Randomized trial analyzes the mediating role of psychological safety in enhancing teacher innovation in Chinese schools, indicating its importance.
In China, K–12 teachers are expected to innovate in their classrooms increasingly due to the shift of education toward creativity, problem-solving, and adaptable teaching methods. But, not much is known about how principal instructional leadership helps teachers to behave innovatively and under what school conditions it becomes stronger. Based on the theories of Social Cognitive Theory and Social Exchange Theory, this study analyzed the mediation effect of psychological safety between principal instructional leadership and teacher innovative behavior, and the strengthening effect of collective teacher efficacy on the principal instructional leadership to psychological safety to innovative behavior path. The data gathered from the respondents were analyzed by partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS software from in-service teachers in grades K-12 across Nanjing, Wuhan, Xi'an and Hangzhou. The results indicated that the principal's instructional leadership had a positive relationship with the innovative behavior of teachers, and it was a strong influence on the psychological safety of teachers. Psychological safety, in turn, was a critical process which fostered teachers' generation, promotion, and implementation of new instructional ideas through instructional leadership. Results also reveal that collective teacher efficacy amplified the link between psychological safety and teacher innovative behavior, meaning that teachers are more likely to turn a safe climate into innovation when they feel confident in their ability to work together to enhance teaching and learning. Based on the study, the researcher learns that PS is an important mediating process, and the collective teacher efficacy is an important contextual amplifier in the teaching work of Chinese K–12 schools, which enriches the research on teaching practice and innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: