Chapter 11

The Effect of School Culture on Student

Achievement

Mehmet Koçyiğit

11.1 Culture and Organizational Culture

When the concept of culture is mentioned, various fields ranging from anthropology
to education come to mind. Its use in the field of organization theory is relatively new
but it has provided opportunities for the development of new concepts. Although it is
an abstract and comprehensive concept, some social and organizational situations
can be said to have been derived from culture itself. It is an important concept to
know because if one understands the organizational culture then he/she will better
understand both the group or the organization and himself/herself (Schein 2010).
According to Karadağ et al. (2014, p. 105), culture is a significant concept for
organizations as it influences them in terms of balance, loyalty, unity and ability.
Various definitions of this abstract and comprehensive concept can be found in the
related literature. Bates (1987, p. 108) defines culture as follows:
It is culture that gives meaning to life. The beliefs, languages, rituals, knowledge, con-
ventions, courtesies and artefacts, in short the cultural baggage of any group are the
resources from which individual and social identity are constructed. They provide the
framework upon which the individual constructs his understanding of the world and of
himself. Part of this baggage is factual. It is empirical, descriptive, and objective. Another
part of this cultural baggage, perhaps the greater part, is mythical. It is concerned not with
facts but with meaning: that is, with the interpretive and prescriptive rules which provide
the basis for understanding and action (Bates 1981, p. 37, cited in Bates 1987, p. 108).

According to this definition it will not be wrong to picture culture like an

intersection set which combines facts and myths and forms a basis and a pattern for
the construction of individual and social identity. These two forms of identity take
shape from this pattern and rise on this basis. It is like a lens through which an

M. Koçyiğit (&)
Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey
e-mail: mkocyigit@aku.edu.tr

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 183

E. Karadağ (ed.), The Factors Effecting Student Achievement,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56083-0_11
184 M. Koçyiğit

individual or a group sees life and construes it. Schein (2010, p. 18) defines the
culture of an organization as below:
“The culture of a group can now be defined as a pattern of shared basic
assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think,
and feel in relation to those problems.” From this definition it could be inferred that
he mostly sees culture as a kind of total organizational experience and considers it
vital for the organization as it is the registry of the organizational history or the
record of the immune system of the organization. Therefore, organizational culture
needs to be taught and transferred to new members so that they could better face the
problems that are likely to occur in the future. In his book Schein (2010) also
indicates that a group’s culture could be studied at three levels which are the level
of the group’s artefacts, the level of its espoused beliefs and values and the level of
its basic underlying assumptions.
The studies about the impact of culture on organizations and organizational
performance are not new, given that they have been conducted since the 1940s
(regarding school culture, Waller’s The Sociology of Teaching (1932) is note-
worthy) (Deal and Peterson 2009; Maslowski 2006). The interest for the concept,
however, has grown in the late 1970s with the rise of Japanese companies and the
decline of the American and European ones (Alvesson 2002, 1990; Koçyiğit 2015;
Maslowski 2006; Ogbonna and Harris 2002a).
Despite the fact that there are many studies on the concept of organizational
culture, a common definition and a common scope about this concept cannot be
found in the related literature. There are many definitions, typologies and perspec-
tives on the concept that are suggested by researchers, and, indeed, this has increased
the confusion about the concept of organizational culture (Harris and Ogbonna 1998;
Koçyiğit 2015; Ogbonna and Harris 2002b). At the same time, however, culture is an
important concept which helps us to better understand organizations. Despite the
differences in the literature, it can be understood from the related studies that any
organizational culture consists of long-standing traditions, a special language, a
mind-set that helps members’ interpretation of reality, shared standards and norms,
values, beliefs, assumptions and prejudices, ideologies, models for social manners
and behaviour, certain customs and rituals suggestive of how members are to relate
to colleagues, subordinates, superiors and outsiders and the organization’s “common
sense” regarding the appropriate behaviour, actions and practices of an organization
(Alvesson 1990; Gruenert 1998; Koçyiğit 2015; Sarros et al. 2011).

11.1.1 School Culture

School culture is one of the most appealing areas in educational research, and the
idea of schools having distinctive cultures is not new. Its roots can be traced back to
Waller’s “The Sociology of Teaching” in 1932. Willard Waller indicated that
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 185

schools have a culture that is definitely their own, and schools have rituals, a set of
folkways, mores, irrational sanctions, a moral code, games, teams and ceremonies
(Deal and Peterson 2009; Maslowski 2006).
Deal and Peterson (2009, p. 6) notes that for schools “the term culture provides a
more accurate and intuitively appealing way to help school leaders better under-
stand their school’s unwritten rules and traditions, norms, and expectations. The
unofficial pattern seems to permeate everything: the way people act, how they dress,
what they talk about or consider taboo, whether they seek out colleagues or isolate
themselves, and how teachers feel about their work and their students”. It can be
seen that it takes time for a school to develop its own distinctive culture; in other
words, the school should have a ‘history’ first, since this kind of symbolic entities
do not develop overnight. School cultures are complex webs of traditions and
rituals which are established over time (Deal and Peterson, 2009, p. 6). According
to Gruenert (1998), through the interconnectedness of these symbols, rituals, cer-
emonies, heroes, myths, stories, values and norms schools represent what they
value. Every school has a culture and some are stronger than others, but this does
not mean that the strongest culture provides the best conditions for education. Yet,
culture affects all aspects of a school. Culture promotes school effectiveness and
productivity, improves collegiality, collaboration, communication and
problem-solving practices, promotes innovation and school improvement, builds
commitment and kindles motivation, amplifies the energy and vitality of school
staff, students and community and draws attention to what is valued and seen as
important (Deal and Peterson 2009).
Gruenert (1998) concretizes the elements of school culture comprehensibly in
his study. In a school, “symbols” of the culture may include trophies, banners,
dresses and the stories shared by its members. “Rituals” could include the daily
taking of attendance, and “examples” would be the annual graduation ceremony or
a retirement party. “Myths” help teachers maintain shared attitudes toward various
aspects of the school, and “stories and fairy tales” help to address problems related
to morale, security, socialization and communication. School “values” are the basic
beliefs that control how an institution operates, and they are the criteria through
which one can judge the appropriateness of individual and group behaviour.
“Norms” are manifestations of members’ values (Gruenert 1998, pp. 20–24).
A school does not necessarily have to be influenced by a positive school culture.
Schools can have negative, toxic cultures too. These toxic cultures “perpetuate the
downbeat, pessimistic status quo” (Deal and Peterson 2009, p. 173).

11.1.2 School Culture and Student Achievement

According to Alvesson, although “it is not possible to say that corporate culture—in
general or a specific type of culture—has a clear and simple effect on performance
this does not mean that there is no connection between culture (however defined)
and performance; on a general level there certainly is” (Alvesson 2002, p. 68).
186 M. Koçyiğit

There are studies in the literature indicating that cultural patterns have a powerful
impact on performance and they affect school outcomes and student achievement or
at least they are correlated (Brown 2005; Cunningham 2003; Deal and Peterson
2009; Fraley 2007; Gruenert 2005; Karadağ et al. 2014; Swindler 2009).
This study examined the effect of school culture on student achievement. The
moderators (which are hypothesized to affect the average level of impact) were
identified as follows: (i) type of publication, (ii) sample group, (iii) school subject or
assessment type, (iv) the tool of data collection, (v) the year of the studies, (vi) the
country that the research took place and (vii) sub-dimension of school culture. All
these variables were used to test the following hypotheses:
H1 School culture has a positive effect on student achievement.
H2 The type of publication is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on
student achievement.
H3 The sample group is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on
student achievement.
H4 School subject or assessment type is a moderator for the positive effect of school
culture on student achievement.
H5 The tool of data collection is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture
on student achievement.
H6 The year of the studies is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on
student achievement.
H7 The country that the research took place is a moderator for the positive effect of
school culture on student achievement.
H8 Sub-dimensions of school culture is a moderator for the positive effect of school
culture on student achievement.

11.2 Method

11.2.1 Study Design

In this study, the effect of school culture on student achievement was tested using
the meta-analysis design.

11.2.2 Review Strategy and Criteria for Inclusion/Exclusion

To determine the studies to include in the meta-analysis, the Science-Direct,

Proquest and Ebsco databases were used. For this process, the terms “school cul-
ture” and “student achievement/student success” were searched in the titles to
identify the studies. The date of the search on the databases was 9 February 2016.
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 187

Table 11.1 Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis

Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Type of Thesis Article –
publication n 44 7 51
% 86.3 13.7 100
Sample 3–12th Instructional Principals Schools Teachers Teachers and
group/unit grade staff administrators
students
n 8 1 6 4 26 6 51
% 15.7 1.96 11.8 7.8 51 11.8 100

Doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed academic journals were included in the

study.
Many strategies were used to identify the studies that were appropriate for the
meta-analysis. Firstly, a pool (303 studies) was formed of all studies with school
culture and student achievement/success in their titles. The abstracts of these studies
were examined and 71 were found appropriate to include in the study. In the second
phase, all studies in the pool were examined in detail. The result of the examination
showed that 51 of the studies in the pool were appropriate and 20 were not. The
descriptive statistics of the 51 studies included in the analysis are presented in
Table 11.1.
The criteria for inclusion of the studies into the analysis were identified as
following:
• To have the statistical information necessary for correlational meta-analysis
(n and r, or R2 values),
• To be a study measuring the correlation between school culture and student
achievement.
Reasons for not including a study in the meta-analysis:
• Having no quantitative data (qualitative study),
• Not having a correlation coefficient,
• Not focusing on school culture,
• Not focusing on student achievement.

11.2.3 Coding Process

The coding process is essentially a data sorting process, which is used to obtain
convenient data suitable for the study out of complex information. In this scope, a
coding form was developed before the statistical analysis and the coding was
carried out according to the form. The purpose was to develop a specific coding
system which allowed the researcher to see the studies as a whole in general and
188 M. Koçyiğit

also he would not miss any characteristics of each individual study. The coding
form developed in the study comprised of:
• Reference of the study
• Type of study
• Sample group
• School subject/assessment type
• Data collection tool(s)
• Year
• Country
• Sub-dimensions of school culture
• Quantitative values (n and r, or R2).

11.2.4 Statistical Processes

The effect size acquired in meta-analysis is a standard measure value used in the
determination of the strength and direction of the relationship in the study
(Borenstein et al. 2009). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was determined to be
the effect size in this study. Because the correlation coefficient has a value between
+1 and −1, the r value calculated was evaluated by converting this value into the
value as it appears in the z table (Hedges and Olkin 1985). Provided that more than
one correlation value is given between the same structure categories in correlational
meta-analysis studies, two different approaches are used in the determination of the
one to be used in the meta-analysis (Borenstein et al. 2009; Kulinskaya et al. 2008).
For this study, (i) first, if the correlations were independent, all the related corre-
lations were included in the analysis and were considered to be independent studies,
and (ii) if there were dependent correlations, then the highest correlation value was
accepted. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis processes in this
study. The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program was used in the meta-analysis
process.

11.2.5 Moderator Variables

To determine the statistical significance between the moderators of the study, only
the Qb values were used. Eight moderator variables which were thought to have a
role on average impact size were identified in the study. The first of these con-
sidered is the type of publication as a moderator in regards to the relationship
between school culture and student achievement. The second is the sample group
which was thought to have a role on the average impact of school culture on student
achievement. The rest are the school subject/assessment type, data collection tools,
years of the studies, country, and sub-dimensions of school culture.
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 189

11.2.6 Publication Bias

A funnel plot to present the evidence of an effect due to possible publication bias for
the studies included in the meta-analysis can be seen in Fig. 11.1. A significant
asymmetry would be expected in the funnel plot if there is a publication bias. The
concentration of plots for the studies compiling on one side under the line of average
impact size, especially at the bottom section of the funnel, suggests the probability of
a publication bias. In this study, although the plots for the studies seem to con-
centrate on one side of the funnel, no evidence of publication bias was observed for
the studies subjected to meta-analysis as the plots being not near to the bottom.
As the plots for the studies seem to concentrate on one side of the funnel in the
funnel plot, the results of Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill test, which is applied to
determine the impact quantity related to partiality in publications, acquired with the
meta-analysis using the random effect model, is also given in Table 11.2 As it can
be seen in Table 11.2, there is no difference between the observed impact and

Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Fisher's Z

0,0

0,1

0,2
Standard Error

0,3

0,4

0,5

-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Fisher's Z

Fig. 11.1 Impact size funnel for publication bias

Table 11.2 Duval Tweedie Trim-Fill test results

Excluded Point CI (Confidence Interval) Q
studies estimate Lower Upper
limit limit
Observed 0,80 0,26 0,66 51215,9749
values
Corrected 0 0,80 0,26 0,66 51215,9749
values
190 M. Koçyiğit

artificial impact quantity created to fix the impact resulting from the publication bias
as the difference between the fixed impact quantity and observed impact quantity is
zero. It can be concluded that there is no evidence of publication bias for this study.

11.3 Findings

Table 11.3 shows the results of meta-analysis which investigated the relationship
between school culture and student achievement. The findings supported hypothesis
H1 which argues that there is a positive relationship between school culture and
student achievement. The impact value of school culture on student achievement
was calculated to be 0.49 (p < .01). This result shows that school culture has a
medium level effect (see Cohen 1988) on student achievement.
The results of the moderator analysis showed that hypothesis H2 regarding the
effect of the type of publication on the level of impact of school culture on student
achievement was rejected. According to the results of the moderator analysis, the
impact level differences between the publication types were found to be statistically
insignificant. (Qb = 0.03, p > .05). Despite this finding, the effect was of a medium
level for both theses [r = .48, p < .01] and articles [r = .53].
The findings did not provide support for hypothesis H3 which stated that the
sample group plays a moderator role on the effect of school culture on student
achievement. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the
level of the effect of sample group (Qb = 1.37, p > .05), a medium level impact of
sample group on student achievement was found for 3–12th grade students [r = .65,
p < .01], instructional staff [r = .40], principals [r = .35], schools [r = .52],
teachers [r = .45, p < .01] and teachers and administrators [r = .48].
Findings rejected the hypothesis H4 which formulated that school subject or
assessment type is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on student
achievement. The moderator analysis did not find a statistically significant differ-
ence between the level of impact of subject/assessment (Qb = 7.01, p > .05).
Although statistically insignificant, the impact levels of the variables were found as
following: C.A.T [r = .50], Communication Arts [r = .48], FCAT [r = .09], G.P.A
[r = −.16], 9–10th grade annual results [r = .08], HKCEE best 6 subjects [r = .18],
Language Arts [r = .05], Maths [r = .54, p < .05], Mississippi QDI [r = .93], Ohio
6th Grade P.T. [r = .22], Reading [r = .62, p < .01], Reading and ELA [r = .42],
SBS [r = .88], Science [r = .42], SIVS [r = .74], Social Studies [r = .32], SPS
[r = .05], TES [r = .39], TIMSS [r = .71] and Writing [r = .61].
The findings supported hypothesis H5, which stated that the tools of data col-
lection is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on student achieve-
ment. The moderator analysis found a statistically significant difference between the
impact values of data collection tools regarding student achievement (Qb = 374.86,
p < .01). The impact levels of the variables were found as following:
Cunningham’s (2003) SCS [r = .40, p < .05], ELS:2002 [r = .96, p < .01], Gay
(2002) [r = .075], OCQ Feitler and Gudgel (1994) [r = .22], Own [r = .35, p < .01],
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 191

Table 11.3 Findings of the correlations between school culture and student achievement: results
of meta-analysis
Variable k N R CI (confidence Q Qb
interval)
Lower Upper
limit limit
School culture 51 66391 .49** .26 .66 51215,98*
Moderator [type of publication] 0.03
Thesis 44 53178 .48** .24 .66
Article 7 13213 .53 −.10 .85
Moderator [Sample group] 1.37
3–12th grade students 8 44665 .65** .27 .86
Instructional staff 1 343 .40 −.77 .95
Principals 6 518 .35 −.22 .75
Schools 4 158 .52 −.17 .87
Teachers 26 14161 .45** .20 .65
Teachers and administrators 6 6546 .48 −.07 .80
Moderator [subject-assessment] 7.01
C.A.T 1 760 .50 −.83 .98
Communication arts 3 856 .48 −.45 .91
FCAT 2 518 .09 −.81 .87
G.P.A 1 644 −.16 −.96 .92
9–10th grade annual results 1 630 .08 −.93 .95
HKCEE best 6 subjects 1 152 .20 −.91 .96
Language arts 5 8090 .05 −.62 .68
Maths 13 23935 .54* .12 .80
Mississippi QDI 1 216 .93 −.10 .10
Ohio 6th grade P.T. 1 749 .22 −.91 .96
Reading 11 21089 .62** .20 .85
Reading and ELA 1 60 .42 −.86 .98
SBS 1 291 .88 −.35 .10
Science 2 113 .42 −.68 .94
SIVS 1 9 .74 −.74 .99
Social studies 1 100 .32 −.89 .97
SPS 1 356 .05 −.93 .95
TES 1 4949 .39 −.87 .97
TIMSS 1 1026 .71 −.68 .99
Writing 2 1848 .61 −.49 .96
Moderator [data collection tool] 374.86**
Cunningham’s (2003) SCS 1 343 .40* .09 .64
ELS:2002 2 32394 .96** .94 .97
Gay (2002) 1 630 .08 −.24 .38
1 749 .21 −.10 .49
(continued)
192 M. Koçyiğit

Table 11.3 (continued)

Variable k N R CI (confidence Q Qb
interval)
Lower Upper
limit limit
OCQ Feitler and Gudgel
(1994)
Own 9 7535 .35** .24 .46
RSCEQ Olivier (2001) 1 356 .05 −.27 .36
School analysis model 2000 2 4890 −.67** −.78 −.53
(SAM)
School work culture profile 2 310 .53** .33 .68
(SWCP) Snyder (1988)
SCS 25 16023 .57** .52 .61
SCTS Phillips (1996) 3 1256 .61** .48 .72
SCTS Wagner (2006) 1 60 .71** .45 .86
SIQ-II (Webb and Pajares 1 175 −.25 −.54 .10
1996)
SISI standard four school 1 644 −.16 −.45 .16
culture
TIMSS background 1 1026 .71** .52 .84
Moderator [years] k N R Lower Upper 18.72*
limit limit
1996–2000 5 5349 .31 −.12 .64
2001–2005 14 19780 .23 −.02 .46
2006–2010 23 7247 .48** .31 .62
2011–2015 9 34015 .81** .67 .90
Moderator [country] k N R Lower Upper 1.29
Limit Limit
Australia 1 4949 .39 −.91 .98
Belgium 1 817 .26 −.93 .98
Cyprus 1 1026 .71 −.77 .99
Hong Kong 1 152 .20 −.94 .97
Pakistan 1 630 .08 −.95 .96
The USA 45 58526 .49** .24 .67
Turkey 1 291 .89 −.50 .10
Moderator [school culture k N R Lower Upper 1.94
sub-dimension] limit limit
Academic emphasis 1 817 .26 −.92 .97
Collaboration leadership 1 632 .56 −.85 .99
Collegial support 2 515 .52 −.64 .96
Culture and climate 4 159 .48 −.41 .90
Education culture 1 4949 .39 −.90 .98
Learning partnership 15 13837 .50** .06 .77
(continued)
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 193

Table 11.3 (continued)

Variable k N R CI (confidence Q Qb
interval)
Lower Upper
limit limit
Overall 16 42354 .49** .06 .76
Perception of culture 1 60 .71 −.76 .99
Professional commitment 1 356 .05 −.95 .96
Professional development 1 291 .88 −.46 .10
Program development 2 310 .53 −.63 .96
Student attitudes 1 1026 .71 −.75 .99
Teacher efficacy 2 218 .10 −.84 .89
Teamwork and cooperation 1 749 .22 −.93 .97
Unity of purpose 2 118 .48 −.67 .95
*p < .05, **p < .01

RSCEQ Olivier (2001) [r = .05], School Analysis Model 2000 (SAM) [r = −.67,
p < .01], School Work Culture Profile (SWCP) Snyder (1988) [r = .53, p < .01],
SCS [r = .57, p < .01], SCTS Phillips (1996) [r = .61, p < .01], SCTS Wagner
(2006) [r = .71, p < .01], SIQ-II (Webb and Pajares 1996) [r = −.25], SISI
Standard Four School Culture [r = −.16] and TIMSS background [r = .71,
p < .01].
Hypothesis H6 which argued that the year of the studies is a moderator for the
positive effect of school culture on student achievement was accepted as a result of
the findings of the moderator analysis (Qb = 18.72, p < .01). The impact levels of
the variables were found as following: 1996–2000 [r = −.31], 2001–2005 [r = .23],
2006–2010 [r = .48, p < .01] and 2011–2015 [r = .81, p < .01].
The findings didn’t support hypothesis H7 which stated that the country in which
the research took place is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on
student achievement (Qb = 1.29, p > .05). The impact levels of the variables were
as follows: Australia [r = .39], Belgium [r = .26], Cyprus [r = .71], Hong Kong
[r = .20], Pakistan [r = .08], the USA [r = .49, p < .01] and Turkey [r = .88].
The findings didn’t support hypothesis H8 which suggested that the dimensions
of school culture is a moderator for the positive effect of school culture on student
achievement (Qb = 1.94, p >05). The findings were as follows: Academic
Emphasis [r = .26], Collaboration leadership [r = .56], Collegial support [r = .52],
Culture and climate [r = .48], Education culture [r = .39], Learning partnership
[r = .50, p < .05], Overall [r = .49, p < .05], Perception of culture [r = .71],
Professional commitment [r = .05], Professional development [r = .88], Program
development [r = .53], Student attitudes [r = .71], Teacher efficacy [r = .10],
Teamwork and cooperation [r = .22] and Unity of purpose [r = .48].
194 M. Koçyiğit

11.4 Conclusion

This study which collected data from 51 studies including a total sample of 66,391
subjects examined the effect of school culture on student achievement, and the
findings indicate that there is a positive relationship between school culture and
student achievement. The impact value of school culture on student achievement
was found to be .49. This result shows that school culture has a medium level effect
on student achievement. According to the results of the moderator analysis, data
collection tools and the year of the studies are moderators for the positive effect of
school culture on student achievement.
The results of the moderator analysis also showed that the type of the publica-
tion, the sample group, school subject or assessment type, the country that the
research took place in and the dimensions of school culture are not moderators for
the positive effect of school culture on student achievement.
The result of this study is compatible with the studies found in the related
literature (Brown 2005; Cunningham 2003; Fraley 2007; Gruenert 2005; Swindler
2009) which indicate that there is a correlation between the school culture and
student achievement. In his meta-analysis study on the mediated effects of principal
leadership on student achievement, Bulris (2009) examined the effect size of school
culture on student achievement. He included 30 studies and 3,378 schools in his
study and found that there is a strong moderate effect between school culture and
student achievement in K-12 schools in the United States (r = .349) and that school
culture is a significant mediating variable between principal leadership and student
achievement. The findings of this study support the findings of Bulris as well.

References

Note. “*” References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. The
in-text citations to studies selected for meta-analysis are not followed by asterisks.
Alvesson, M. (1990). On the popularity of organizational culture. Acta Sociologica, 33(1), 31–49.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Great Britain: SAGE Publications.
Bates, R. J. (1987). Corporate culture, schooling, and educational administration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 23(4), 79–115.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to
meta-analysis. UK: Wiley.
Boyer, D. P. (2012). A study of the relationship between the servant leader principal on school
culture and student achievement in the lower Kuskokwim school district. Doctoral dissertation,
Grand Canyon University, Arizona, the USA.*
Broadway, K. (2010). Student achievement: Impact of teacher certification method, school climate
and culture, and level of support experienced by first-year teachers. Doctoral dissertation,
Texas A&M University-Commerce, the USA.*
Brown, K. L. Z. (2005). An examination of the relationship between school culture and student
achievement on Ohio sixth-grade proficiency tests. Doctoral dissertation, Kent State
University, the USA.*
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 195

Bulris, M. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of research on the mediated effects of principal leadership

on student achievement: examining the effect size of school culture on student achievement as
an indicator of teacher effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation, East Carolina University, the USA.
Chow, S. S. Y. (2006). Understanding moral culture in Hong Kong secondary schools:
Relationships among moral norm, moral culture, academic achievement motivation, and
empathy. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, the USA.*
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, B. C. A. (2003). A study of the relationship between school culture and student
achievement. Doctoral dissertation, the University of Central Florida Orlando, the USA.*
Deal, Terrence E., & Peterson, Kent D. (2009). Shaping school culture pitfalls, paradoxes, and
promises (2nd ed.). USA: Jossey-Bass.
Dumay, X. (2009). Origins and consequences of schools’ organizational culture for student
achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 523–555.*
Feitler, F. C. & Gudgel, R. B. (1994). Organizational culture questionnaire. Teaching,
Leadership, and Curriculum Studies. Kent, OH: Kent State University.
Fraley, C. A. (2007) School cultures and their correlations with student achievement: An analysis
of schools that have improved. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, the USA.*
Gay, L. R. (2002). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Lahore:
National Book Foundation
Gruenert, S. (2005). Correlations of collaborative school cultures with student achievement.
NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 43–55.*
Gruenert S. W. (1998). Development of a school culture survey. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Missouri-Columbia, the USA.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (1998). A three-perspective approach to understanding culture in
retail organizations. Personnel Review, 27(2), 104–123.
Hatchett, D. Y. (2010). The impact of school culture, teacher job satisfaction, and student
attendance rates on academic achievement of middle school students. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Louisville, Kentucky, the USA.*
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical method for meta-analysis. United Kingdom:
Academic Press.
Herndon, B. C. (2007) An analysis of the relationships between servant leadership, school culture,
and student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, the USA.*
Hill, T. L. (2000). The influence of gender and professional orientation of the elementary principal
on school culture and student success. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri—
Columbia, the USA.*
Karadağ, E., Kılıçoğlu, G. & Yılmaz, D. (2014). Organizational cynicism, school culture, and
academic achievement: the study of structural equation modeling. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 14(1), 102–113.*
Koçyiğit, M. (2015). The effect of leadership on organizational culture. In K. Engin (Ed.),
Leadership and organizational outcomes, meta—Analysis of empirical studies, (pp. 111–122).
Springer International Publishing.
Kulinskaya, E., Morgenthaler, S., & Staudte, R. G. (2008). Meta analysis: A guide to calibrating
and combining statistical evidence. London: Wiley.
Lamphere Jr., M. F. (2012). Student achievement through the development of complete high school
culture. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, the USA.*
Le Clear, E. A. (2005). Relationships among leadership styles, school culture, and student
achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, the USA.*
Liu, C. B. (2004). The relationship between school culture and student achievement in Arizona
elementary public schools. Doctoral dissertation, the University of Arizona, the USA.*
Lorraine, R. R. D. O. (2011). A study of the relationship between teachers’ perception of
principal’s leadership practices and school culture to student achievement. Doctoral
dissertation, Southeastern Louisiana University, Louisiana, the USA.*
196 M. Koçyiğit

Marcoulides, G. A., Heck, R. H., & Papanastasiou, C. (2005). Student perceptions of school
culture and achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(2), 140–152.*
Maslowski, R. (2006). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of
Educational Administration, 44(1), 6–35.
Mees, G. W. (2008). The relationships among principal leadership, school culture, and student
achievement in Missouri middle schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri,
Columbia, the USA.*
Mitchell, B. D. (2008). A quantitative study on positive school culture and student achievement on a
criterion-referenced competency test. Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, The USA.*
Mok, M. & Flynn, M. (1998). Effect of catholic school culture on students’ achievement in the
higher school certificate examination: A multilevel path analysis. Educational Psychology, 18
(4), 409–432.*
Myers, K. (2009). The impact of teachers’ perceptions of school culture on student achievement.
Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, the USA.*
Noe, J. (2012). The relationship between principal’s emotional intelligence quotient, school
culture, and student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University, VA, the USA.*
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2002a). Organizational culture: A ten year, two-phase study of change
in the UK food retailing sector. Journal of Management Studies 39(5), 673–706.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2002b). Managing organisational culture: Insights from the hospitality
industry. Human Resource Management Journal 12(1).
Olivier, D. F. (2001). Teacher personal and school culture characteristics in effective schools:
Toward a model of professional learning communities (Doctoral dissertation).
Phillips, G. (1996). Classroom rituals for at-risk learners. Vancouver, BC: Edcserv, British
Columbia School Trustees Publishing.
Powell, A. L. (2012). The effects of workplace incivility, workplace bullying, and school culture on
student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Kentucky, the USA.*
Quiambao, J. E. (2004). An analysis and comparison of school culture with academic achievement
of middle school students with specific learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Central Florida Orlando, the USA.*
Quin, J. L. (2014). The relationship between leadership practices, school culture, and student
achievement in southwest Mississippi schools. Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University,
Arizona, the USA.*
Rodriguez, S. (2008). A study of the relationships among leadership, culture, and student
achievement in catholic schools. Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, the USA.*
Rogers, J. K. (2009). The relationship between school culture and student academic achievement.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, the USA.*
Salfi, N. A. & Saeed, M. (2007). Relationship among school size, school culture and students’
achievement at secondary level in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management,
21(7), 606–620.*
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2011). Leadership vision, organizational culture, and
support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 291–309.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). USA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, S. L. (2007). The relationship between school culture and student achievement in a large
urban school district. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi, the USA.*
Snyder, K. J. (1988). Pluralizing empowerment supervising groups of teachers. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Spies-Daley, S. (2004). An examination of the relationship between leadership, cultures, climate,
and student achievement in low performing inclusive population schools. Doctoral dissertation,
University of New Orleans, the USA.*
Swindler, N. H. (2009). Middle school cultures and student achievement. Doctoral dissertation,
The University of Southern Mississippi, the USA.*
11 The Effect of School Culture on Student Achievement 197

Vislocky, K. L. (2005). The relationship between school culture and student achievement in
middle schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, the USA.*
Wagner, C. R. (2006). The school leader’s tool for assessing and improving school culture.
Principal Leadership, 7(4), 41–44.
Webb, R. B., & Pajares, F. (1996). School improvement questionnaire. Gainesville, FL: Center for
School Improvement, University of Florida.