, HED4812 ASSIGNMENT 2 2026 ANSWERS - DUE DATE JUNE 2026
QUESTION 1:
How does school leader trust directly influence collective teacher innovativeness in fostering
school improvement? (15)
School leader trust directly influences collective teacher innovativeness by creating a
supportive relational environment where teachers feel valued, psychologically safe, and
empowered to engage in collaborative innovation. When principals demonstrate trust in
teachers’ professional competence and judgement, they reduce excessive control, monitoring,
and bureaucratic pressure that often restricts creativity in schools. This shift from control-
based leadership to trust-based leadership encourages teachers to take instructional risks,
share emerging ideas, and participate in joint problem-solving aimed at improving teaching
and learning outcomes. In such a trust-rich environment, innovation becomes a shared
professional responsibility rather than an isolated activity, which strengthens collective
engagement in school improvement processes. Dedering and Pietsch (2025) emphasise that
trust is a foundational condition for developing a school culture where experimentation and
collaboration can thrive.
In addition, school leader trust directly enhances collective teacher innovativeness by
strengthening psychological safety within the school. Psychological safety refers to the
shared belief that teachers can express ideas, question existing practices, and experiment with
new approaches without fear of blame or negative consequences. When school leaders trust
teachers, they communicate respect and confidence in their abilities, which encourages open
dialogue and deeper collaboration among staff members. This openness is essential for
collective innovation because it allows teachers to share challenges, reflect on unsuccessful
practices, and co-develop improved instructional strategies. Over time, this builds strong
professional learning communities where knowledge is continuously exchanged and refined,
leading to sustained school improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Edmondson, 1999).
QUESTION 1:
How does school leader trust directly influence collective teacher innovativeness in fostering
school improvement? (15)
School leader trust directly influences collective teacher innovativeness by creating a
supportive relational environment where teachers feel valued, psychologically safe, and
empowered to engage in collaborative innovation. When principals demonstrate trust in
teachers’ professional competence and judgement, they reduce excessive control, monitoring,
and bureaucratic pressure that often restricts creativity in schools. This shift from control-
based leadership to trust-based leadership encourages teachers to take instructional risks,
share emerging ideas, and participate in joint problem-solving aimed at improving teaching
and learning outcomes. In such a trust-rich environment, innovation becomes a shared
professional responsibility rather than an isolated activity, which strengthens collective
engagement in school improvement processes. Dedering and Pietsch (2025) emphasise that
trust is a foundational condition for developing a school culture where experimentation and
collaboration can thrive.
In addition, school leader trust directly enhances collective teacher innovativeness by
strengthening psychological safety within the school. Psychological safety refers to the
shared belief that teachers can express ideas, question existing practices, and experiment with
new approaches without fear of blame or negative consequences. When school leaders trust
teachers, they communicate respect and confidence in their abilities, which encourages open
dialogue and deeper collaboration among staff members. This openness is essential for
collective innovation because it allows teachers to share challenges, reflect on unsuccessful
practices, and co-develop improved instructional strategies. Over time, this builds strong
professional learning communities where knowledge is continuously exchanged and refined,
leading to sustained school improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Edmondson, 1999).
