The Structural Relationships Among Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Collaboration, and Teaching Practices

The Structural Relationships Among Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Collaboration, and Teaching Practices | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Structural Relationships Among Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Collaboration, and Teaching Practices Chuan‑Chung Hsieh, Anh Hoang Khau, Romi Aswandi Sinaga This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Drawing on social cognitive theory and social capital theory, this study examined the influence of instructional leadership (IL) and distributed leadership (DL) on optimising teaching practices (TP), with teacher self-efficacy (TSE) as a mediator and teachers’ collaboration (TCOL) as a moderator. Data from Vietnam’s TALIS 2024 were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings indicated that both IL and DL significantly affected all dimensions of TP. Specifically, IL exerted the strongest influence on clarity of instruction, while DL had the greatest impact on cognitive activation. TSE mediated all relationships, whereas TCOL moderated only the relationship between TSE and cognitive activation. These results underscore the importance of school leaders in supporting TP and promoting teacher development and TCOL. The study also offers practical recommendations for policymakers and school leaders to implement leadership development programs, teacher professional development initiatives, and structured collaborations to enhance TP in schools. Social science/Education Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology OECD TALIS 2024 school leaders teaching practices teacher self-efficacy teacher collaboration Vietnam Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Recent research has focused on identifying the most effective teaching practices for enhancing student learning and on strategies for promoting these practices through professional development and policy reforms (Fischer et al., 2020 ). Teaching practice (TP) is defined as a collection of strategies and approaches used to facilitate students’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits (Khader, 2012 ). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2017 ) further asserts that teachers must demonstrate expertise in subject-specific pedagogical competence, which involves understanding and applying appropriate teaching methods for subjects and adapting strategies to meet students’ diverse needs. Additionally, general pedagogical knowledge is essential for optimizing teaching and supporting students’ academic achievement. Teachers tend to be satisfied with their academic work once their professional identity is recognized (Richter et al., 2021 ), and this satisfaction helps them develop effective instructional practices that foster students’ autonomy, self-regulation, and motivation, extending beyond the classroom (Black & Wiliam, 2018 ). Instructional quality shapes students’ motivational beliefs and perceptions of success, leading to better engagement and academic progress (Burić & Kim, 2020 ). Consequently, on a larger scale, helping teachers develop their teaching practice is a means of building an educational asset for a country, since improved educational quality can improve people’s lives and national development (United Nations, 2019 ). Vietnam’s educational system was significantly hindered by the First (French) and Second (American) Indochina wars, as well as the Sino-American embargo (London & Duong, 2023 ). Substantial reforms began in 1986 with the Đổi Mới “Renovation,” which marked a transition from a centrally planned economy to a socialist-oriented market economy and initiated international integration (Ho, 2024 ). In response, Vietnam restructured its education system to better align with market demands, aiming to cultivate a more skilled workforce (Ho, 2024 ; Hong Thanh, 2011 ). In 2013, Vietnam implemented Resolution 29, a significant education reform that prioritized educational development within the national socioeconomic strategy (Le et al., 2022 ). Subsequently, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) introduced Circular No. 20/2018/TT-BGDDT, which redefined teacher standards, and Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT, which established a competency-based general education curriculum. Circular 32 advocates for a shift from knowledge transmission to fostering a broad range of student skills and qualities (National Assembly of Vietnam, 2014 ). It also grants schools greater autonomy to innovate, providing guidelines for student competencies, curriculum content, instructional methods, and assessment. According to the OECD ( 2025 ), over 70% of teachers believe they can influence educational policies. However, analysis of Vietnam’s TALIS 2018 dataset by Author et al. ( 2025b ) revealed that neither instructional leadership (IL) nor distributed leadership (DL) was associated with teaching practices, despite these being central constructs in the TALIS surveys (OECD, 2019 ; OECD, 2024 ). This finding underscores the need to further investigate the effectiveness of these leadership styles in the Vietnamese context. DL involves delegating leadership responsibilities across staff to encourage collective decision-making and reduce reliance on a single leader, typically the principal (Harris & Jones, 2022 ). In contrast, IL refers to principals’ active efforts to improve teaching quality and student achievement (Ng, 2023 ). Previous TALIS cycles did not include items assessing teachers’ perceptions of IL within their schools. TALIS 2024 addressed this limitation by incorporating relevant questions into the teacher questionnaire, enabling more accurate assessment of IL. Scholars have conceptualized teaching practices using the TALIS 2018 dataset in various ways. For instance, Chen et al. ( 2020 ) identified three dimensions: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom management. Xie et al. ( 2023 ) included classroom assessment as a distinct dimension alongside clarity of instruction and cognitive activation. Some researchers have treated teaching practices as an integrated construct encompassing these dimensions (e.g., Altun et al., 2025 ; Author et al., 2025b ), while others have examined each dimension separately (e.g., Chen et al., 2020 ). This study synthesizes these perspectives and investigates teaching practice independently across four dimensions, as defined in the TALIS 2024 dataset: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, classroom management, and classroom assessment. This research also investigates whether teacher self-efficacy (TSE) mediates the relationship between IL, DL, and teaching practice. TSE refers to teachers’ belief in their capacity to enhance student learning outcomes (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001 ). Prior studies have identified a relationship between DL and TSE (e.g., Choi, 2023 ; Sun & Xia, 2018 ), although this association was not found in Chinese schools (Zheng et al., 2019 ). Similarly, while some research has reported a link between IL and TSE (e.g., Cansoy & Parlar, 2018 ; Liu & Hallinger, 2018 ), this relationship was either absent or demonstrated only a minimal effect (Alanoglu, 2022 ). Additionally, this study examines the moderating role of teacher collaboration (TCOL) in the relationships among DL, IL, and TP, particularly within the context of Confucian culture, which emphasizes social power distance and collectivism (Truong et al., 2017 ). TCOL involves teachers working collaboratively with colleagues to exchange ideas, share resources, and coordinate effective TP (OECD, 2019 ). Evidence from Taiwan indicates that DL and IL are related to TCOL (Author et al., 2024 ). In the United States, Park et al. (2025) found that TCOL both mediates and moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and instructional clarity. However, findings are inconsistent; for example, Chen et al. ( 2025 ) found no association between TSE and TCOL in Taiwan. Given the inconsistency of previous findings, this research aims to contribute to the literature by providing nuanced insights into these relationships using Vietnam’s TALIS 2024 dataset. The study offers a context-specific perspective that facilitates comparison with other educational systems globally. To achieve its objectives, the study addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent do IL and DL directly influence classroom management, clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom assessment? (2) To what extent does TSE mediate the relationships between IL, DL, and each dimension of teaching practice? (3) To what extent does TCOL moderate these relationships? Literature review Previous research has insufficiently addressed Vietnam’s distinctive cultural and educational context (Author et al., 2025b ). The present study addresses this gap by investigating the unique characteristics of leadership within Vietnam’s cultural and school structures. Specifically, it examines the effects of IL and DL on TES, TCOL, and TP, thereby providing empirical evidence to inform educational leadership and policy reforms in Vietnam. Conceptual framework Effective collaboration between schools and teachers is essential for improving TP (Nguyen, 2021 ). This study examines the interaction between Social Cognitive Theory and Social Capital Theory in enhancing teaching. IL is a leadership approach intended to directly and positively influence teaching practices and student learning outcomes (Gumus et al., 2018 ). Hallinger and Murphy ( 1985 ) developed the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) to evaluate principals’ IL behaviors in three domains: defining the school’s mission, supervising the instructional program, and promoting the school climate. In 2015, Hallinger et al. revised PIMRS to improve its validity across diverse cultural and educational contexts. Since then, this scale has been widely adopted in research (Wang et al., 2025 ). School leadership is central to improving school performance (Robinson & Gray, 2019 ). Leaders who prioritize inclusive education must recognize staff diversity, ensure equitable working conditions, and shape school culture by distributing resources to support a collective vision and mission that includes students’ social development (OECD, 2024 ). Leadership is a defining characteristic of effective schools, fostering and facilitating high-quality teaching and learning (Sun & Xie, 2018). Principals increasingly focus on preparing teachers to deliver impactful instruction and assessments that develop competent and responsible graduates (Oyekan, 2018 ). Additionally, principals should recognize the necessity of differentiated instruction to address students’ diverse learning needs (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019 ). Quality instruction requires teachers to demonstrate proficiency in classroom and time management, including maintaining an organized environment, managing disruptions, and ensuring effective use of instructional time (Van Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011 ). Effective teaching also involves setting clear learning goals, organizing and reviewing lesson sequences, providing explicit explanations and examples, and making connections between topics (Titsworth et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, teachers should activate students’ knowledge by employing challenging tasks and questions, activating prior knowledge, exploring students’ thinking, co-constructing learning, and supporting metacognition (Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018 ). Finally, teachers must utilize various assessment methods, including summative and formative assessments (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009 ), to evaluate student learning and provide timely feedback that guides students’ next steps (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ). TSE is recognized as a strong predictor of teaching practices (Altun et al., 2025 ), prompting principals to prioritize its development (Liu et al., 2023; Sun & Xia, 2018 ). According to Bandura’s ( 1997 ) Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy is shaped by observational learning, which involves acquiring new behaviors and knowledge through observing others. Self-efficacy is also influenced by reciprocal determinism, which describes the dynamic interaction among personal factors such as cognition and emotions, environmental influences, and the effects of reinforcements and punishments. Teachers with high self-efficacy believe they can influence their own teaching behaviors and practices (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001 ). Collaboration among teachers enhances professional performance (Nguyen, 2021 ). This collaborative perspective is grounded in Social Capital Theory (Bourdieu, 1986 ), which emphasizes the importance of networks of relationships among individuals within society, which enable effective societal functioning. Donohoo ( 2016 ) observed that staff collaboration for the benefit of students can increase student achievement. Therefore, fostering a culture of collaboration is essential for school leaders seeking to improve teaching quality (Datnow & Park, 2018 ). Such cultures enable teachers to build self-efficacy and collective efficacy through shared beliefs and collaborative efforts (Goddard et al., 2004 ). Farooq and Bashir ( 2025 ) found that collaboration strengthens the relationship between knowledge sharing and team effectiveness. Based on these perspectives, this study proposes a framework (see Fig. 1 ) in which DL and IL directly and positively impact TP across four dimensions and indirectly affect these dimensions through TSE. Additionally, TCO is expected to strengthen the relationship between TSE and these four dimensions. Development of Hypotheses Relationship between IL, DL and teaching practices Previous research has established a connection between IL and TP (e.g., Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Dorukbaş̧ı & Cansoy, 2024; Nguyen et al., 2018 ). Principals who demonstrate IL typically articulate their schools’ missions clearly and closely supervise instructional programs. Furthermore, these principals recognize the significance of school climate in achieving institutional goals (Hallinger et al., 2015 ; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 ). Consistent with this perspective, Altun et al. ( 2025 ) contend that IL is effective because it clarifies instructional priorities, aligns teachers’ efforts with curriculum objectives, and reinforces instructional norms. Cognitive activation involves intellectually demanding tasks, higher-order questioning, and problem-solving activities (Fischer et al., 2020 ), and this practice can be better enhanced when leaders emphasize curriculum rigor, instructional improvement, and teacher professional development. IL practices, such as defining instructional goals, coordinating curriculum, and supervising teaching (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 ), are expected to have a pronounced impact on instructional clarity (Liu & Hallinger, 2018 ). Meta-analytic evidence further identifies instructional clarity as a distinct and influential aspect of teaching quality (Titsworth et al., 2015 ). IL is also anticipated to strengthen teachers’ classroom management, a key component of general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) (OECD, 2024 ). Effective classroom management relies on established instructional routines, maximizing time-on-task, and maintaining consistent expectations for teaching and learning. Instructional leaders support this dimension by monitoring instructional time, reinforcing norms, and fostering orderly learning environments (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 ). Foundational assessment research indicates that effective classroom assessment is integrated within instructional supervision and reflective teaching, both central to IL (Black & Wiliam, 2018 ). School leaders practicing IL are expected to engage teachers in discussions about student assessment, as classroom assessment clarifies connections among content areas through both formative and summative measures and the sequencing of learning tasks (Titsworth et al., 2015 ). Nevertheless, some studies have reported that IL is ineffective in certain contexts, such as Vietnamese primary schools (Bellibaş et al., 2022 ), Mainland China secondary schools (Wang et al., 2025 ), and Taiwanese secondary schools (Author et al., 2025b ; Author et al., 2025c ). The underlying causes may derive from bureaucratic norm that hinders principals’ focus on IL (Rodrigues & Ávila de Lima, 2024). Additionally, the term “instructional leader” is sometimes employed as a rhetorical label rather than a well-defined set of leadership practices, which can result in vague guidance for leaders (Leithwood et al., 2020 ). While prior research has often conceptualized teaching practices as a latent variable, the present study examines the construct through four dimensions to provide a comprehensive analysis of teaching practices under IL. Based on these considerations, the following hypotheses are proposed. H1a. IL is positively associated with instructional clarity. H1b. IL is positively associated with cognitive activation. H1c. IL is positively associated with classroom management. H1d. IL is positively associated with classroom assessment. Previous studies have identified an association between DL and TP (e.g., Lin, 2022 ; O’Shea, 2021 ). However, the impact of DL on teaching practices requires further investigation across diverse contexts, as some research has not found a significant relationship (e.g., Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Author et al., 2025b ). Auhentic DL is realized only when teachers are genuinely provided with leadership opportunities, rather than when leadership is merely declared as shared (Printy & Liu, 2021 ). DL is acknowledged for expanding school leadership beyond the actions of principals alone (Lin, 2022 ). When teachers are granted decision-making authority, they are more likely to implement instructional strategies that prepare students with future-oriented skills (O’Shea, 2021 ). Effective school leadership is characterized by robust support for teaching, transparent communication, and the positive influence of principals’ DL in fostering organizational culture and individual innovation (Daniëls et al., 2019 ). Prior research has also established a link between DL and cognitive activation (O’Shea, 2021 ). Cognitive activation represents an innovative teaching strategy aimed at developing students’ higher-order cognitive skills (Le Donné et al., 2016 ). Since cognitive activation is used to capture classroom innovation and to emphasize the development of students’ cross-curricular skills, principals can enable teachers to maximize its use (O’Shea, 2021 ). Cognitively demanding instruction necessitates professional judgment, innovation, and a willingness to experiment; these conditions are supported by shared leadership and teacher agency (Spillane, 2006 ). In summary, DL is regarded as a positive leadership style and is therefore expected to enhance teaching practices. Based on these considerations, the study proposes the following hypotheses. H2a. DL is positively associated with instructional clarity. H2b. D L is positively associated with cognitive activation. H2c. DL is positively associated with classroom management. H2d. D L is positively associated with classroom assessment. TSE as potential mediator of the relationships between IL, DL and TIP Liu et al. ( 2021 ) found that both DL and IL are positively associated with TSE. The positive relationship between IL and TSE was also identified by Çoban et al. ( 2023 ) and Liu et al. ( 2021 ). Alanoglu ( 2022 ) reported that IL practices foster a supportive school environment. Fackler and Malmberg ( 2016 ) demonstrated that principal support significantly improves TSE, particularly among teachers of lower-achieving students. Coldren and Spillane ( 2007 ) argued that principals influence teachers’ instructional practices through classroom observation, feedback, and the provision of professional learning opportunities. Leadership practices such as observing instruction and providing feedback contribute to measurable improvements in teaching (Hallinger, 2003 ). Similarly, Sun and Xia ( 2018 ) found a positive association between DL and TSE. This association may be explained by the increased agency teachers experience when involved in decision-making, which enables them to address areas of lower competence and enhance their self-efficacy (Spillane et al., 2015 ). Choi ( 2023 ) emphasized that promoting teacher participation in school improvement and collaborative feedback is essential for strengthening TSE. Based on these findings, the present study proposes the following hypotheses. Previous research has established an association between TSE and TP (e.g., Altun et al., 2025 ; Xie et al., 2023 ). Altun et al. ( 2025 ) identified TSE as the most significant predictor of TP. Chen et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrated that instructional efficacy is a stronger predictor of instructional clarity, while classroom management efficacy has a greater influence on classroom management practices. For cognitive activation, instructional efficacy is positively associated, whereas classroom management efficacy is negatively associated. Analysis of TALIS data from China and England by Xie et al. ( 2023 ) indicated that TSE is a significant positive predictor of clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom assessment. TSE is grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997 ) and teacher efficacy research (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001 ), which suggests that stronger efficacy beliefs enhance teachers’ confidence, persistence, and capacity to implement effective TP. Teachers with high TSE invest greater effort and demonstrate increased persistence (Bandura, 1997 ; Burić & Kim, 2020 ). Such teachers are more likely to adopt cognitively demanding and student-centered strategies (Chen et al., 2020 ). Classroom management efficacy establishes the conditions necessary for effective instruction (Chen et al., 2020 ; Van Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011 ). As explained by Bandura ( 1997 ), TSE is treated as a psychological resource for teachers to improve student learning, and several empirical studies have explored it. For example, many studies using TALIS data have found that IL and DL influence TP indirectly via TSE (e.g., Çoban et al., 2023 ; Sun & Xia, 2018 ; Liu et al., 2021 ; Long & Xia, 2025 ). Based on these perspectives, the present study proposes the following hypotheses: H3a. TSE mediates the effect of IL on instructional clarity. H3b. TSE mediates the effect of IL on cognitive activation. H3c. TSE mediates the effect of IL on classroom management. H3d. TSE mediates the effect of IL on classroom assessment. H4a. TSE mediates the effect of DL on instructional clarity. H4b. TSE mediates the effect of DL on cognitive activation. H4c. TSE mediates the effect of DL on classroom management. H4d. TSE mediates the effect of DL on classroom assessment. Interaction of TCOL with TSE and teaching practices Altun et al. ( 2025 ) identified that TCOL explains TP. Bellibaş et al. 2022 found TCOL is related to teaching practices. TCOL involves individuals coming together, committing to the sharing of expertise and thinking, planning, deciding and acting based on a shared understanding of each other and the communities people operate in. In terms of TCOL, teachers have designed curriculum together, moderated each other’s assessments, undertaken action research and become involved in educational networks of teachers or schools (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017 ). Chong and Kong ( 2012 ) examined how lesson study—a collaborative approach emphasizing inquiry, knowledge sharing, and joint material development—enhances TSE. Lesson study has a positive effect on TSE (Çoban et al., 2023 ). Hence, their beliefs are more likely to translate into instructional behavior in collaborative school environments (Fackler & Malmberg, 2016 ). Ultimately, TCOL will be expected to strengthen the relationship of TSE and TP across the four dimensions. Farooq and Bashir ( 2025 ) also found the moderating effect of collaboration in their study. Hence, the study proposes the following hypotheses: H5a. TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on instructional clarity. H5b. TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on cognitive activation. H5c. TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on classroom management. H5d. TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on classroom assessment. Method Data source This study utilized secondary data from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024. As an international large-scale assessment, TALIS facilitates the collection of educators’ perspectives on educational development and teaching practices. The dataset includes validated measures of key constructs relevant to this research. Final teacher weights were applied to account for the sampling design, and missing data were addressed using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) method. In the context of Vietnam, teacher data reflect educators’ perceptions of curriculum development and instructional practices. A total of 4,348 valid teacher responses were analyzed. Specifically, 6.3% of respondents were aged 29 years or younger, 26.6% were aged 30 to 39 years, 53.8% were aged 40 to 49 years, and 13.3% were aged 50 years or older. Regarding educational attainment, 5.0% held less than a short-cycle tertiary qualification, 4.4% possessed a short-cycle tertiary qualification, 90.8% held a bachelor’s degree, and 4.3% held a master’s degree. In terms of teaching experience, 26.0% had five years or less, 19.7% had six to ten years, 35.0% had eleven to twenty years, and 19.3% had more than twenty years of teaching experience. Variables The IL construct comprises five items that assess teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s leadership at school, based on frameworks established in prior empirical studies (e.g., Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Author et al., 2024 ). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A sample item is: “The principal has a clear vision for this school.” The DL construct includes three items that assess teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which leadership is distributed among various stakeholders in their schools, following established constructs from previous empirical studies (e.g., Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Author et al., 2024 ). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A sample item is: “This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions.” The TP construct comprises 16 items designed to assess teachers’ perceptions of their classroom teaching practices, drawing upon frameworks established in prior empirical studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2020 ; Author et al., 2025a ; Xie et al., 2023 ). TP is organized into four domains: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, classroom management, and classroom assessment. Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from never or almost never to always. Representative items include clarity of instruction: “I present a summary of recently learned content.”; cognitive activation: “I present tasks for which there is no obvious solution”; classroom management: “I tell students to follow classroom rules.”; and classroom assessment: “I administer an assessment at the end of a unit or block of lessons.” The TSE construct comprises 12 items that assess teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, following frameworks established in previous empirical studies (Sun and Xia, 2018 ; Author et al., 2025b ). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all to a lot. A sample item is: “Get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork.” The TCOL construct consists of eight items within two domains: exchange and coordination among teachers, and professional collaboration in lessons, based on prior empirical studies (e.g., Wang et al., 2025 ). Each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from never to once a week or more. Two items with factor loadings below 0.6 were excluded. A sample item is: “Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects).” Analytical strategy Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) provides significant advantages in social studies research, particularly for analyzing complex models and secondary data where theoretical frameworks are not well established (Hair et al., 2019 ). Secondary data are primarily utilized for exploratory research aimed at identifying causal relationships (Hair et al., 2017 ). Although social studies often involve non-normal data, this characteristic alone does not justify the use of PLS-SEM (Nitzl, 2016 ). In this study, PLS-SEM is deemed to be appropriate due to its capacity to support a predictive orientation, accommodate a complex mediated moderation model, and address the non-normal distribution of the TALIS data. More specifically, the study employed two stages of the analysis procedures. In the first stage, the measurement model was evaluated to assess the validity and reliability of all variables. Every item with outer loadings higher than 0.60 was retained, while internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha ( α > 0.70) and composite reliability (CR > 0.70). Convergent validity was examined by assessing average variance extracted (AVE > 0.50), and discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT < 0.85) (Hair et al., 2021 ). In addition, predictive relationships ( R² and Q² ) were examined to assess the power and relevance of the prediction model (Chin, 1998 ). R² reflects the proportion of variance explained by endogenous variables ( R² = 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 indicating substantial, moderate, and weak explanatory power, respectively). Q² reflects predictive relevance ( Q² >0.35, > 0.15, and > 0.02 indicate large, medium, and small predictive relevance, respectively). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was also examined to assess multicollinearity; values below 5 were considered acceptable. In the second stage, hypothesis testing assessed the strength and direction of relationships, evaluated using path coefficients ( β ), t -values, and confident interval (CI), with statistical significance determined via bootstrapping ( p < 0.05). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4.0, a software package for variance-based structural equation modeling used with secondary data (Ringle et al., 2024 ). Results Measurement model assessment Table 1 shows that the outer loading values exceeded the threshold of 0.60, and all constructs satisfied the reliability and validity criteria (α ≥ 0.77; CR ≥ 0.85; AVE ≥ 0.50; HTMT ≤ 0.70). These results demonstrate that the measurement model possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, the R² and Q² values for clarity of instruction (0.31; 0.20), classroom assessment (0.17; 0.09), classroom management (0.17; 0.10), cognitive activation (0.29; 0.17), and TSE (0.12; 0.06) indicate that clarity of instruction and cognitive activation have weak explanatory power and medium predictive relevance. In contrast, classroom assessment, classroom management, and TSE exhibit very low explanatory power and small predictive relevance. Finally, the VIF values for all relationships (VIF ≤ 1.47) confirm the absence of multicollinearity issues. Table 1 Results of the Measurement Model Assessment Constructs α CR AVE HTMT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. IL 0.94 0.95 0.82 2. DL 0.80 0.88 0.72 0.58 3. CIN 0.82 0.88 0.65 0.39 0.34 4. CAC 0.78 0.86 0.60 0.33 0.41 0.70 5. CMA 0.77 0.85 0.59 0.30 0.26 0.61 0.52 6. CAS 0.83 0.87 0.54 0.30 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.50 7. TSE 0.91 0.92 0.50 0.35 0.29 0.58 0.54 0.45 0.39 8. TCOL 0.81 0.86 0.51 0.20 0.23 0.33 0.41 0.16 0.30 0.39 Note. IL = Instructional leadership; DL = Distributed leadership; CIN = Clarity of instruction; CAC Cognitive Activation; CMA = Classroom management; CAS = Classroom assessment; TSE = Teacher self-efficacy; TCOL = Teacher collaboration. Hypothesis testing Table 2 demonstrates that IL had the most pronounced direct effect on clarity of instruction ( β = 0.15, p < 0.001), followed by classroom management ( β = 0.13, p < 0.001), classroom assessment ( β = 0.11, p < 0.001), and cognitive activation ( β = 0.05, p < 0.01). Conversely, DL exhibited the strongest direct effect on cognitive activation ( β = 0.18, p < 0.001), followed by classroom management ( β = 0.06, p < 0.01), clarity of instruction ( β = 0.09, p < 0.001), and classroom assessment ( β = 0.11, p < 0.001). Table 2 Direct Effect Estimates H Paths β t 95% CI Results H1a IL → CIN 0.15*** 10.24 [0.12; 0.18] Supported H1b IL → CAC 0.05** 3.42 [0.02; 0.08] Supported H1c IL → CMA 0.13*** 8.01 [0.10; 0.16] Supported H1d IL → CAS 0.11*** 6.43 [0.07; 0.14] Supported H2a DL → CIN 0.09*** 5.06 [0.05; 0.12] Supported H2b DL → CAC 0.18*** 10.64 [0.14; 0.21] Supported H2c DL → CMA 0.06** 3.23 [0.02; 0.10] Supported H2d DL → CAS 0.11*** 6.17 [0.08; 0.15] Supported Note. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; IL = Instructional leadership; DL = Distributed leadership; CIN = Clarity of instruction; CAC = Cognitive Activation; CMA = Classroom management; CAS = Classroom assessment; TSE = Teacher self-efficacy. Table 3 presents the mediating effects results. TSE was found to mediate the relationships between IL and clarity of instruction partially ( β = 0.11, p < 0.001), cognitive activation ( β = 0.09, p < 0.001), classroom management ( β = 0.09, p < 0.001), and classroom assessment ( β = 0.06, p < 0.001). Similarly, TSE partially mediated the relationships between DL and clarity of instruction ( β = 0.05, p < 0.001), cognitive activation ( β = 0.04, p < 0.001), classroom management ( β = 0.04, p < 0.001), and classroom assessment ( β = 0.03, p < 0.001). Overall, these findings suggest that the mediating role of TSE was stronger in the effects of IL on teaching practices than in those of DL. Table 3 Mediating Effect Estimates H Paths β t 95% CI Results H3a IL → TSE → CIN 0.11*** 14.49 [0.09; 0.12] Supported H3b IL → TSE → CAC 0.09*** 13.78 [0.08; 0.11] Supported H3c IL → TSE → CMA 0.09*** 13.21 [0.08; 0.10] Supported H3d IL → TSE → CAS 0.06*** 11.15 [0.05; 0.08] Supported H4a DL → TSE → CIN 0.05*** 6.91 [0.04; 0.06] Supported H4b DL → TSE → CAC 0.04*** 6.92 [0.03; 0.05] Supported H4c DL → TSE → CMA 0.04*** 6.73 [0.03; 0.05] Supported H4d DL → TSE → CAS 0.03*** 6.52 [0.02; 0.04] Supported Note. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; IL = Instructional leadership; DL = Distributed leadership; CIN = Clarity of instruction; CAC = Cognitive Activation; CMA = Classroom management; CAS = Classroom assessment; TSE = Teacher self-efficacy. Table 4 presents the results of the moderating effect analysis. TCOL significantly moderated the mediating effect of TSE on cognitive activation ( β = 0.03, p 0.05), classroom management ( β = 0.01, p > 0.05), or classroom assessment ( β = −0.01, p > 0.05). These results indicate that the positive effect of TSE on cognitive activation is enhanced at higher levels of TCOL. In contrast, TCOL does not strengthen the effects of TSE on clarity of instruction, classroom management, or classroom assessment, suggesting that collaboration primarily facilitates teachers’ cognitive engagement rather than other instructional domains. Table 4 Moderating Effect Estimates H Paths β t 95% CI Results H5a TCOL X TSE → CIN 0.01 0.32 [-0.02; 0.03] Unsupported H5b TCOL X TSE → CAC 0.03* 2.10 [0.01; 0.05] Supported H5c TCOL X TSE → CMA 0.01 0.61 [-0.02; 0.03] Unsupported H5d TCOL X TSE→ CAS -0.01 0.47 [-0.04; 0.02] Unsupported Note. *p < 0.05; CIN = Clarity of instruction; CAC = Cognitive Activation; CMA = Classroom management; CAS = Classroom assessment; TSE = Teacher self-efficacy; TCOL = Teacher collaboration. The moderation analysis indicated that the positive effect of TSE on cognitive activation was most pronounced at higher levels of TCOL; black line), compared to the mean (dark gray line) and lower levels (light gray line). These findings suggest that teacher collaboration amplifies the influence of TSE on cognitively activating instructional practices (see Fig. 2). Discussion This study extends existing research by offering a context-sensitive perspective on the interaction between two leadership styles, TSE and TP, in a Confucian-influenced, centralized educational system such as Vietnam. Unlike some previous studies (e.g., Author et al., 2025b ), which found no associations between DL or IL and TP in Vietnamese schools, this study shows the opposite. Hence, the present study provides empirical evidence that both IL and DL influence TP directly and indirectly through TSE, which serves as an important mediator in these relationships. The effect of IL on TP Though, as identified in TALIS 2018 by Author et al. ( 2025b ), IL was not associated with TP in Vietnamese primary schools, the present findings show that IL has a significant positive impact on TP across all four dimensions. The result is aligned with previous studies’ findings of a positive association between IL and TP (Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Dorukbaş̧ı & Cansoy, 2024). In this context, IL exerts its strongest influence on instruction clarity, followed by classroom management, classroom assessment, and cognitive activation. This distribution reflects the core principles of IL, which emphasize goal alignment, instructional supervision, and the setting of pedagogical expectations (Hallinger et al., 2015 ; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 ). By articulating instructional goals, monitoring teaching quality, and providing feedback, principals who employ IL foster structured instructional environments that support teachers’ lesson organization and students’ cognitive activation for lesson mastery (Altun et al., 2025 ). The smaller effect of IL on cognitive activation is consistent with the concept that cognitively demanding instruction requires risk-taking in learning (Fischer et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, fostering higher levels of cognitive activation may require both instructional guidance and confidence in their classroom capabilities (Liu & Hallinger, 2018 ). In highly centralized and hierarchical systems such as Vietnam, IL may be more effective at reinforcing standardized, routine instructional practices than at encouraging innovative and inquiry-based teaching (Bellibaş et al., 2022 ; Author et al., 2025b ; Nguyen et al., 2018 ; Wang et al., 2025 ). The effect of DL on TP Although Author et al. ( 2025b ) found that DL was not associated with TP in Vietnamese primary schools in TALIS 2018, the study overall found a positive relationship between DL and TP in these Vietnamese secondary schools, corroborating previous research (Lin, 2022 ; O’Shea, 2021 ). DL exerts its greatest influence on cognitive activation, followed by classroom assessment, instruction clarity, and classroom management. These results highlight that shared leadership fosters teachers’ use of intellectually challenging instruction, which encourages students to critically think of their answers and reasoning in problem-solving, and engage in learning (O’Shea, 2021 ). Cognitive activation inherently promotes innovation and learning through questioning, which is more likely to occur in classrooms where leadership responsibilities are shared and teachers have autonomy in instructional decision-making (Spillane, 2006 ). When leadership is distributed through either formal or informal channels, principals allow teachers to exchange ideas, experiment with instructional strategies, and co-construct knowledge, thereby encouraging cognitively activating practices (Daniëls et al., 2019 ; Lin, 2022 ). The mediating effect of TSE The study demonstrates a positive association between both DL and IL with TSE, consistent with prior research (Liu et al., 2021 ). Specifically, the positive relationship between IL and TSE aligns with findings from Alanoglu ( 2022 ), Çoban et al. ( 2023 ), and Liu et al. ( 2021 ), while the association between DL and TSE is supported by Choi ( 2023 ) and Sun and Xia ( 2018 ). Both IL and DL are effective leadership styles for promoting TSE, with IL exerting its stronger influence than that driven from DL. IL enhances TSE by enabling school leaders to establish clear expectations, provide feedback, and offer professional support, thereby strengthening teachers’ confidence in their classroom abilities (Çoban et al., 2023 ; Liu et al., 2021 ). Through supervision, mentoring, and professional development, instructional leaders reinforce teachers’ beliefs in their capacity to manage classrooms, deliver clear instruction, assess student learning, and engage students cognitively (Hallinger, 2003 ; Fackler & Malmberg, 2016 ). DL contributes to TSE by fostering teachers’ sense of agency, professional recognition, and participation in school decision-making (Spillane et al., 2015 ; Sun & Xia, 2018 ). When teachers perceive themselves as active contributors rather than passive implementers, their confidence in addressing diverse instructional challenges increases (Choi, 2023 ). TSE is essential for maintaining effective classroom management, implementing diverse assessment strategies, and engaging students in cognitively demanding activities (Altun et al., 2025 ; Xie et al., 2023 ). These results emphasize the central role of psychological processes in translating leadership influences into classroom behaviors. Teachers with high self-efficacy appear to have greater persistence, adaptability, and instructional confidence, which enables them to address diverse student needs and instructional challenges (Bandura, 1997 ; Burić & Kim, 2020 ). The mediating effects of TSE are more pronounced in the pathways from IL than from DL, indicating that structured leadership practices may be effective in enhancing teachers’ confidence and, consequently, overall teaching quality (Altun et al., 2025 ; Chen et al., 2020 ). The moderating effect of TCOL TCOL plays a nuanced and conditional role in shaping TP, and in Vietnam, collaborative culture is reinforced by collectivist values (Truong et al., 2017 ). The results indicate that TCOL strengthens only the relationship between TSE and cognitive activation, without influencing the direction or strength of it on other TP dimensions. Teachers who want to enhance their teaching, especially when introducing new lessons, activate their students’ cognitive ability by using tasks that challenge them to engage in higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and critical questioning (Fischer et al., 2020 ). These tasks are often unpredictable and require teacher innovation and risk-taking (O’Shea, 2021 ). Because of this, teachers might need more collaboration to develop strategies to improve their efficacy in enhancing students’ performance in this area. Teachers who collaborate feel more supported and confident in trying new teaching methods (Çoban et al., 2023 ). Found in this study, TCOL did not strengthen the path between TSE and clarity of instruction, which involves providing clear, structured explanations of content, which is a relatively routine practice (Chen et al., 2020 ). It can be explained that teachers can handle this TP dimension on their own, using their own teaching skills, and they might not bring it up in discussion, or might think it is not important to them. Likewise, TCOL did not moderate the path between TSE and classroom management, which involves routine tasks like maintaining order, setting rules, and ensuring time-on-task, and individual teacher competence (Chen et al., 2020 ). Highly effective teachers can be more effective at managing classrooms, such as handling disruptions and organizing their learning environments (Van Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011 ). TCOL was found to have no effect on the interaction between TSE and classroom assessment, which refers to the methods teachers use to evaluate student performance, including both formative and summative assessments (Stiggins & DuFour, 2009 ). Again, assessment practices can be standardized by the school or MOET and follow guidelines set, and this may discourage them from generating innovative ideas or taking risks. Additionally, highly self-efficacious teachers can be more confident in their ability to assess students and use assessment data effectively (Black & Wiliam, 2018 ). Hence, they might not prioritize this TP dimension while collaborating. In this context, the exertion of TCOL in the TSE-TP relationship may indicate a preference for autonomous work, which can become a barrier when teacher autonomy is interpreted as independence or exclusive focus on individual tasks (Vangrieken et al., 2017 ). Chen et al. ( 2025 ) reported no effect of TSE on TCOL. Future research should examine teachers’ attitudes toward collaboration with colleagues, including the perceived value of such collaborative efforts (Vangrieken et al., 2017 ), forms of collaboration (Wang et al., 2025 ), communities of practice (Wenger, 1998 ), and collaboration networks (Schlager et al., 2008). Chen et al. ( 2020 ) found that instructional efficacy has a stronger positive impact on instructional clarity than on classroom management effectiveness. Efficacy in classroom management positively affects classroom management practice more than instruction efficacy, and instruction efficacy has a very strong positive influence on cognitive activation practice, while classroom management efficacy has a moderate negative influence on cognitive activation practice. This clearly suggests that when TCOL interacts with each dimension of TSE and TP, it can also yield different results. Implications and Limitations Theoretical implications Through this understanding, TCOL helps teachers access resources (shared knowledge, professional legitimacy, and support networks), which, in turn, can positively influence TSE (Bourdieu, 1986 ). Enhanced TSE fuels teachers’ confidence in their ability to adopt innovative practices, such as the cognitive activation strategy to help students critically think of the answers to the task questions (Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018 ). Such innovative practices align with the current educational reform (Circular 32), which requires teachers to use their autonomy and innovative strategies to influence student learning. On the other hand, in highly centralized Confucian educational systems, the emphasis on hierarchy and respect for authority may constrain collaborative efforts in routine, standardized practices (Nguyen et al., 2018 ), such as classroom management and classroom assessment, which are primarily shaped by institutional or classroom norms. Additionally, clarity of instruction may not be a focus in this collaborative network, and teachers may believe they are competent to handle this dimension, hence leaving it out of the discussion. These findings underscore the context-specific interaction between TCOL and TSE, emphasizing the importance of a nuanced understanding of how collaboration shapes teaching practices across diverse cultural and educational contexts. Practical implications First, school leaders are encouraged to actively involve teachers in the design and evaluation of teaching practices. Leaders should articulate a shared vision for instruction and foster a supportive environment that enhances teachers’ competencies through targeted professional development. Second, education authorities are advised to invest in leadership development programs that strengthen school leaders’ capacity to drive instructional improvement and manage teacher collaboration effectively. Ongoing refinement of curriculum and teaching policies is essential to ensure alignment between reform objectives and classroom implementation. Additionally, teachers should participate in purposeful collaboration, guided by clear structures, shared instructional goals, and leadership support, so that collaborative processes contribute meaningfully to teaching improvement rather than becoming routine or symbolic. Limitations This study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, the reliance on cross-sectional data restricts causal inference and may introduce social desirability bias. Future studies should employ longitudinal, quasi-experimental, or mixed methods designs and gather data from multiple sources to enhance the robustness of findings. Second, while this study proposes a mediation-moderation model, it does not fully elucidate the mechanisms by which teacher collaboration may have detrimental or counterproductive effects on teaching practice. Future research should develop and evaluate strategies to explain these negative effects, thereby facilitating a more critical and comprehensive examination of the limitations of teacher collaboration. Declarations Author Contribution The first author is responsible for conceptualization, research process and result supervision, and feedback-giving.The second author is responsible for conceptualization, data collection, formal analysis, writing original draft, writing review & editing.The third author is responsible for writing the methodology, formal analysis, writing original draft, and visualization of the results. Acknowledgement We highly appreciate all the participants who have spent their valuable time joining TALIS 2024, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who have worked hard to have this work. Data Availability The data analyzed in this study are publicly available from the TALIS 2024 Data Repository. The data can be accessed at [https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html](https:/www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html) . Additional materials or analytic files are available from the authors upon reasonable request and subject to the data-use policies of the OECD. References Alanoglu M (2022) The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pac Educ Rev 23(2):233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09726-5 Altun A, Kuduz E, Akkan IN (2025) Investigating factors affecting teachers’ instructional practices: Evidence from TALIS 2018 Turkish data. Int J Educational Res 130., Article 102557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102557 Author et al (2024) Author et al (2025a) Author et al (2025b) Author et al (2025c) Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman Bellibaş MŞ, Polatcan M, Kılınç AÇ (2022) Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 50(5):812–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945706 Black P, Wiliam D (2018) Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assess Education: Principles Policy Pract 25(6):551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807 Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, pp 241–258 Burić I, Kim LE (2020) Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learn Instruction 66 Article 101302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn instruc.2019.101302 Cansoy R, Parlar H (2018) Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. Int J educational Manage 32(4):550–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089 Chen RJC, Lin HC, Hsueh YL, Hsieh CC (2020) Which is more influential on teaching practice, classroom management efficacy or instruction efficacy? Evidence from TALIS 2018. Asia Pac Educ Rev 21(4):589–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09656-8 Chen YR, Hsieh CC, Li HC (2025) Why is teacher professional collaboration inactive? Evidence from multilevel analysis of Taiwan TALIS 2018. KEDI J Educational Policy 22(1). https://doi.org/10.22804/kjep.2025.22.1.001 Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. Psychology, pp 295–336 Choi S (2023) Distributed leadership promotes teacher self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms through school capacity building: A multilevel SEM approach using US teaching and learning international survey. Educational Adm Q 59(4):811–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231189196 Chong WH, Kong CA (2012) Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of lesson study. J Experimental Educ 80(3):263–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.596854 Çoban Ö, Özdemir N, Bellibaş MŞ (2023) Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 51(1):95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220968170 Coldren AF, Spillane JP (2007) Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy 21(2):369–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805284121 Daniëls E, Hondeghem A, Dochy F (2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Res Rev 27:110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003 Datnow A, Park V (2018) Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. Routledge Donohoo J (2016) Collective efficacy: How educators’ beliefs impact student learning. Corwin Dorukbaşi E, Cansoy R (2024) Examining the mediating role of teacher professional learning between perceived instructional leadership and teacher instructional practices. Eur J Educ 59(3):e12672. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12672 Fackler S, Malmberg LE (2016) Teachers’ self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teach Teacher Educ 56:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.002 Farooq R, Bashir M (2025) Moderating role of collaborative technologies on the relationship between virtual knowledge sharing and team effectiveness: Lessons from COVID-19. Global Knowl Memory Communication 74(3/4):753–776. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2023-0110 Fischer J, He J, Klieme E (2020) The structure of teaching practices across countries: A combination of factor analysis and network analysis. Stud Educational Evaluation 65:100861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100861 Goddard RD, Hoy WK, Hoy AW (2004) Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher 33(3):3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003 Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, Gumus E (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 46(1):25–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296 Hair JF Jr, Howard MC, Nitzl C (2021) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J Bus Res 109:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. PLS-SEM). Sage Hair J, Risher J, Sarstedt M, Ringle C (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31(1):2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Camb J Educ 33(3):329–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005 Hallinger P, Murphy J (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School J 86(2):217–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445 Hallinger P, Wang WC, Chen CW, Liare D (2015) Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer International Publishing Hargreaves A, O’Connor MT (2017) Cultures of professional collaboration: Their origins and opponents. J Prof Capital Community 2(2):74–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-02-2017-0004 Harris A, Jones M (2022) Leading underperforming schools. School Leadersh Manage 42(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2035907 Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Ho LH (2024) Implementing education reforms: A multiple case study of Vietnamese primary schools [Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow]. https://theses.gla.ac.uk/84275/ Hong Thanh PT (2011) Doi Moi (renovation) and higher education reform in Vietnam. Int J Educational Reform 20(3):210–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791102000302 Khader FR (2012) Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and actual classroom practices in social studies instruction. Am Int J Contemp Res 2(1):73–92 Le Donné N, Fraser P, Bousquet G (2016) Teaching strategies for instructional quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA link data . OECD education working papers, 148. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en Le AV, Han P, Khaing MM, Farrar O (2022) An emerging dragon: Vietnamese education after resolution 29. In: Reimers FM, Amaechi U, Banerji A, Wang M (eds) Education to build back better. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93951-9_5 Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins D (2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadersh Manage 40(1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Lin Q (2022) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Front Psychol 13:948152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152 Liu S, Hallinger P (2018) Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Adm Q 54(4):501–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769048 Liu Y, Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S (2021) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 49(3):430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438 London JD, Duong B-A (2023) The politics of education and learning in Vietnam: Contributions to a theory of embedded accountabilities (RISE Working Paper Series No. PE10). Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-2023/PE10 Long Y, Xia Y (2025) Leveraging transformational and instructional leadership for teacher professional development: A dual-mediation model of teacher self-efficacy and organisational culture. Teach Teacher Educ 164., Article 105087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105087 Luật Việt Nam (2023) Thông tư 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT ban hành Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông mới [Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT: new general education curriculum from primary to upper secondary school education]. https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-duc/thong-tu-32-2018-tt-bgddt-ban-hanh-chuong-trinh-giao-duc-pho-thong-moi-169745-d1.html Ministry of Education and Training (2018) Circular No. 20/2018/TT-BGDDT on the regulation on professional standards for teachers of general education institutions. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/EN/Giao-duc/Circular-20-2018-TT-BGDDT-professional-standards-for-teachers-of-general-education-institutions/516430/tieng-anh.aspx National Assembly of Vietnam (2014) Nghị quyết 88/2014/QH13 về đổi mới chương trình, sách giáo khoa giáo dục phổ thông [Resolution No. 88/2014/QH13 on innovating the general education program and textbooks]. https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Nghi-quyet-88-2014-QH13-doi-moi-chuong-trinh-sach-giao-khoa-giao-duc-pho-thong-260798.aspx Ng AYM (2023) Leadership for learning in schools in the twenty-first century. In: Adams D (ed) Educational leadership: Contemporary theories, principles, and practices. Springer Nature Singapore, pp 17–37 Nguyen HT, Hallinger P, Chen C (2018) Assessing and strengthening instructional leadership among primary school principals in Vietnam. Int J Educational Manage 32:396–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2017-0046 Nguyen TM (2021) Four-dimensional model: A literature review in online organisational knowledge sharing. VINE J Inform Knowl Manage Syst 51(1):109–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2019-0077 Nitzl C (2016) The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development. J Acc Literature 37:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.09.003 O’Shea C (2021) Distributed leadership and innovative teaching practices. Int J Educational Res Open 2., Article 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100088 Results from TALIS 2024: The state of teaching, TALIS . OECD OECD, Publishing (2025) https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en OECD (2017) Teaching and learning international survey TALIS 2018: Glossary, main survey version. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Glossary.pdf OECD (2019) TALIS 2018 results (I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en OECD (2024) Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2024: Conceptual framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis OECD (2025) Results from TALIS 2024: Viet Nam. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en Oyekan S (2018) Essence of teaching practice to professional development of quality teachers for nation building. Int J Cross-Disciplinary Subj Educ 9(4):3938–3947. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2018.0478 Praetorius AK, Charalambous CY (2018) Classroom observation frameworks for studying instructional quality: looking back and looking forward. ZDM 50(3):535–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0 Printy S, Liu Y (2021) Distributed leadership globally: The interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Adm Q 57(2):290–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548 Richter E, Brunner M, Richter D (2021) Teacher educators’ task perception and its relationship to professional identity and teaching practice. Teach Teacher Educ 101 Article 103303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103303 Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker JM (2024) SmartPLS 4. SmartPLS . https://www.smartpls.com Robinson V, Gray E (2019) What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes? J royal Soc New Z 49(2):171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1582075 Rodrigues HPC, de Avila J (2024) Instructional leadership and student achievement: School leaders’ perspectives. International J Leadersh in Educ 27(2):360–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1869312 Schlager MS, Farooq U, Fusco J, Schank P, Dwyer N (2009) Analyzing online teacher networks: Cyber networks require cyber research tools. J Teacher Educ 60(1):86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328487 Smale-Jacobse AE, Meijer A, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R (2019) Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Front Psychol 10., Article 2366. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366 Spillane JP, Harris A, Jones M, Mertz K (2015) Opportunities and challenges for taking a distributed perspective: Novice school principals’ emerging sense of their new position. Br Edu Res J 41(6):1068–1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3166 Spillane JP (2006) Distributed leadership. Educational Forum 69(2):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678 Stiggins R, DuFour R (2009) Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan 90(9):640–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000907 Sun A, Xia J (2018) Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. Int J Educational Res 92:86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006 Titsworth S, Mazer JP, Goodboy AK, Bolkan S, Myers SA (2015) Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. Communication Educ 64(4):385–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998 Truong TD, Hallinger P, Sanga K (2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 45(1):77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215607874 Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach Teacher Educ 17(7):783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 United Nations (2019) The sustainable development goals report 2019. United Nations . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/ Van Tartwijk J, Hammerness K (2011) The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education. Teach Educ 22(2):109–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.567836 Vangrieken K, Grosemans I, Dochy F, Kyndt E (2017) Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teach Teacher Educ 67:302–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021 Wang C, Huang X, Xu P (2025) From instructional leadership to instructional quality: the critical role of teacher academic optimism. Educational Stud 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2025.2455608 Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity . Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Xie W, Sui Y, Liu X, Liu S (2023) Effects of teacher collaboration on teaching practices in China and England: A structural equation model with TALIS 2018 data. SAGE Open 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231177908 Zheng X, Yin H, Liu Y (2019) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pacific Educ Researcher 28(6):509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8961969","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":608656002,"identity":"c944a6b2-9b0b-4884-be4a-a51359f0f1ce","order_by":0,"name":"Chuan‑Chung Hsieh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Tsing Hua University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chuan‑Chung","middleName":"","lastName":"Hsieh","suffix":""},{"id":608656003,"identity":"cdc629a3-d468-498d-941d-071642ddc9f1","order_by":1,"name":"Anh Hoang Khau","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tra Vinh University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anh","middleName":"Hoang","lastName":"Khau","suffix":""},{"id":608656004,"identity":"c7b093c1-f5dd-4bf3-a832-29fcd84e9c6f","order_by":2,"name":"Romi Aswandi Sinaga","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Tsing Hua University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Romi","middleName":"Aswandi","lastName":"Sinaga","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-25 01:38:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":105074686,"identity":"66b21187-161b-456d-9628-3bf9b7844fdf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 15:56:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":297487,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptual Framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8961969/v1/016fbe1c502b1f91d87ab529.png"},{"id":105074651,"identity":"d4c4a17c-07fd-43d8-8e33-2dd7d637862f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 15:55:55","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56383,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTeacher collaboration amplifies the influence of TSE on cognitively activating instructional practices\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8961969/v1/8449493b44f9cc5558ba7821.png"},{"id":108145310,"identity":"aeb39e20-54c5-4a2c-84d2-99ca261bccb5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-29 20:54:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":805625,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8961969/v1/36b03c24-210c-4af2-882a-321d9f8d8b18.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Structural Relationships Among Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Collaboration, and Teaching Practices","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eRecent research has focused on identifying the most effective teaching practices for enhancing student learning and on strategies for promoting these practices through professional development and policy reforms (Fischer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Teaching practice (TP) is defined as a collection of strategies and approaches used to facilitate students’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits (Khader, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) further asserts that teachers must demonstrate expertise in subject-specific pedagogical competence, which involves understanding and applying appropriate teaching methods for subjects and adapting strategies to meet students’ diverse needs. Additionally, general pedagogical knowledge is essential for optimizing teaching and supporting students’ academic achievement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers tend to be satisfied with their academic work once their professional identity is recognized (Richter et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), and this satisfaction helps them develop effective instructional practices that foster students’ autonomy, self-regulation, and motivation, extending beyond the classroom (Black \u0026amp; Wiliam, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Instructional quality shapes students’ motivational beliefs and perceptions of success, leading to better engagement and academic progress (Burić \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, on a larger scale, helping teachers develop their teaching practice is a means of building an educational asset for a country, since improved educational quality can improve people’s lives and national development (United Nations, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam’s educational system was significantly hindered by the First (French) and Second (American) Indochina wars, as well as the Sino-American embargo (London \u0026amp; Duong, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Substantial reforms began in 1986 with the Đổi Mới “Renovation,” which marked a transition from a centrally planned economy to a socialist-oriented market economy and initiated international integration (Ho, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In response, Vietnam restructured its education system to better align with market demands, aiming to cultivate a more skilled workforce (Ho, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hong Thanh, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 2013, Vietnam implemented Resolution 29, a significant education reform that prioritized educational development within the national socioeconomic strategy (Le et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Subsequently, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) introduced Circular No. 20/2018/TT-BGDDT, which redefined teacher standards, and Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT, which established a competency-based general education curriculum. Circular 32 advocates for a shift from knowledge transmission to fostering a broad range of student skills and qualities (National Assembly of Vietnam, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). It also grants schools greater autonomy to innovate, providing guidelines for student competencies, curriculum content, instructional methods, and assessment. According to the OECD (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), over 70% of teachers believe they can influence educational policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, analysis of Vietnam’s TALIS 2018 dataset by Author et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that neither instructional leadership (IL) nor distributed leadership (DL) was associated with teaching practices, despite these being central constructs in the TALIS surveys (OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This finding underscores the need to further investigate the effectiveness of these leadership styles in the Vietnamese context. DL involves delegating leadership responsibilities across staff to encourage collective decision-making and reduce reliance on a single leader, typically the principal (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, IL refers to principals’ active efforts to improve teaching quality and student achievement (Ng, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious TALIS cycles did not include items assessing teachers’ perceptions of IL within their schools. TALIS 2024 addressed this limitation by incorporating relevant questions into the teacher questionnaire, enabling more accurate assessment of IL. Scholars have conceptualized teaching practices using the TALIS 2018 dataset in various ways. For instance, Chen et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) identified three dimensions: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom management. Xie et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) included classroom assessment as a distinct dimension alongside clarity of instruction and cognitive activation. Some researchers have treated teaching practices as an integrated construct encompassing these dimensions (e.g., Altun et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e), while others have examined each dimension separately (e.g., Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This study synthesizes these perspectives and investigates teaching practice independently across four dimensions, as defined in the TALIS 2024 dataset: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, classroom management, and classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research also investigates whether teacher self-efficacy (TSE) mediates the relationship between IL, DL, and teaching practice. TSE refers to teachers’ belief in their capacity to enhance student learning outcomes (Tschannen-Moran \u0026amp; Hoy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Prior studies have identified a relationship between DL and TSE (e.g., Choi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sun \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), although this association was not found in Chinese schools (Zheng et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, while some research has reported a link between IL and TSE (e.g., Cansoy \u0026amp; Parlar, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Liu \u0026amp; Hallinger, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), this relationship was either absent or demonstrated only a minimal effect (Alanoglu, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, this study examines the moderating role of teacher collaboration (TCOL) in the relationships among DL, IL, and TP, particularly within the context of Confucian culture, which emphasizes social power distance and collectivism (Truong et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). TCOL involves teachers working collaboratively with colleagues to exchange ideas, share resources, and coordinate effective TP (OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence from Taiwan indicates that DL and IL are related to TCOL (Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the United States, Park et al. (2025) found that TCOL both mediates and moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and instructional clarity. However, findings are inconsistent; for example, Chen et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found no association between TSE and TCOL in Taiwan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the inconsistency of previous findings, this research aims to contribute to the literature by providing nuanced insights into these relationships using Vietnam’s TALIS 2024 dataset. The study offers a context-specific perspective that facilitates comparison with other educational systems globally. To achieve its objectives, the study addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent do IL and DL directly influence classroom management, clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom assessment? (2) To what extent does TSE mediate the relationships between IL, DL, and each dimension of teaching practice? (3) To what extent does TCOL moderate these relationships?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has insufficiently addressed Vietnam’s distinctive cultural and educational context (Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e). The present study addresses this gap by investigating the unique characteristics of leadership within Vietnam’s cultural and school structures. Specifically, it examines the effects of IL and DL on TES, TCOL, and TP, thereby providing empirical evidence to inform educational leadership and policy reforms in Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConceptual framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective collaboration between schools and teachers is essential for improving TP (Nguyen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This study examines the interaction between Social Cognitive Theory and Social Capital Theory in enhancing teaching. IL is a leadership approach intended to directly and positively influence teaching practices and student learning outcomes (Gumus et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Hallinger and Murphy (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e) developed the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) to evaluate principals’ IL behaviors in three domains: defining the school’s mission, supervising the instructional program, and promoting the school climate. In 2015, Hallinger et al. revised PIMRS to improve its validity across diverse cultural and educational contexts. Since then, this scale has been widely adopted in research (Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchool leadership is central to improving school performance (Robinson \u0026amp; Gray, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Leaders who prioritize inclusive education must recognize staff diversity, ensure equitable working conditions, and shape school culture by distributing resources to support a collective vision and mission that includes students’ social development (OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Leadership is a defining characteristic of effective schools, fostering and facilitating high-quality teaching and learning (Sun \u0026amp; Xie, 2018). Principals increasingly focus on preparing teachers to deliver impactful instruction and assessments that develop competent and responsible graduates (Oyekan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, principals should recognize the necessity of differentiated instruction to address students’ diverse learning needs (Smale-Jacobse et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Quality instruction requires teachers to demonstrate proficiency in classroom and time management, including maintaining an organized environment, managing disruptions, and ensuring effective use of instructional time (Van Tartwijk \u0026amp; Hammerness, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Effective teaching also involves setting clear learning goals, organizing and reviewing lesson sequences, providing explicit explanations and examples, and making connections between topics (Titsworth et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, teachers should activate students’ knowledge by employing challenging tasks and questions, activating prior knowledge, exploring students’ thinking, co-constructing learning, and supporting metacognition (Praetorius \u0026amp; Charalambous, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, teachers must utilize various assessment methods, including summative and formative assessments (Stiggins \u0026amp; DuFour, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), to evaluate student learning and provide timely feedback that guides students’ next steps (Hattie \u0026amp; Timperley, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTSE is recognized as a strong predictor of teaching practices (Altun et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), prompting principals to prioritize its development (Liu et al., 2023; Sun \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). According to Bandura’s (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) Social Cognitive Theory, self-efficacy is shaped by observational learning, which involves acquiring new behaviors and knowledge through observing others. Self-efficacy is also influenced by reciprocal determinism, which describes the dynamic interaction among personal factors such as cognition and emotions, environmental influences, and the effects of reinforcements and punishments. Teachers with high self-efficacy believe they can influence their own teaching behaviors and practices (Tschannen-Moran \u0026amp; Hoy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaboration among teachers enhances professional performance (Nguyen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This collaborative perspective is grounded in Social Capital Theory (Bourdieu, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasizes the importance of networks of relationships among individuals within society, which enable effective societal functioning. Donohoo (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) observed that staff collaboration for the benefit of students can increase student achievement. Therefore, fostering a culture of collaboration is essential for school leaders seeking to improve teaching quality (Datnow \u0026amp; Park, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Such cultures enable teachers to build self-efficacy and collective efficacy through shared beliefs and collaborative efforts (Goddard et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Farooq and Bashir (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found that collaboration strengthens the relationship between knowledge sharing and team effectiveness. Based on these perspectives, this study proposes a framework (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) in which DL and IL directly and positively impact TP across four dimensions and indirectly affect these dimensions through TSE. Additionally, TCO is expected to strengthen the relationship between TSE and these four dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDevelopment of Hypotheses\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelationship between IL, DL and teaching practices\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious research has established a connection between IL and TP (e.g., Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dorukbaş̧ı \u0026amp; Cansoy, 2024; Nguyen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Principals who demonstrate IL typically articulate their schools’ missions clearly and closely supervise instructional programs. Furthermore, these principals recognize the significance of school climate in achieving institutional goals (Hallinger et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Hallinger \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Consistent with this perspective, Altun et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) contend that IL is effective because it clarifies instructional priorities, aligns teachers’ efforts with curriculum objectives, and reinforces instructional norms. Cognitive activation involves intellectually demanding tasks, higher-order questioning, and problem-solving activities (Fischer et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and this practice can be better enhanced when leaders emphasize curriculum rigor, instructional improvement, and teacher professional development. IL practices, such as defining instructional goals, coordinating curriculum, and supervising teaching (Hallinger \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e), are expected to have a pronounced impact on instructional clarity (Liu \u0026amp; Hallinger, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Meta-analytic evidence further identifies instructional clarity as a distinct and influential aspect of teaching quality (Titsworth et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). IL is also anticipated to strengthen teachers’ classroom management, a key component of general pedagogical knowledge (GPK) (OECD, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Effective classroom management relies on established instructional routines, maximizing time-on-task, and maintaining consistent expectations for teaching and learning. Instructional leaders support this dimension by monitoring instructional time, reinforcing norms, and fostering orderly learning environments (Hallinger \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Foundational assessment research indicates that effective classroom assessment is integrated within instructional supervision and reflective teaching, both central to IL (Black \u0026amp; Wiliam, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). School leaders practicing IL are expected to engage teachers in discussions about student assessment, as classroom assessment clarifies connections among content areas through both formative and summative measures and the sequencing of learning tasks (Titsworth et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, some studies have reported that IL is ineffective in certain contexts, such as Vietnamese primary schools (Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Mainland China secondary schools (Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), and Taiwanese secondary schools (Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025c\u003c/span\u003e). The underlying causes may derive from bureaucratic norm that hinders principals’ focus on IL (Rodrigues \u0026amp; Ávila de Lima, 2024). Additionally, the term “instructional leader” is sometimes employed as a rhetorical label rather than a well-defined set of leadership practices, which can result in vague guidance for leaders (Leithwood et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). While prior research has often conceptualized teaching practices as a latent variable, the present study examines the construct through four dimensions to provide a comprehensive analysis of teaching practices under IL. Based on these considerations, the following hypotheses are proposed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1a.\u003c/em\u003e IL is positively associated with instructional clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1b.\u003c/em\u003e IL is positively associated with cognitive activation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1c.\u003c/em\u003e IL is positively associated with classroom management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1d.\u003c/em\u003e IL is positively associated with classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious studies have identified an association between DL and TP (e.g., Lin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; O’Shea, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the impact of DL on teaching practices requires further investigation across diverse contexts, as some research has not found a significant relationship (e.g., Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e). Auhentic DL is realized only when teachers are genuinely provided with leadership opportunities, rather than when leadership is merely declared as shared (Printy \u0026amp; Liu, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). DL is acknowledged for expanding school leadership beyond the actions of principals alone (Lin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). When teachers are granted decision-making authority, they are more likely to implement instructional strategies that prepare students with future-oriented skills (O’Shea, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Effective school leadership is characterized by robust support for teaching, transparent communication, and the positive influence of principals’ DL in fostering organizational culture and individual innovation (Daniëls et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Prior research has also established a link between DL and cognitive activation (O’Shea, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitive activation represents an innovative teaching strategy aimed at developing students’ higher-order cognitive skills (Le Donné et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Since cognitive activation is used to capture classroom innovation and to emphasize the development of students’ cross-curricular skills, principals can enable teachers to maximize its use (O’Shea, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitively demanding instruction necessitates professional judgment, innovation, and a willingness to experiment; these conditions are supported by shared leadership and teacher agency (Spillane, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In summary, DL is regarded as a positive leadership style and is therefore expected to enhance teaching practices. Based on these considerations, the study proposes the following hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2a.\u003c/em\u003e DL is positively associated with instructional clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2b. D\u003c/em\u003eL is positively associated with cognitive activation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2c.\u003c/em\u003e DL is positively associated with classroom management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2d. D\u003c/em\u003eL is positively associated with classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTSE as potential mediator of the relationships between IL, DL and TIP\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLiu et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that both DL and IL are positively associated with TSE. The positive relationship between IL and TSE was also identified by Çoban et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Liu et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Alanoglu (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reported that IL practices foster a supportive school environment. Fackler and Malmberg (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that principal support significantly improves TSE, particularly among teachers of lower-achieving students. Coldren and Spillane (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) argued that principals influence teachers’ instructional practices through classroom observation, feedback, and the provision of professional learning opportunities. Leadership practices such as observing instruction and providing feedback contribute to measurable improvements in teaching (Hallinger, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, Sun and Xia (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) found a positive association between DL and TSE. This association may be explained by the increased agency teachers experience when involved in decision-making, which enables them to address areas of lower competence and enhance their self-efficacy (Spillane et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Choi (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) emphasized that promoting teacher participation in school improvement and collaborative feedback is essential for strengthening TSE. Based on these findings, the present study proposes the following hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious research has established an association between TSE and TP (e.g., Altun et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Xie et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Altun et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) identified TSE as the most significant predictor of TP. Chen et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that instructional efficacy is a stronger predictor of instructional clarity, while classroom management efficacy has a greater influence on classroom management practices. For cognitive activation, instructional efficacy is positively associated, whereas classroom management efficacy is negatively associated. Analysis of TALIS data from China and England by Xie et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) indicated that TSE is a significant positive predictor of clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, and classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTSE is grounded in Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) and teacher efficacy research (Tschannen-Moran \u0026amp; Hoy, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e), which suggests that stronger efficacy beliefs enhance teachers’ confidence, persistence, and capacity to implement effective TP. Teachers with high TSE invest greater effort and demonstrate increased persistence (Bandura, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Burić \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Such teachers are more likely to adopt cognitively demanding and student-centered strategies (Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Classroom management efficacy establishes the conditions necessary for effective instruction (Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Van Tartwijk \u0026amp; Hammerness, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). As explained by Bandura (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), TSE is treated as a psychological resource for teachers to improve student learning, and several empirical studies have explored it. For example, many studies using TALIS data have found that IL and DL influence TP indirectly via TSE (e.g., Çoban et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sun \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Long \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Based on these perspectives, the present study proposes the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3a.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of IL on instructional clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3b.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of IL on cognitive activation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3c.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of IL on classroom management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3d.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of IL on classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4a.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of DL on instructional clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4b.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of DL on cognitive activation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4c.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of DL on classroom management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4d.\u003c/em\u003e TSE mediates the effect of DL on classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInteraction of TCOL with TSE and teaching practices\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAltun et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) identified that TCOL explains TP. Bellibaş et al. \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e found TCOL is related to teaching practices. TCOL involves individuals coming together, committing to the sharing of expertise and thinking, planning, deciding and acting based on a shared understanding of each other and the communities people operate in. In terms of TCOL, teachers have designed curriculum together, moderated each other’s assessments, undertaken action research and become involved in educational networks of teachers or schools (Hargreaves \u0026amp; O’Connor, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Chong and Kong (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) examined how lesson study—a collaborative approach emphasizing inquiry, knowledge sharing, and joint material development—enhances TSE. Lesson study has a positive effect on TSE (Çoban et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, their beliefs are more likely to translate into instructional behavior in collaborative school environments (Fackler \u0026amp; Malmberg, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Ultimately, TCOL will be expected to strengthen the relationship of TSE and TP across the four dimensions. Farooq and Bashir (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) also found the moderating effect of collaboration in their study. Hence, the study proposes the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5a.\u003c/em\u003e TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on instructional clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5b.\u003c/em\u003e TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on cognitive activation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5c.\u003c/em\u003e TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on classroom management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5d.\u003c/em\u003e TCOL moderates the effect of TSE on classroom assessment.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003ch2\u003eData source\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study utilized secondary data from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024. As an international large-scale assessment, TALIS facilitates the collection of educators’ perspectives on educational development and teaching practices. The dataset includes validated measures of key constructs relevant to this research. Final teacher weights were applied to account for the sampling design, and missing data were addressed using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) method.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of Vietnam, teacher data reflect educators’ perceptions of curriculum development and instructional practices. A total of 4,348 valid teacher responses were analyzed. Specifically, 6.3% of respondents were aged 29 years or younger, 26.6% were aged 30 to 39 years, 53.8% were aged 40 to 49 years, and 13.3% were aged 50 years or older. Regarding educational attainment, 5.0% held less than a short-cycle tertiary qualification, 4.4% possessed a short-cycle tertiary qualification, 90.8% held a bachelor’s degree, and 4.3% held a master’s degree. In terms of teaching experience, 26.0% had five years or less, 19.7% had six to ten years, 35.0% had eleven to twenty years, and 19.3% had more than twenty years of teaching experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eVariables\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe IL construct comprises five items that assess teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s leadership at school, based on frameworks established in prior empirical studies (e.g., Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A sample item is: “The principal has a clear vision for this school.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe DL construct includes three items that assess teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which leadership is distributed among various stakeholders in their schools, following established constructs from previous empirical studies (e.g., Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A sample item is: “This school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe TP construct comprises 16 items designed to assess teachers’ perceptions of their classroom teaching practices, drawing upon frameworks established in prior empirical studies (e.g., Chen et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025a\u003c/span\u003e; Xie et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). TP is organized into four domains: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, classroom management, and classroom assessment. Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from never or almost never to always. Representative items include clarity of instruction: “I present a summary of recently learned content.”; cognitive activation: “I present tasks for which there is no obvious solution”; classroom management: “I tell students to follow classroom rules.”; and classroom assessment: “I administer an assessment at the end of a unit or block of lessons.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe TSE construct comprises 12 items that assess teachers’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, following frameworks established in previous empirical studies (Sun and Xia, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e). Each item is rated on a four-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all to a lot. A sample item is: “Get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork.”\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe TCOL construct consists of eight items within two domains: exchange and coordination among teachers, and professional collaboration in lessons, based on prior empirical studies (e.g., Wang et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Each item is rated on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from never to once a week or more. Two items with factor loadings below 0.6 were excluded. A sample item is: “Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects).”\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAnalytical strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePartial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) provides significant advantages in social studies research, particularly for analyzing complex models and secondary data where theoretical frameworks are not well established (Hair et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Secondary data are primarily utilized for exploratory research aimed at identifying causal relationships (Hair et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Although social studies often involve non-normal data, this characteristic alone does not justify the use of PLS-SEM (Nitzl, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, PLS-SEM is deemed to be appropriate due to its capacity to support a predictive orientation, accommodate a complex mediated moderation model, and address the non-normal distribution of the TALIS data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore specifically, the study employed two stages of the analysis procedures. In the first stage, the measurement model was evaluated to assess the validity and reliability of all variables. Every item with outer loadings higher than 0.60 was retained, while internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (\u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; 0.70) and composite reliability (CR \u0026gt; 0.70). Convergent validity was examined by assessing average variance extracted (AVE \u0026gt; 0.50), and discriminant validity was assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT \u0026lt; 0.85) (Hair et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, predictive relationships (\u003cem\u003eR²\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eQ²\u003c/em\u003e) were examined to assess the power and relevance of the prediction model (Chin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eR²\u003c/em\u003e reflects the proportion of variance explained by endogenous variables (\u003cem\u003eR²\u003c/em\u003e = 0.67, 0.33, and 0.19 indicating substantial, moderate, and weak explanatory power, respectively). \u003cem\u003eQ²\u003c/em\u003e reflects predictive relevance (\u003cem\u003eQ²\u003c/em\u003e\u0026gt;0.35, \u0026gt; 0.15, and \u0026gt; 0.02 indicate large, medium, and small predictive relevance, respectively). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was also examined to assess multicollinearity; values below 5 were considered acceptable. In the second stage, hypothesis testing assessed the strength and direction of relationships, evaluated using path coefficients (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e), \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-values, and confident interval (CI), with statistical significance determined via bootstrapping (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS 4.0, a software package for variance-based structural equation modeling used with secondary data (Ringle et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasurement model assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows that the outer loading values exceeded the threshold of 0.60, and all constructs satisfied the reliability and validity criteria (α\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.77; CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.85; AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.50; HTMT\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.70). These results demonstrate that the measurement model possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, the \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eQ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e values for clarity of instruction (0.31; 0.20), classroom assessment (0.17; 0.09), classroom management (0.17; 0.10), cognitive activation (0.29; 0.17), and TSE (0.12; 0.06) indicate that clarity of instruction and cognitive activation have weak explanatory power and medium predictive relevance. In contrast, classroom assessment, classroom management, and TSE exhibit very low explanatory power and small predictive relevance. Finally, the VIF values for all relationships (VIF\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;1.47) confirm the absence of multicollinearity issues.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults of the Measurement Model Assessment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstructs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHTMT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. IL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. DL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. TSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. TCOL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e IL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Instructional leadership; DL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Distributed leadership; CIN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Clarity of instruction; CAC Cognitive Activation; CMA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom management; CAS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom assessment; TSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher self-efficacy; TCOL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHypothesis testing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates that IL had the most pronounced direct effect on clarity of instruction (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), followed by classroom management (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), classroom assessment (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and cognitive activation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Conversely, DL exhibited the strongest direct effect on cognitive activation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), followed by classroom management (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), clarity of instruction (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and classroom assessment (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDirect Effect Estimates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaths\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.12; 0.18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.02; 0.08]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.10; 0.16]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH1d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.07; 0.14]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.05; 0.12]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.18***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.14; 0.21]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.02; 0.10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH2d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.08; 0.15]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; IL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Instructional leadership; DL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Distributed leadership; CIN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Clarity of instruction; CAC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cognitive Activation; CMA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom management; CAS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom assessment; TSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher self-efficacy.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the mediating effects results. TSE was found to mediate the relationships between IL and clarity of instruction partially (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), cognitive activation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), classroom management (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and classroom assessment (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Similarly, TSE partially mediated the relationships between DL and clarity of instruction (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), cognitive activation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), classroom management (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), and classroom assessment (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Overall, these findings suggest that the mediating role of TSE was stronger in the effects of IL on teaching practices than in those of DL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMediating Effect Estimates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaths\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.09; 0.12]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.08; 0.11]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.08; 0.10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH3d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.05; 0.08]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.04; 0.06]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.03; 0.05]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.04***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.03; 0.05]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH4d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDL \u0026rarr; TSE \u0026rarr; CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.02; 0.04]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001; IL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Instructional leadership; DL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Distributed leadership; CIN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Clarity of instruction; CAC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cognitive Activation; CMA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom management; CAS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom assessment; TSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher self-efficacy.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the results of the moderating effect analysis. TCOL significantly moderated the mediating effect of TSE on cognitive activation (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). However, TCOL did not significantly moderate the mediating effects of TSE on clarity of instruction (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), classroom management (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), or classroom assessment (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). These results indicate that the positive effect of TSE on cognitive activation is enhanced at higher levels of TCOL. In contrast, TCOL does not strengthen the effects of TSE on clarity of instruction, classroom management, or classroom assessment, suggesting that collaboration primarily facilitates teachers\u0026rsquo; cognitive engagement rather than other instructional domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModerating Effect Estimates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaths\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTCOL X TSE \u0026rarr; CIN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.02; 0.03]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTCOL X TSE \u0026rarr; CAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.03*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[0.01; 0.05]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTCOL X TSE \u0026rarr; CMA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.02; 0.03]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH5d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTCOL X TSE\u0026rarr; CAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[-0.04; 0.02]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsupported\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e *p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; CIN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Clarity of instruction; CAC\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Cognitive Activation; CMA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom management; CAS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Classroom assessment; TSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher self-efficacy; TCOL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Teacher collaboration.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe moderation analysis indicated that the positive effect of TSE on cognitive activation was most pronounced at higher levels of TCOL; black line), compared to the mean (dark gray line) and lower levels (light gray line). These findings suggest that teacher collaboration amplifies the influence of TSE on cognitively activating instructional practices (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study extends existing research by offering a context-sensitive perspective on the interaction between two leadership styles, TSE and TP, in a Confucian-influenced, centralized educational system such as Vietnam. Unlike some previous studies (e.g., Author et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e), which found no associations between DL or IL and TP in Vietnamese schools, this study shows the opposite. Hence, the present study provides empirical evidence that both IL and DL influence TP directly and indirectly through TSE, which serves as an important mediator in these relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe effect of IL on TP\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThough, as identified in TALIS 2018 by Author et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e), IL was not associated with TP in Vietnamese primary schools, the present findings show that IL has a significant positive impact on TP across all four dimensions. The result is aligned with previous studies\u0026rsquo; findings of a positive association between IL and TP (Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Dorukbaş̧ı \u0026amp; Cansoy, 2024). In this context, IL exerts its strongest influence on instruction clarity, followed by classroom management, classroom assessment, and cognitive activation. This distribution reflects the core principles of IL, which emphasize goal alignment, instructional supervision, and the setting of pedagogical expectations (Hallinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Hallinger \u0026amp; Murphy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). By articulating instructional goals, monitoring teaching quality, and providing feedback, principals who employ IL foster structured instructional environments that support teachers\u0026rsquo; lesson organization and students\u0026rsquo; cognitive activation for lesson mastery (Altun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The smaller effect of IL on cognitive activation is consistent with the concept that cognitively demanding instruction requires risk-taking in learning (Fischer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, fostering higher levels of cognitive activation may require both instructional guidance and confidence in their classroom capabilities (Liu \u0026amp; Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn highly centralized and hierarchical systems such as Vietnam, IL may be more effective at reinforcing standardized, routine instructional practices than at encouraging innovative and inquiry-based teaching (Bellibaş et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Author et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e; Nguyen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe effect of DL on TP\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough Author et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e) found that DL was not associated with TP in Vietnamese primary schools in TALIS 2018, the study overall found a positive relationship between DL and TP in these Vietnamese secondary schools, corroborating previous research (Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Shea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). DL exerts its greatest influence on cognitive activation, followed by classroom assessment, instruction clarity, and classroom management. These results highlight that shared leadership fosters teachers\u0026rsquo; use of intellectually challenging instruction, which encourages students to critically think of their answers and reasoning in problem-solving, and engage in learning (O\u0026rsquo;Shea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitive activation inherently promotes innovation and learning through questioning, which is more likely to occur in classrooms where leadership responsibilities are shared and teachers have autonomy in instructional decision-making (Spillane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). When leadership is distributed through either formal or informal channels, principals allow teachers to exchange ideas, experiment with instructional strategies, and co-construct knowledge, thereby encouraging cognitively activating practices (Dani\u0026euml;ls et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe mediating effect of TSE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study demonstrates a positive association between both DL and IL with TSE, consistent with prior research (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, the positive relationship between IL and TSE aligns with findings from Alanoglu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), \u0026Ccedil;oban et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while the association between DL and TSE is supported by Choi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Sun and Xia (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth IL and DL are effective leadership styles for promoting TSE, with IL exerting its stronger influence than that driven from DL. IL enhances TSE by enabling school leaders to establish clear expectations, provide feedback, and offer professional support, thereby strengthening teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence in their classroom abilities (\u0026Ccedil;oban et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Through supervision, mentoring, and professional development, instructional leaders reinforce teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs in their capacity to manage classrooms, deliver clear instruction, assess student learning, and engage students cognitively (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Fackler \u0026amp; Malmberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). DL contributes to TSE by fostering teachers\u0026rsquo; sense of agency, professional recognition, and participation in school decision-making (Spillane et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sun \u0026amp; Xia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). When teachers perceive themselves as active contributors rather than passive implementers, their confidence in addressing diverse instructional challenges increases (Choi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTSE is essential for maintaining effective classroom management, implementing diverse assessment strategies, and engaging students in cognitively demanding activities (Altun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Xie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These results emphasize the central role of psychological processes in translating leadership influences into classroom behaviors. Teachers with high self-efficacy appear to have greater persistence, adaptability, and instructional confidence, which enables them to address diverse student needs and instructional challenges (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Burić \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The mediating effects of TSE are more pronounced in the pathways from IL than from DL, indicating that structured leadership practices may be effective in enhancing teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence and, consequently, overall teaching quality (Altun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe moderating effect of TCOL\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTCOL plays a nuanced and conditional role in shaping TP, and in Vietnam, collaborative culture is reinforced by collectivist values (Truong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The results indicate that TCOL strengthens only the relationship between TSE and cognitive activation, without influencing the direction or strength of it on other TP dimensions. Teachers who want to enhance their teaching, especially when introducing new lessons, activate their students\u0026rsquo; cognitive ability by using tasks that challenge them to engage in higher-order thinking, problem-solving, and critical questioning (Fischer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). These tasks are often unpredictable and require teacher innovation and risk-taking (O\u0026rsquo;Shea, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Because of this, teachers might need more collaboration to develop strategies to improve their efficacy in enhancing students\u0026rsquo; performance in this area. Teachers who collaborate feel more supported and confident in trying new teaching methods (\u0026Ccedil;oban et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFound in this study, TCOL did not strengthen the path between TSE and clarity of instruction, which involves providing clear, structured explanations of content, which is a relatively routine practice (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It can be explained that teachers can handle this TP dimension on their own, using their own teaching skills, and they might not bring it up in discussion, or might think it is not important to them. Likewise, TCOL did not moderate the path between TSE and classroom management, which involves routine tasks like maintaining order, setting rules, and ensuring time-on-task, and individual teacher competence (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Highly effective teachers can be more effective at managing classrooms, such as handling disruptions and organizing their learning environments (Van Tartwijk \u0026amp; Hammerness, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). TCOL was found to have no effect on the interaction between TSE and classroom assessment, which refers to the methods teachers use to evaluate student performance, including both formative and summative assessments (Stiggins \u0026amp; DuFour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Again, assessment practices can be standardized by the school or MOET and follow guidelines set, and this may discourage them from generating innovative ideas or taking risks. Additionally, highly self-efficacious teachers can be more confident in their ability to assess students and use assessment data effectively (Black \u0026amp; Wiliam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, they might not prioritize this TP dimension while collaborating.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the exertion of TCOL in the TSE-TP relationship may indicate a preference for autonomous work, which can become a barrier when teacher autonomy is interpreted as independence or exclusive focus on individual tasks (Vangrieken et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Chen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) reported no effect of TSE on TCOL. Future research should examine teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward collaboration with colleagues, including the perceived value of such collaborative efforts (Vangrieken et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), forms of collaboration (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), communities of practice (Wenger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), and collaboration networks (Schlager et al., 2008).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) found that instructional efficacy has a stronger positive impact on instructional clarity than on classroom management effectiveness. Efficacy in classroom management positively affects classroom management practice more than instruction efficacy, and instruction efficacy has a very strong positive influence on cognitive activation practice, while classroom management efficacy has a moderate negative influence on cognitive activation practice. This clearly suggests that when TCOL interacts with each dimension of TSE and TP, it can also yield different results.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough this understanding, TCOL helps teachers access resources (shared knowledge, professional legitimacy, and support networks), which, in turn, can positively influence TSE (Bourdieu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Enhanced TSE fuels teachers\u0026rsquo; confidence in their ability to adopt innovative practices, such as the cognitive activation strategy to help students critically think of the answers to the task questions (Praetorius \u0026amp; Charalambous, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Such innovative practices align with the current educational reform (Circular 32), which requires teachers to use their autonomy and innovative strategies to influence student learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, in highly centralized Confucian educational systems, the emphasis on hierarchy and respect for authority may constrain collaborative efforts in routine, standardized practices (Nguyen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), such as classroom management and classroom assessment, which are primarily shaped by institutional or classroom norms. Additionally, clarity of instruction may not be a focus in this collaborative network, and teachers may believe they are competent to handle this dimension, hence leaving it out of the discussion. These findings underscore the context-specific interaction between TCOL and TSE, emphasizing the importance of a nuanced understanding of how collaboration shapes teaching practices across diverse cultural and educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, school leaders are encouraged to actively involve teachers in the design and evaluation of teaching practices. Leaders should articulate a shared vision for instruction and foster a supportive environment that enhances teachers\u0026rsquo; competencies through targeted professional development. Second, education authorities are advised to invest in leadership development programs that strengthen school leaders\u0026rsquo; capacity to drive instructional improvement and manage teacher collaboration effectively. Ongoing refinement of curriculum and teaching policies is essential to ensure alignment between reform objectives and classroom implementation. Additionally, teachers should participate in purposeful collaboration, guided by clear structures, shared instructional goals, and leadership support, so that collaborative processes contribute meaningfully to teaching improvement rather than becoming routine or symbolic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, the reliance on cross-sectional data restricts causal inference and may introduce social desirability bias. Future studies should employ longitudinal, quasi-experimental, or mixed methods designs and gather data from multiple sources to enhance the robustness of findings. Second, while this study proposes a mediation-moderation model, it does not fully elucidate the mechanisms by which teacher collaboration may have detrimental or counterproductive effects on teaching practice. Future research should develop and evaluate strategies to explain these negative effects, thereby facilitating a more critical and comprehensive examination of the limitations of teacher collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first author is responsible for conceptualization, research process and result supervision, and feedback-giving.The second author is responsible for conceptualization, data collection, formal analysis, writing original draft, writing review \u0026amp; editing.The third author is responsible for writing the methodology, formal analysis, writing original draft, and visualization of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe highly appreciate all the participants who have spent their valuable time joining TALIS 2024, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who have worked hard to have this work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data analyzed in this study are publicly available from the TALIS 2024 Data Repository. The data can be accessed at [https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html](https:/www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html) . Additional materials or analytic files are available from the authors upon reasonable request and subject to the data-use policies of the OECD.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlanoglu M (2022) The role of instructional leadership in increasing teacher self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pac Educ Rev 23(2):233\u0026ndash;244. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09726-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12564-021-09726-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltun A, Kuduz E, Akkan IN (2025) Investigating factors affecting teachers\u0026rsquo; instructional practices: Evidence from TALIS 2018 Turkish data. Int J Educational Res 130., Article 102557. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102557\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102557\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor et al (2024)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor et al (2025a)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor et al (2025b)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAuthor et al (2025c)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBellibaş MŞ, Polatcan M, Kılın\u0026ccedil; A\u0026Ccedil; (2022) Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 50(5):812\u0026ndash;831. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945706\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1741143220945706\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlack P, Wiliam D (2018) Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assess Education: Principles Policy Pract 25(6):551\u0026ndash;575. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, pp 241\u0026ndash;258\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurić I, Kim LE (2020) Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: An analysis using multilevel structural equation modeling. Learn Instruction 66 Article 101302. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.learn instruc.2019.101302\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.learn instruc.2019.101302\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCansoy R, Parlar H (2018) Examining the relationship between school principals\u0026rsquo; instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. Int J educational Manage 32(4):550\u0026ndash;567. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJEM-04-2017-0089\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen RJC, Lin HC, Hsueh YL, Hsieh CC (2020) Which is more influential on teaching practice, classroom management efficacy or instruction efficacy? Evidence from TALIS 2018. Asia Pac Educ Rev 21(4):589\u0026ndash;599. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09656-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12564-020-09656-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen YR, Hsieh CC, Li HC (2025) Why is teacher professional collaboration inactive? Evidence from multilevel analysis of Taiwan TALIS 2018. KEDI J Educational Policy 22(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.22804/kjep.2025.22.1.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.22804/kjep.2025.22.1.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research. Psychology, pp 295\u0026ndash;336\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChoi S (2023) Distributed leadership promotes teacher self-efficacy in multicultural classrooms through school capacity building: A multilevel SEM approach using US teaching and learning international survey. Educational Adm Q 59(4):811\u0026ndash;844. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231189196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013161X231189196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChong WH, Kong CA (2012) Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self-efficacy: The case of lesson study. J Experimental Educ 80(3):263\u0026ndash;283. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.596854\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220973.2011.596854\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Ccedil;oban \u0026Ouml;, \u0026Ouml;zdemir N, Bellibaş MŞ (2023) Trust in principals, leaders\u0026rsquo; focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 51(1):95\u0026ndash;115. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220968170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1741143220968170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eColdren AF, Spillane JP (2007) Making connections to teaching practice: The role of boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy 21(2):369\u0026ndash;396. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805284121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0895904805284121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDani\u0026euml;ls E, Hondeghem A, Dochy F (2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Res Rev 27:110\u0026ndash;125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDatnow A, Park V (2018) Professional collaboration with purpose: Teacher learning towards equitable and excellent schools. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDonohoo J (2016) Collective efficacy: How educators\u0026rsquo; beliefs impact student learning. Corwin\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDorukbaşi E, Cansoy R (2024) Examining the mediating role of teacher professional learning between perceived instructional leadership and teacher instructional practices. Eur J Educ 59(3):e12672. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12672\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ejed.12672\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFackler S, Malmberg LE (2016) Teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy in 14 OECD countries: Teacher, student group, school and leadership effects. Teach Teacher Educ 56:185\u0026ndash;195. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarooq R, Bashir M (2025) Moderating role of collaborative technologies on the relationship between virtual knowledge sharing and team effectiveness: Lessons from COVID-19. Global Knowl Memory Communication 74(3/4):753\u0026ndash;776. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2023-0110\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/GKMC-03-2023-0110\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischer J, He J, Klieme E (2020) The structure of teaching practices across countries: A combination of factor analysis and network analysis. Stud Educational Evaluation 65:100861. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100861\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100861\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoddard RD, Hoy WK, Hoy AW (2004) Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher 33(3):3\u0026ndash;13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/0013189X033003003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, Gumus E (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 46(1):25\u0026ndash;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1741143216659296\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF Jr, Howard MC, Nitzl C (2021) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J Bus Res 109:101\u0026ndash;110. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2017) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. PLS-SEM). Sage\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHair J, Risher J, Sarstedt M, Ringle C (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur Bus Rev 31(1):2\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Camb J Educ 33(3):329\u0026ndash;352. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/0305764032000122005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHallinger P, Murphy J (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School J 86(2):217\u0026ndash;247. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/461445\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1086/461445\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHallinger P, Wang WC, Chen CW, Liare D (2015) Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer International Publishing\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHargreaves A, O\u0026rsquo;Connor MT (2017) Cultures of professional collaboration: Their origins and opponents. J Prof Capital Community 2(2):74\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-02-2017-0004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JPCC-02-2017-0004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris A, Jones M (2022) Leading underperforming schools. School Leadersh Manage 42(1):1\u0026ndash;3. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2035907\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13632434.2022.2035907\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81\u0026ndash;112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/003465430298487\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHo LH (2024) \u003cem\u003eImplementing education reforms: A multiple case study of Vietnamese primary schools\u003c/em\u003e [Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://theses.gla.ac.uk/84275/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://theses.gla.ac.uk/84275/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong Thanh PT (2011) Doi Moi (renovation) and higher education reform in Vietnam. Int J Educational Reform 20(3):210\u0026ndash;225. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/105678791102000302\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/105678791102000302\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhader FR (2012) Teachers\u0026rsquo; pedagogical beliefs and actual classroom practices in social studies instruction. Am Int J Contemp Res 2(1):73\u0026ndash;92\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe Donn\u0026eacute; N, Fraser P, Bousquet G (2016) \u003cem\u003eTeaching strategies for instructional quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA link data\u003c/em\u003e. OECD education working papers, 148. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe AV, Han P, Khaing MM, Farrar O (2022) An emerging dragon: Vietnamese education after resolution 29. In: Reimers FM, Amaechi U, Banerji A, Wang M (eds) Education to build back better. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93951-9_5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-93951-9_5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins D (2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadersh Manage 40(1):5\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLin Q (2022) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Front Psychol 13:948152. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu S, Hallinger P (2018) Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Adm Q 54(4):501\u0026ndash;528. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013161X18769048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu Y, Bellibaş MŞ, G\u0026uuml;m\u0026uuml;ş S (2021) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 49(3):430\u0026ndash;453. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1741143220910438\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLondon JD, Duong B-A (2023) \u003cem\u003eThe politics of education and learning in Vietnam: Contributions to a theory of embedded accountabilities\u003c/em\u003e (RISE Working Paper Series No. PE10). Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-2023/PE10\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.35489/BSG-RISE-2023/PE10\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong Y, Xia Y (2025) Leveraging transformational and instructional leadership for teacher professional development: A dual-mediation model of teacher self-efficacy and organisational culture. Teach Teacher Educ 164., Article 105087. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105087\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2025.105087\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuật Việt Nam (2023) \u003cem\u003eTh\u0026ocirc;ng tư 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT ban h\u0026agrave;nh Chương tr\u0026igrave;nh gi\u0026aacute;o dục phổ th\u0026ocirc;ng mới [Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT: new general education curriculum from primary to upper secondary school education].\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://luatvietnam.vn/giao-duc/thong-tu-32-2018-tt-bgddt-ban-hanh-chuong-trinh-giao-duc-pho-thong-moi-169745-d1.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-duc/thong-tu-32-2018-tt-bgddt-ban-hanh-chuong-trinh-giao-duc-pho-thong-moi-169745-d1.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Education and Training (2018) Circular No. 20/2018/TT-BGDDT on the regulation on professional standards for teachers of general education institutions. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/EN/Giao-duc/Circular-20-2018-TT-BGDDT-professional-standards-for-teachers-of-general-education-institutions/516430/tieng-anh.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/EN/Giao-duc/Circular-20-2018-TT-BGDDT-professional-standards-for-teachers-of-general-education-institutions/516430/tieng-anh.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNational Assembly of Vietnam (2014) \u003cem\u003eNghị quyết 88/2014/QH13 về đổi mới chương tr\u0026igrave;nh, s\u0026aacute;ch gi\u0026aacute;o khoa gi\u0026aacute;o dục phổ th\u0026ocirc;ng\u003c/em\u003e [Resolution No. 88/2014/QH13 on innovating the general education program and textbooks]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Nghi-quyet-88-2014-QH13-doi-moi-chuong-trinh-sach-giao-khoa-giao-duc-pho-thong-260798.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Nghi-quyet-88-2014-QH13-doi-moi-chuong-trinh-sach-giao-khoa-giao-duc-pho-thong-260798.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNg AYM (2023) Leadership for learning in schools in the twenty-first century. In: Adams D (ed) Educational leadership: Contemporary theories, principles, and practices. Springer Nature Singapore, pp 17\u0026ndash;37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen HT, Hallinger P, Chen C (2018) Assessing and strengthening instructional leadership among primary school principals in Vietnam. Int J Educational Manage 32:396\u0026ndash;415. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2017-0046\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJEM-02-2017-0046\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen TM (2021) Four-dimensional model: A literature review in online organisational knowledge sharing. VINE J Inform Knowl Manage Syst 51(1):109\u0026ndash;138. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2019-0077\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2019-0077\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNitzl C (2016) The use of partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in management accounting research: Directions for future theory development. J Acc Literature 37:19\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.09.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.acclit.2016.09.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Shea C (2021) Distributed leadership and innovative teaching practices. Int J Educational Res Open 2., Article 100088. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100088\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijedro.2021.100088\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eResults from TALIS 2024: The state of teaching, TALIS\u003c/em\u003e. OECD OECD, Publishing (2025) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/90df6235-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2017) Teaching and learning international survey TALIS 2018: Glossary, main survey version. OECD. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Glossary.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Glossary.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2019) TALIS 2018 results (I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/1d0bc92a-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2024) \u003cem\u003eTeaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2024: Conceptual framework.\u003c/em\u003e Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.oecd.org/education/talis\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.oecd.org/education/talis\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2025) Results from TALIS 2024: Viet Nam. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/90df6235-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOyekan S (2018) Essence of teaching practice to professional development of quality teachers for nation building. Int J Cross-Disciplinary Subj Educ 9(4):3938\u0026ndash;3947. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2018.0478\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2018.0478\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePraetorius AK, Charalambous CY (2018) Classroom observation frameworks for studying instructional quality: looking back and looking forward. ZDM 50(3):535\u0026ndash;553. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11858-018-0946-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrinty S, Liu Y (2021) Distributed leadership globally: The interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Adm Q 57(2):290\u0026ndash;325. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013161X20926548\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichter E, Brunner M, Richter D (2021) Teacher educators\u0026rsquo; task perception and its relationship to professional identity and teaching practice. Teach Teacher Educ 101 Article 103303. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103303\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2021.103303\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRingle CM, Wende S, Becker JM (2024) \u003cem\u003eSmartPLS 4. SmartPLS\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.smartpls.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.smartpls.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson V, Gray E (2019) What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes? J royal Soc New Z 49(2):171\u0026ndash;187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1582075\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03036758.2019.1582075\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodrigues HPC, de Avila J (2024) Instructional leadership and student achievement: School leaders\u0026rsquo; perspectives. International J Leadersh in Educ 27(2):360\u0026ndash;384. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1869312\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13603124.2020.1869312\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchlager MS, Farooq U, Fusco J, Schank P, Dwyer N (2009) Analyzing online teacher networks: Cyber networks require cyber research tools. J Teacher Educ 60(1):86\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328487\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0022487108328487\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmale-Jacobse AE, Meijer A, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R (2019) Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence. Front Psychol 10., Article 2366. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpillane JP, Harris A, Jones M, Mertz K (2015) Opportunities and challenges for taking a distributed perspective: Novice school principals\u0026rsquo; emerging sense of their new position. Br Edu Res J 41(6):1068\u0026ndash;1085. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3166\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/berj.3166\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpillane JP (2006) Distributed leadership. Educational Forum 69(2):143\u0026ndash;150. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00131720508984678\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStiggins R, DuFour R (2009) Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan 90(9):640\u0026ndash;644. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000907\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/003172170909000907\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun A, Xia J (2018) Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 TALIS data. Int J Educational Res 92:86\u0026ndash;97. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTitsworth S, Mazer JP, Goodboy AK, Bolkan S, Myers SA (2015) Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. Communication Educ 64(4):385\u0026ndash;418. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTruong TD, Hallinger P, Sanga K (2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Manage Adm Leadersh 45(1):77\u0026ndash;100. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215607874\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1741143215607874\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach Teacher Educ 17(7):783\u0026ndash;805. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations (2019) The sustainable development goals report 2019. \u003cem\u003eUnited Nations\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Tartwijk J, Hammerness K (2011) The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education. Teach Educ 22(2):109\u0026ndash;112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.567836\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10476210.2011.567836\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVangrieken K, Grosemans I, Dochy F, Kyndt E (2017) Teacher autonomy and collaboration: A paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers\u0026rsquo; autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teach Teacher Educ 67:302\u0026ndash;315. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang C, Huang X, Xu P (2025) From instructional leadership to instructional quality: the critical role of teacher academic optimism. Educational Stud 1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2025.2455608\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03055698.2025.2455608\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWenger E (1998) \u003cem\u003eCommunities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/CBO9780511803932\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie W, Sui Y, Liu X, Liu S (2023) Effects of teacher collaboration on teaching practices in China and England: A structural equation model with TALIS 2018 data. SAGE Open 13(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231177908\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440231177908\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZheng X, Yin H, Liu Y (2019) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pacific Educ Researcher 28(6):509\u0026ndash;518. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"OECD TALIS 2024, school leaders, teaching practices, teacher self-efficacy, teacher collaboration, Vietnam","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDrawing on social cognitive theory and social capital theory, this study examined the influence of instructional leadership (IL) and distributed leadership (DL) on optimising teaching practices (TP), with teacher self-efficacy (TSE) as a mediator and teachers\u0026rsquo; collaboration (TCOL) as a moderator. Data from Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s TALIS 2024 were analysed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings indicated that both IL and DL significantly affected all dimensions of TP. Specifically, IL exerted the strongest influence on clarity of instruction, while DL had the greatest impact on cognitive activation. TSE mediated all relationships, whereas TCOL moderated only the relationship between TSE and cognitive activation. These results underscore the importance of school leaders in supporting TP and promoting teacher development and TCOL. The study also offers practical recommendations for policymakers and school leaders to implement leadership development programs, teacher professional development initiatives, and structured collaborations to enhance TP in schools.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Structural Relationships Among Instructional Leadership, Distributed Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Teacher Collaboration, and Teaching Practices","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-20 15:54:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8961969/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4512f8ad-2959-4a6d-93a7-a4728d22f695","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 20th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"decision","content":"Rejected","date":"2026-04-29T20:49:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64768047,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":64768048,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":64768049,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-29T20:54:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-20 15:54:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8961969","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8961969","identity":"rs-8961969","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}