CHAPTER I

Introduction

Background of the Study

In today’s era of heightened expectations, school heads are in the hot seat to ensure effective

and excellent educational outcomes. Consequently, School heads in their roles as schools’ leaders are

responsible for instruction and expected to develop practices that lead to increased student

performance. This has led to greater accountability for school heads to focus on instructional leadership

and for teachers to collaborate as these two aspects are fundamental characteristics of effective schools.

Based on my observation, with school improvement as a primary responsibility of school heads and

shared by assistant school head, identifying, and understanding instructional leadership practices that

lead to school improvement is paramount. Additionally, a school leader needs to not only be aware of

their impact through instructional leadership practices but also be engaged in self-reflection to better

understand their own instructional leadership practices. School heads are the leaders who impact the

direction of schools through their thinking, practices, and relationships reiterating the idea of leaders

thinking in the long term, looking outside as well as inside, to influence constituents is vital.

I have been observing that the common intervention of school heads within central schools

classified as effective and successful include noting examination of assessment results, work driven by

clear morals and ethical values, respect and trust of and among staff and parents, varied learning

opportunities, and use of data as related strategies of instructional leadership practices. Thus, according

to Mulford & Silins, (2011) successful school heads are those with qualities of intuition, knowledge,

and strategy with practices that promote cultures of learning, engagement, and increased student

achievement. Successful school heads impact student outcomes through an interactive process

dependent upon core values and beliefs. Furthermore, outcomes related to academic achievement,
social development, and student empowerment were found to be factors influenced by instructional

leadership as well as evaluation, capacity building, and student social skill development served as

common factors in successful schools.

As accountability of schools continues to increase, school improvement jumps to the forefront

of practice with school heads, revealing a need to improve teaching and learning practices that impact

learning outcomes and school improvement. Identifying such tasks as instructional leadership practices

allowed school head to align their tasks to those that enhance school improvement. A measure of

school head intervention helped determine how a school heads perceives their influence on school

improvement through their instructional leadership practices. Gaining a more comprehensive

understanding of instructional leadership practices through leadership of school heads in identifying

areas of strength and areas for improvement and provides guidance in seeking professional learning

opportunities to develop instructional practices intended to attain school improvement.

Thus, understanding school heads’ intervention on instructional leadership warrants further

research. The goal of this study was to identify the school heads intervention on instructional leadership

of P. PALMA Areas and its level of instructional leadership. More specifically this study examined the

significant relationship of school head intervention and instructional leadership.

Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to answer the following question:

1. What is the school head intervention on instructional leadership of P. PALMA areas?

2. What is the level of school head intervention on instructional leadership of P. PALMA areas?

3. What is the significant relationship of school head intervention and instructional leadership?
 Review of Related Literature

To fully understand the relationship of school heads intervention on instructional leadership, I

examined the literature on instructional leadership, the school head intervention regarding instructional

leadership. Reviewing these concepts related to the school heads intervention on instructional

leadership highlighted how such practices predict leadership provided a better understanding of what a

school leader needs when working toward school improvement.

The Concept of Instructional Leadership

The concept of instructional leadership has been widely studied in the 1980s and 1990s

(Hallinger, 2000, 2003). There are various models and concepts that exist to explain instructional

leadership. Among the instructional leadership models and theories can be referred to as the Hallinger

and Murphy Models (1985), Model Weber (1996), Model Murphy (1990), and Mc Ewan Model

(2009). Hallinger and Murphy (1985) define instructional leadership as principals' behaviors aimed at

promoting and improving the process of teaching and learning in schools involving teachers, students,

parents, school planning, school management, school facilities and resources. Many instructional

leadership researchers make Model Hallinger and Murphy (1985) as the main reference (Nor Azni,

2015; Jamelaa, 2012; Yusri, 2012; Premavathy, 2010; Sukarmin, 2010; Wan Roslina, 2011; Brown and

Chai, 2012; Lyons, 2010; Mattar, 2012; Peariso, 2011). Based on this model there are three dimensions

in instructional leadership activities, namely determining school missions, managing instructional

programs and creating school learning environment. While instructional leadership subdimensions in

this model include eleven leadership functions, which include drawing on school goals, explaining

school goals, supervising and evaluating teaching, coordinating curriculum, monitoring student

progress, assure instructional time, maintaining learning support, providing incentives for teachers,

enforcing academic standards, promote professional development and provide incentives for learning.

Based on this model, Philip Hallinger built the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale

(PIMRS) Instrument that has been applied in more than 175 worldwide surveys (Hallinger, 2013). To
improve this model, Hallinger renamed the model and instructional leadership concepts of Hallinger

and Murphy (1985) models. According to him, the concept of instructional leadership is still in line

with the needs and requirements of policy, research and management and practice of school leadership.

Hence, the assessment on the extent of instructional leadership practice by principle in every school

should be identified in the effort to produce high-impact leaders.

The School Head as Instructional Leaders

School heads are the leaders who impact the direction of schools through their decision making,

engaging of instructional and managerial practices, and building relationships. Multiple studies have

revealed the positive connection school head have to impact the instructional programs of schools

(Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Goolamally & Ahmad, 2014). School Heads, by title and position, serve

as the individuals who provide direction, influence, and support to teachers, staff, and students, and

many often consider principals the primary leaders of their schools. Yet, a school head is not the sole

influencer of a school. In fact, the idea of instructional leadership extends to others like teacher leaders,

instructional coaches, and assistant principals. Principals cannot accomplish the full task of school

leadership alone, and the presence and support from individuals such as assistant principals enable

principals to meet school improvement goals through shared instructional leadership practices (Mercer,

2016).

The Relationship between School Heads Intervention and Instructional Leadership

Policymakers and policy practitioners believe that instructional leadership is a key factor in

making effective schools (Hallinger, 2011) because the concept of instructional leadership (Hallinger,

2003; Hallinger, Taraseina, & Miller, 1994) is based on effective school research, implementation of

change and school improvement conducted in various countries by Edmonds (1979), Leithwood et al.

(1989), Heck et al. (1990) and Rutter et al. (1979). In this regard, the practice was also emphasized by

the Ministry of Education (MOE) in the school leaders to ensure excellence in schools. The Malaysian
Quality Standards introduced by the Inspectorate and Quality Assurance stipulates that principals in

Malaysian schools serve as instructional leaders, principals leading the implementation of the

curriculum and creating a learning environment that encourages the adoption learning culture among

students (2010). In the Malaysian Education Quality Standards wave 2 (KPM, 2017), the role of

principals as instructional leaders is still emphasized in spearheading instructional activities at schools

in ensuring the success of all the three waves in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 21st -century 2013-

2025. Hoy and Hoy (2003) reinforce the importance of instructional leadership by stating that the main

function of the school is to be related to the teaching and learning process, while the other is the second

any aspect. As such, being instructional leaders, principals need to prioritize action to improve the

quality of teaching and learning which is the main thrust of the school.

The quality teaching has a significant relationship with the level of instructional leadership

practices practiced by school leaders. Most studies studying the relationship between instructional

leadership and the quality of teacher teaching found significant relationship between the two (Ahmad

Fauzi Ahmad, 2014; Mohd Yusri, 2012; Zahara and Suria, 2011; Che Bahaman, 2010; Roshilah,

2010; , 2009; Sazali, Rusmini, Abang Hut and Zamri, 2007). The findings of Mohd Yusri and Aziz

(2014) show that instructional leadership has a positive relationship and contributes significantly to

teachers' teaching competence (CR = 7.635,0.349, p = 0.00). This is also evidenced by the findings of

Mat Rahimi and Mohd Yusri (2015) findings that the principal instructional leadership of principals

contributes significantly to the teaching competence of teachers. Teachers are the main implementing

agencies of teaching and learning in the classroom. The influence of instructional leaders on improving

the quality of teaching of teachers can affect the learning of students. In addition, based on the research

synthesis conducted by Hallinger on the leadership models studied (2011), he found that instructional

leadership also had a great impact on student learning. The findings of Abdul Ghani and Anandan

(2012), Zahara & Suria (2011) and Quah (2011) also show that instructional leadership practices

contribute to the quality of student learning. Instructional leadership has a stronger influence on student
learning than transformational leadership (Abdul Ghani and Anandan, 2012). In line with this

importance, instructional leadership practices play a major role in achieving the main goal of the school

in improving student success.

School Head Intervention on Instructional Leadership

Lately, most organizations need to perform changes including in the field of education

(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Khalid & Norhafezah, 2011; Santhidran et al., 2013). Education changes

are aimed at improving the quality of existing education in order to provide quality human capital in

the future (MEB, 2013). In this regard, the school should be wholly involved in ensuring the education

changes implemented achieve its aim in terms of attitude, thoughts, values and practices for these

changes have an impact on the situation of teaching and learning, the situation classroom environment

in addition to the role of teachers and students (Tan, 2010). However, the previous researchers found

that the changes in an organization is hard to be implemented (Hallinger, 2009; Fullan, 2007; Schein,

1996). Thus, school leaders need to serve as a effective spearheader`s to move the teachers to achieve

the desired aim. Ability of the leadership can affect any changes and innovation in the organization

(Tai, 2013; Jamelaa, 2012; Izani, 2012; Mohammed Sani & Izham, 2012; Leithwood & Strauss, 2009;

Hoy and Miskel, 2008; Fullan, 2007). Most of previous researchers found that leadership is often

associated with changes is instructional leadership. School leaders who practice leadership instructional

are found to have a positive relationship with the implementation of changes in education in Malaysia

(Nor Azni, 2015; Shafinaz, 2014; Rahimi, 2014; Yusri, 2012; Jameela, 2012; Rohilah, 2010; Azhan,

2009). Therefore, this leadership practice is continually emphasized in perform any education changes

till nowadays.

As transformational, the leaders should create a willingness to change in school. Thus, the

principal, as chief must first be ready to accept changes. Willingness to change is the first change phase

based on Model Changes Kurt Lewin (1951) which should be addressed to ensure resistance to change

is minimized. Organization will fail in their attempts to manage the changes effectively if the members
of organization are not ready to change even in the first stage of changes (Armenakis et al., 1999).

Hallinger (2003) concluded that when teachers consider that the practice of instructional leadership is

an appropriate practiced in implementing changes, they will carry out changes and in fact will become

more committed to perform such changes as described by Sheppard (1996). The role of the

instructional leadership as a reference can help teachers who are faced with confusion and problems in

the implementation of changes in school.

The practice of instructional leadership by principals is much needed to influence teachers`

behaviour in improving the quality of teaching and learning as well as implementing effective

academic management so the teachers can teach effectively (Alimuddin, 2010). Simin et al., (2015)

who run the study of instructional leadership among principals in vocational and technic schools in

Kuala Lumpur found out that the principals practicing instructional leadership are one of the factors

that influences the behavior of teachers. However, it is not easy to urge the teachers to move away from

their status quo. Thus, the instructional leader should creating school environment conducive as well as

providing a significant impact in guaranting students excellence (Alimuddin, 2010). Previous findings

found that principals practicing instructional leadership can create a safe and conducive learning

environment through the collaboration between teachers, students and community as provide

opportunities for students to learn, promoting cooperation with teachers, students and local

communities (Jameela, 2012). While Shafinaz (2017) and Yusri (2012) found that the efficacy of

teachers can also be increased with practice of instructional leadership to manage education changes.

With high efficacy in education changes, teachers will be more prepared to accept changes. When the

teachers` efficacy is successfully influenced by instructional leadership, the commitment of teachers

also can be improved. Azni (2015) found that there a positive relationship between instructional

leadership and teachers` commitment to implement the school-based assessment. As such, the

importance of instructional leadership cannot be denied because this practice shows a positive
relationship with teachers attitude. Principals and teachers as change agents in school should implement

education changes that contribute to develop the potential and performance of the student optimally.

Theoretical Background

The role that school heads play in schools is a determinant factor for the development of all its

members. They are largely responsible for creating the necessary conditions that support both teaching

and learning (Hallinger, 2018), thus they must establish, adapt and encourage instructional quality

(OECD, 2016a). McHenry (2009) states: “although teachers are the key players in the act of

collaboration, school leaders have an important responsibility to foster an environment in which

collaboration can be successful” (p. 95). Their leadership role is a fundamental element of schools

wanting to be more effective in educating its students, as through their leadership, teachers’

motivations and abilities are positively influenced, which ultimately will result in improved school

outcomes (Pont et al., 2008). It is expected that principals are leaders of instruction (Zepeda et al.,

2017). It must be stressed, however, that this is not an easy feat to accomplish, given that by shifting to

an instructional model, principals have to take more responsibilities to improve instruction and still stay

in a managing role capacity, which will put inevitably more pressure on them (Timperley, 2005).

Furthermore, in the current school reform climate a tension between principals’ autonomy and

accountability arises with a tendency to have more of the latter (Steinberg, 2013), which may be an

obstacle for principals to reach their goals, since schools which have a mixture of both of them have

been identified to have better student performance (OECD, 2011). 

A growing body of research suggests that student achievement can be substantially influenced

by principals and school leadership (cf. Marzano et al., 2005; Dhuey and Smith, 2014). However, a

direct influence is rather unlikely. For instance, Gaziel (2007), in a study conducted in 32 secondary

schools in Israel, came to the conclusion that IL influences teachers and school culture directly but its

impact upon student achievement is indirect. Goddard et al. (2010) came to a similar conclusion as they
found significant direct effects of leadership on teacher collaboration and of teacher collaboration on

student achievement. These conclusions are complemented by Bush and Glover (2002) as they state

that student learning is accomplished through teachers and also by Leithwood et al. (2008) who write:

“school leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly” (p. 32). However, the influence that

principals have depends largely on the style of leadership adopted; furthermore, the context determines

to a great extent how good it can be (Hallinger, 2003).

Although several forms of leadership have been identified (cf. Bush, 1995; Leithwood et al.,

1999; Bush and Glover, 2002), the literature differentiates between two major, predominant forms

namely: instructional and transformational leadership (Hattie, 2008; Robinson et al., 2008). From these

two forms, according to Bush (2013), instructional is “the longest established concept linking

leadership and learning” (p. 6). The main difference between these two forms is that principals who

exercise a transformational style do not guide curriculum and instruction, and student learning is not

supervised, whereas principals with an instructional style take care that student learning is supervised,

and additionally enforce professional development activities as well as coordination and

accomplishment of instructional goals (Hallinger, 2003). Even though there is no single leadership

model that guarantees success (Day et al., 2016) and effective principals use a mixture of them, as they

depend on context (Belchetz and Leithwood, 2007), research has identified instructional leadership (IL)

as the form with more influence on student achievement. For instance, Robinson et al. (2008), in their

meta-analysis comparing transformational and instructional leaders, found that the influence of the

latter was four times larger than the former. Hallinger (2011) expands these findings and considers

instructional leadership to be a development building block of effective schools, while UNESCO

(2016) recommends that the promotion of “a common understanding and interpretation of the concept

of school leadership, particularly instructional leadership, among all education stakeholders is

necessary” (p. 210). Teachers’ motivation, loyalty and satisfaction are among the factors that are

influenced by principals that use IL (Blase and Kirby, 2009; Thoonen et al., 2012).
Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the relationship of the variables. The independent

variable is the Instructional Leadership. The dependent variable is the School Head Intervention.

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Instructional Leadership School Head

Intervention

Figure 1. Showing the Relationship of Independent and Dependent Variables

 CHAPTER II

Methodology

This chapter presents the research design, research locale, respondents, research

instruments, data gathering procedure and statistical tools.

Research Design

The intent of this study was to explore school head intervention on instructional leadership of P.

PALMA areas. This study employed a cross-sectional survey methodology to examine school head

intervention and instructional leadership. By inviting twenty (20) teachers to respond to a survey of

their school head intervention on instructional leadership, this study intended to gather data from one

group at one point in time. The researcher utilized descriptive statistics (mean, variance, and range) and

inferential statistics (ordinary least squares regression, t-test) to examine the level to which school head

intervention on instructional leadership of twenty (20) teachers of P. PALMA Central Schools.

Research Locale and Respondents

Respondents in this survey were selected twenty (20) teachers and it will be conducted in P.

PALMA Central Schools. The purposive sampling technique will be employed in selecting the

respondents. Purposive sampling (also known as judgment, selective or subjective sampling) is a

sampling technique in which researcher relies on his or her own judgment when choosing members of

population to participate in the study.

Research Instrument
 The survey instrumentation selected for this research was a modified instrument composed of

two parts. First part is a School Head Intervention on Instructional Leadership Scale to measure the

respondent's identification on school head intervention on instructional leadership. Second, is The

Level of Instructional Leadership Scale, it is a psychometric scale that is designed to assess optimistic

observations to cope with a variety of difficult demands in life. Respondents responded to the selected

thirty (30) items using the following 5- point Likert scale: 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 =

Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = Almost Always.

Data Gathering Procedure

There is a letter requesting to conduct a research study in Central Schools of P. PALMA areas.

After the approval the researcher gather the selected twenty (20) teachers to facilitate the giving of the

questionnaire.

To acquire the necessary data of the study in determining the school head intervention on

instructional leadership of the participants, the researcher gathered information through an online

survey utilizing Google form with the participant's consent. The survey was composed of thirty (30)

questions that may last for thirty (30) minutes. Following the initial stages, participants were

encouraged to raise any clarification, concerns, and unclear questions due to the technical difficulties.

Statistical Tools

The following statistical tools will be used in this study:

Mean. The arithmetic mean, more commonly known as ―the average is the sum of a list of numbers

divided by the number of items on the list. The mean is useful in determining the overall trend of a data

set or providing a rapid snapshot of your data. Another advantage of the mean is that it‘s very easy and

quick to calculate.

Standard Deviation. The standard deviation, often represented with the Greek letter sigma, is the

measure of a spread of data around the mean. A high standard deviation signifies that data is spread
more widely from the mean, where a low standard deviation signals that more data align with the mean.

In a portfolio of data analysis methods, the standard deviation is useful for quickly determining

dispersion of data points.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

(Pearson’s correlation, for short) is a measure of the strength and direction of association that exists

between two variables measured on at least an interval scale.

For example, you could use a Pearson’s correlation to understand whether there is an association

between exam performance and time spent revising. You could also use a Pearson's correlation to

understand whether there is an association between depression and length of unemployment. A

Pearson’s correlation attempts to draw a line of best fit through the data of two variables, and the

Pearson correlation coefficient, r, indicates how far away all these data points are from this line of best

fit (i.e., how well the data points fit this model/line of best fit). You can learn more in our more general

guide on Pearson's correlation, which we recommend if you are not familiar with this test.