager, R.E.; Ali, M.M. Constructivist teaching practices used by five teacher leaders for the
Iowa Chautauqua professional development program. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2012, 7, 197–216. [CrossRef]
4. Wenner, J.A.; Campbell, T. The Theoretical and Empirical Basis of Teacher Leadership: A Review of the Literature. Rev. Educ. Res.
2017, 87, 134–171. [CrossRef]
5. Cherkowski, S. Positive Teacher Leadership: Building Mindsets and Capacities to Grow Wellbeing. Int. J. Teach. Leadersh. 2018, 9,
63–78. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 19 of 20

6. Meirink, J.; Want, A.; Louws, M.; Meijer, P.; Marchand, H.; Schaap, H. Beginning teachers’ opportunities for enacting informal
teacher leadership: Perceptions of teachers and school management staff members. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 243–257.
[CrossRef]
7. Lai, E.; Cheung, D. Enacting teacher leadership: The role of teachers in bringing about change. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2015,
43, 673–692. [CrossRef]
8. York-Barr, J.; Duke, K. What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Rev. Educ. Res.
2004, 74, 255–316. [CrossRef]
9. Chamberland, L. Distributed Leadership: Developing a New Practice: An Action Research Study; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2009; p. 104.
10. Gigante, N.A.; Firestone, W.A. Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. J. Educ. Adm.
2008, 46, 302–331. [CrossRef]
11. Adams, D.; Gamage, D.T. A study of leadership effectiveness in a large VET institution in Australia. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2008, 22,
214–228. [CrossRef]
12. Hart, A.W. Creating teacher leadership roles. Educ. Adm. Q. 1994, 30, 472–497. [CrossRef]
13. Brooks, J.S.; Scribner, J.P.; Eferakorho, J. Teacher leadership in the context of whole school reform. J. Sch. Leadersh. 2004, 14,
242–265. [CrossRef]
14. Podjasek, H.L. The Space Between: Women Teachers as Leaders; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2009;
pp. 20–24.
15. Brosky, D. Micropolitics in the school: Teacher leaders’ use of political skill and influence tactics. Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Prep. 2011,
6, 1–11.
16. Zinn, U.F. Supports and Barriers to Teacher Leadership: Reports of Teacher Leaders; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing: Greeley, CO,
USA, 1991; p. 59.
17. Muijs, D.; Harris, A. Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2006, 22, 961–972.
[CrossRef]
18. Klinker, J.F.; Watson, P.A.; Furgerson, P.; Halsey, P.; Janisch, C. “Tipping” teachers toward change: Developing leadership
characteristics through book club. Teach. Educ. Pract. 2010, 23, 103–119.
19. O’Gorman, L.; Hard, L. Looking Back and Looking Forward: Exploring Distributed Leadership with Queensland Prep Teachers.
Australas. J. Early Child. 2013, 38, 77–84. [CrossRef]
20. Shen, J.; Wu, H.; Reeves, P.; Zheng, Y.; Ryan, L.; Anderson, D. The association between teacher leadership and student achievement:
A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 2020, 31, 100357. [CrossRef]
21. Sinha, S.; Hanuscin, D.L. Development of teacher leadership identity: A multiple case study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2017, 63, 356–371.
[CrossRef]
22. Carpenter, B.D.; Sherretz, C.E. Professional development school partnerships: An instrument for teacher leadership. Sch. Univ.
Partnersh. 2012, 5, 89–101.
23. Durias, R.F. Teacher Leaders of Color: The Impact of Professional Development on Their Leadership; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 4, 155, 167–170.
24. Burnes, B.; Cooke, B. Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 408–425. [CrossRef]
25. Lewin, K. Resolving Social Conflicts; Harpper and Brother Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1948; p. 11.
26. Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science; Harpper and Brother publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1951; pp. 239–240.
27. Harris, A.; Muijs, D. Improving Schools through Teacher Leadership; Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 2005; p. 106.
28. Ramrathan, L.; Ngubane, T.I. Instructional leadership in multigrade classrooms: What can monograde teachers learn from their
resilience? Educ. Chang. 2013, 17, S93–S105. [CrossRef]
29. Muijs, D.; Harris, A. Teacher leadership—Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educ. Manag.
Adm. Leadersh. 2003, 31, 437–448.
30. Margolis, J.; Doring, A. The fundamental dilemma of teacher leader-facilitated professional development: Do as I (kind of) say,
not as I (sort of) do. Educ. Adm. Q. 2012, 48, 859–882. [CrossRef]
31. Pellicer, L.Q.; Anderson, L.W. A Handbook for Teachers; Conwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; pp. 16–17.
32. Frost, D.; Harris, A. Teacher Leadership: Towards a Research Agenda. Camb. J. Educ. 2003, 33, 479–498. [CrossRef]
33. Childs-Bowen, D.; Moller, G.; Scrivner, J. Principals: Leaders of Leaders. NASSP Bull. 2000, 84, 27–34. [CrossRef]
34. Gordin, L. Conceptualization and Support of the Role of Teachers Serving as Team Leaders in a Professional Learning Community; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2010; p. 145.
35. Borchers, B.T. A Study to Determine the Practices of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators Who Effectively Foster
Continuous Professional Learning in High Schools; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2009; p. 108.
36. Teaching and Research Office of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. Curriculum Leadership: The Engine of School
Sustainable Development: Shanghai’s 10-Year Action to Improve Curriculum Leadership in Primary and Secondary Schools (Kindergarten);
Shanghai Scientific and Technological Education Publishing House: Shanghai, China, 2019; p. 13.
37. Teacher Questionnaire of China Education Panel Survey in School Year 2014–2015. 2014. Available online: http://ceps.ruc.edu.
cn/__local/1/00/98/AB062E7F7744BAB168F8981D4EC_05E32002_42760.pdf?e=.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2021).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12007 20 of 20

38. Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C.; Pallud, J.; Kalika, M. The Influence of Individual, Contextual, and Social Factors on Perceived Behav-ioral
Control of Information Technology: A Field Theory Approach. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2011, 28, 201–234. [CrossRef]
39. Dora, C.W.H. Teacher participation in curriculum and pedagogical decisions: Insights into curriculum leadership. Educ. Manag.
Adm. Leadership. 2010, 38, 613–624. [CrossRef]
40. Zhan, X.; Anthony, A.B.; Goddard, R.; Beard, K. Development, factor structure, and reliability of the Shared instructional
Leadership Scale in public secondary schools. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2020, 1–20. [CrossRef]
41. Smylie, M.A. Teachers’ reports of their interactions with teacher leaders concerning classroom instruction. Elem. Sch. J. 1992, 93,
85–98. [CrossRef]
42. Tonna, M.A.; Bugeja, G. Evaluating a Train the Trainer programme and the way this empowers educators to bring about systemic
change. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 41, 496–516. [CrossRef]
43. Institute for Educational Leadership. Leadership for Student Learning: Redefining the Teacher as Leader; Institute for Educational
Leadership, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
44. Duke, D.L.; Showers, B.K.; Imber, M. Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement. Educ. Adm. Q.
1980, 16, 93–106. [CrossRef]
45. Cheng, A.; Szeto, E. Teacher Leadership development and principal facilitation: Novice teachers’ perspectives. Teach. Teach. Educ.
2016, 58, 140–148. [CrossRef]
46. Szeto, E.; Cheng, A. Principal–teacher interactions and teacher leadership development: Beginning teachers’ perspectives. Int. J.
Leadersh. Educ. 2018, 21, 363–379. [CrossRef]
47. Buckncr, K.U.; McDowcllc, J.O. Developing teacher leaders; Providing encouragement, opportunities, and support. NASSP Bull.
2000, 84, 35–41. [CrossRef]
48. Little, J.W. Assessing the prospects for teacher leadership. In Building a Professional Culture in Schools; Lieberman, A., Ed.; Teachers
College Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 78–106.
49. Wasley, P.A. Teachers Who Lead: The Rhetoric of Reform and The Realities of Practice; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA,
1991; pp. 99–102.
50. Ovando, M.N. Teacher leadership: Opportunities and challenges. Plan. Chang. 1996, 27, 30–44.
51. LeBlanc, P.R.; Shelton, M.M. Teacher leadership: The needs of teachers. Action Teach. Educ. 1997, 19, 32–48. [CrossRef]
52. Moller, G.; Katzenmeyer, M. The promise of teacher leadership. New Dir. Sch. Leadersh. 1996, 1, 1–17.
53. Smylie, M.A.; Denny, J.W. Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educ. Adm. Q. 1990, 26,
235–259. [CrossRef]
54. Chew, J.O.A.; Andrews, D. Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: Case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore
and Australia. Educ. Res. Policy Pract. 2010, 9, 59–74. [CrossRef]
55. Tschannen-Moran, M.; Hoy, W.K. A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning, and Measurement of Trust. Rev. Educ.
Res. 2000, 70, 547–593. [CrossRef]
56. Salleh, H.; Tan, C. Habermas and teacher leadership through reflection. New Educ. Rev. 2008, 15, 114–125.
57. Liu, K. Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educ. Rev. 2015, 67, 135–157. [CrossRef]
58. Klar, H.W.; Huggins, K.S.; Hammonds, H.L.; Buskey, F.C. Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic
approach to leading school improvement. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 2016, 19, 111–137. [CrossRef]