Instructional Leadership of Principals in Secondary Schools in Kajang

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OF PRINCIPALS

IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KLANG
NOR AZREINA BINTI ABDUL RAMAN
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of
Master of Education
(Educational Management and Leadership)
Faculty of Education
FEBRUARY 2015
COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

PENGAKUAN
Saya akui bahawa tesis ini mengandungi sumber yang tidak diterbitkan dimana-mana dan
segala rujukannya telah saya nyatakan.
Tanda Tangan :
Nama : Nor Azreina Bt Abdul Raman
Tarikh :

AUTHOR S DECLARATION
I declare that the work in this thesis was carried out in accordance with regulation on
Universiti Teknologi MARA. It is original and is the result of my own work otherwise indicated
or acknowledged as referenced work. The thesis has not been submitted to any academic
institution or non-academic institution for any other degree or qualification.
I, hereby, acknowledge that I have been supplied with the Academic Rules and
Regulation for Post Graduate, Universiti Teknologi MARA, regulating the content of my study
and research.
Name of Student Nor Azreina Bind Abdul Raman
Student ID No. 2011835378
Programme ED775
Faculty Faculty of Education, Uitm Shah Alam
Thesis Title Instructional Leadership of Principals in
Secondary Schools in Klang.
Signature of Student

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify the principals and teacher’s perception of Instructional
Leadership in 2 secondary schools in Selangor. Two secondary schools from Sekolah Menengah
Kebangsaan (SMK) were selected for the study. Data were collected using interview techniques.
The questionnaire was distributed to selected principals and 2 teacher respondents with 7
interview questions used. The study focuses on : practice (roles and responsibilities) ,
challenges and benefits of Instructional Leadership. A majority of respondents agreed that there
are many instructional programmes have been implemented to enhance Instructional Leadership
in school. They agreed that there are positive impacts to the school, LADAP (Latihan Dalam
Perkhidmatan) and others can increase the professionalism among teachers and enhance the
teaching and learning of teachers. Instructional Leadership others can increase the
professionalism among teachers and enhance teaching and learning positively to teachers with
great efficiencies. In this study, Hallinger & Murphy instrument was used to measure the
Instructional Leadership. The instrument developed by Hallinger & Murphy (2008) consisted of
three dimensions namely Defining The School Mission, Managing The Instructional Program
and Creating A Positive School Climate. The findings indicated that there was difference in
principal’s and teacher’s perception of Instructional Leadership. On the other hand, the finding
indicated that teachers from different types of school have different perceptions toward
Instructional Leadership of their principals. This study provides some recommendations for
improvement of practices and future research.
Keywords : Instructional Leadership, Principal, Secondary school

ABSTRAK
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti persepsi pengetua dan guru Kepimpinan
Instruksional di 2 buah sekolah menengah di Selangor. Dua buah sekolah menengah dari Sekolah
Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) telah dipilih untuk kajian ini. Data dikumpul dengan
menggunakan teknik temubual. Soal selidik telah diedarkan kepada pengetua dipilih dan 2
responden guru dengan 7 soalan temubual digunakan. Kajian ini memberi tumpuan kepada:
amalan (peranan dan tanggungjawab), cabaran dan manfaat daripada Kepimpinan Instruksional.
Majoriti responden bersetuju bahawa terdapat banyak program pengajaran telah dilaksanakan
untuk meningkatkan Kepemimpinan Instruksional di sekolah. Merek^ bersetuju bahawa terdapat
kesan positif ke sekolah itu, LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) dan lain-lain boleh
meningkatkan profesionalisme di kalangan guru dan meningkatkan pengajaran dan pembelajaran
guru. Selain itu, Kepemimpinan Instruksional boleh meningkatkan profesionalisme di kalangan
guru dan meningkatkan pengajaran dan pembelajaran secara positif kepada guru dengan
kecekapan yang besar. Dalam kajian ini, Hallinger & Murphy instrumen telah digunakan untuk
mengukur Kepimpinan Instruksional. Instrumen yang diperkenalkan oleh Hallinger & Murphy
(2008) terdiri daripada tiga dimensi iaitu Mendefinisikan Misi Sekolah, Pengurus Program
Pengajaran dan Mewujudkan Iklim Sekolah Positif. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa
terdapat perbezaan persepsi pengetua dan guru terhadap Kepimpinan Instruksional. Sebaliknya,
dapatan menunjukkan bahawa guru-guru dari jenis sekolah mempunyai persepsi yang berbeza
terhadap Kepimpinan Instruksional pengetua mereka. Kajian ini memberi beberapa saranan
untuk penambahbaikan amalan dan kajian masa depan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“In the name o f Allah, the Most Gracious and Most Merciful”
First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Professor
Dr. Chan Yuen Fook with great patient, who have provided , invaluable guidance and continuous
advices help me to complete my dissertation. Thank you to all UiTM lecturers that helped me
upon the completion of my thesis, providing guidance and assurance throughout the writing of
this dissertation. Your advices on both research as well as on my career have been priceless.
A special thanks to my family, words cannot express how grateful I am with my mother,
and father for all of the sacrifices that they’ve made on my behalf. Their prayers for me was what
sustained me thus far. I would also like to thank all of my friends who supported me in writing,
to strive towards my goal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
ABSTRAK ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Research Objectives 6
1.4 Research Questions 6
1.5 Significance of the Study 6
1.6 Limitation of the Study 7
1.7 Definitions of Terms 8
1.8 Chapter Summary 9
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction 10
2.1 Definitions of Instructional Leadership 10
2.2 Definitions of School Principal 11
2.3 Instructional Leadership Theories 11
2.3.1 Practice, challenges and benefits of Instructional 11
Leadership
2.4 Overview of practice of Instructional Leadership in school 12
2.5 Dimensions of Instructional Leadership 13
2.5.1 Practice of Instructional Leadership 15
2.5.2 Challenges of Instructional Leadership 22
2.5.3 Benefits of Instructional Leadership 26
2.6 Conceptual Framework 30
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction 35
3.1 Research Design 35
3.2 Population and sample 37
3.3 Instrumentation 38

3.3.1 Interview Questions 38
3.4 Validity 39
3.5 Data Collection Procedure 39
3.5.1 Data Collection Schedule 40
3.5.2 The Interview Questions 40
3.5.3 The Interview Protocol 42
3.6 Analysis of Qualitative Data 43
3.6.1 Interviews 43
3.6.2 The Interview Data 43
3.6.3 The Interview Process 43
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction 46
4.1 Profile of Respondents 46
4.2 Practice of Instructional Leadership in School 49
4.3 Programmes to Enhance Instructional Leadership 51
4.4 Challenges faced by the principals when they practiced the 52
Instructional Leadership
4.5 Challenges faced by the teachers when they practiced the Instructional 52
Leadership
4.6 Benefits of Instructional Leadership 53
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION,

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction 56
5.1 Summary of the Study 57
5.2 Conclusion 59
5.3 Discussion 60
5.3.1 Programmes to Enhance Instructional Leadership in School 61
5.3.2 Challengess faced by the Principals when they practiced the 64
5.3.3 Challengess faced by the Teachers when they practiced the 65
5.3.4 Benefits of Instructional Leadership 65
5.4 Recommendations for Future Study 67
REFERENCES
APPENDINCES

LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
3.1 Samples of School Categories 47
3.2 Demographic Profiles consists of Principals 47
3.3 Demographic Profiles consists of Teachers Respondents 48
LIST OF FIGURES
2.6 Research Framework 30

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
JPS Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri Selangor
LADAP Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan
MOE Ministry of Education
MBMMBI Memartabatkan Bahasa Melayu Memperkasakan Bahasa

Inggeris
PPD Pejabat Pelajaran Daerah
SMK Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This chapter presented the overview of the study. In this chapter, background of the study,
statement of problems, research objectives and questions, significance of the study, research
limitations and term of definition were discussed.
1.1 Background of The Study
In Malaysian schools, principal’s leadership becomes important due to the highly demanding of
principals’ pattern of practices in all schools in which parallel with the objectives in the
National Education Blueprint. A principal is a head of the school who needs a way of
leadership in order to upgrade the performance of the school. According to Hallinger (2003), he
proposed that the pattern of principal’s practices as instructional leaders among principals which
was based on four dimensions which are : i) principal must define and establish school goals or
mission ii) manage an instructional program in school iii) promote learning environment in
school and iv) to create friendly and cooperative school environment.
Principal is the most prominent and highly influential person in school. This is because he is the
‘agent of change’. Therefore, a Principal must be able to define and establish its goal by
creating its own vision and mission. As an agent, the Principal can directly give the impact to
teachers and student development (Alimuddin, 2010). Besides that, teachers and students in
school receive instructions from Principal in all activities which had been planned throughout the
years. With good instruction from the principal, it leads to excellent performances of teachers
and students which are of the most priority targets and benchmark of the Principal’s achievement
(Barth, 1991).

Principal’s leadership is often viewed as a major focus of efforts to pursue and achieve
excellence in education. School is a place which students can learn a lot of things with many
great challenges. This is because school is the most important institution in the socialization of
children and it can cause a positive impact on children’s development (Blase, 1999a).
According to Blase (1999), he also emphasized that the effective principal leadership had a
strong influence to the school’s success or excellency. In this global world, students’ needs are
very different from those two or three generations ago. As the result, one of the key reasons is
that the development of education is indeed slower than the development of technology in the
global economy. A lot of emphasis is currently placed on the need for principals to be
instructional leaders or leaders of learning. In the field of the instructional leadership of
secondary principals in school, it can be both direct and indirect (Blase, 1999).
Under the schools’ mission, the principal must frame clear school goals and good
communication. This is because, direct instructional leadership is focused on the quality of the
teacher’s practice itself, whereas indirect instructional leadership creates the conditions for good
teaching. (Hallinger, 2008). Indirect instructional leadership is particularly essential for
secondary principals because much of the direct leadership is carried out by Deputies and Heads
of Department. He must supervise and evaluating instruction for all programs in schools.
Assistant Administrators, Head of Departments / Units and Head of Panels are all working
together under the responsibility of the Principal. As a whole, the principal is the model of the
instructional leadership. When we are looking at the achievement results of the school as a
whole, different instructional leadership behaviors can be expected with high performance and
improvement (Hallinger, 2003)
In managing instructional program, according to Hallinger (2003), he stated that the traditional
roles of the central office leadership change widely from policy implementation and monitoring
to budgeting and public relations. Their roles can vary dramatically as leaders at the central
office level move toward a model of instructional leadership. For example, the principal can
assist teachers in giving ideas on how to improve the teaching process from ‘chalk and talk’
method to advance technological method. It is essential to shift from the traditional to
instructional issues which can influence the teachers’ classroom instruction and students’
achievements in future. Promoting a vision in school, creating alignment of curriculum,

instruction, assessments and standards; focusing on data; and maintaining a culture of continuous
learning are some important elements in managing instructional program. Due to that, a principal
is the man of vision with multiple school plans and programs.(Hallinger, 2003).
The proposed study aims to explore the Instructional Leadership’s practice which have been
implemented by the Principal through all the programs held by the Principal in order to help and
have supported teachers’ with instructional leadership management in school. According to
Barth (1991), he stated that a principal leadership exercised its strongest independent influence
on planning, structure and organization, as well as on school mission and school culture.
Moreover, he also coordinates curriculum, monitoring student progress and protecting
instructional time. The contemporary educational reform places a great premium on the effective
leadership and management of the schools. To produce an orderly school environment, which is
efficient and well- managed provides the preconditions to enhance students’ learning in school
(McEwan ,1994).
In our country, principals tend to be more manageable-administrators oriented, but the

instructional leader is most often delegated to the assistant principal. Therefore, he must be both
manager-administrator and instructional leader in many countries.(Barth, 1991). A solely focus
on leadership and management have difficulty in acquiring more than a generalized impact on
students’ learning. Despite of that, principles of best practice related to teaching and learning
have difficulty taking root in schools (Barth, 1991). This promotes professional development as a
whole.
The principal also must create a positive school climate in the school. Leaders can influence and
efficiency can lead an organization towards excellence. Hence, a positive school climate is
essential for the principal to look upon the ways of his leadership towards the betterment of the
school. Teachers can work cooperatively if the principal gives full support and work
collaboratively. According to Park and Datnow (2009), they stated that leadership is a very
important influence in determining the success of the organization. As the result, leaders can
influence and efficiency leads an organization towards excellence.

According to McEwan (1994), he stated that the school principal is the most important staff at
the school level because of its role as a leader, administrator and school managers. Malaysian
school principals are responsible to the school, including make effort in achieving rated basic
education schools by managing and administering the school, curriculum and co-curriculum,
welfare of students, teachers and school support staff.
Principal is an effective booster in achieving excellent academic performances in school.

According to McEwan (1994), he stated that a school of excellence due to the leadership of a
principal. The success of the administration of a school system is depending on the quality of
facilities in the school, the quality of the school curriculum, teaching resources, leadership
qualities and professional skills teachers. This is also supported by Glanz (2006) that an effective
school organization is highly dependent on the leadership of the principal.
Based on Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025), it stated that to ensure high-performing

school leaders in every school, effective principal leadership is needed because :the quality of
school leaders is the second biggest school-based factor in determining student outcomes, after
teacher quality. For instance, every principal will also be required to complete the National
Professional Qualification for Educational Leaders (NPQEL) at Institut Aminuddin Baki (IAB).
This is due to the efforts of the Ministry of Education to identify and cultivate high-potential
individual department heads (Hallinger, 2008).
This study focused on the Instructional Leadership by measuring four dimensions of principals
practices. The findings must meet the role of principal in i) defining and establish school goals
or mission ii) manage an instructional program in school iii) promote learning environment
in school and iv) to create friendly and cooperative school environment.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
A principal must not only focus on teaching and learning, but he also must practice instructional
leadership in assisting and engaging teachers and students in school. The principal must also
identify problems faced during his leadership practice.

In schools, some teachers express that the Principals are not acting as ‘friend’. This means that
the Principals do not create a friendly environment with the teachers. They must understand the
problems faced by the teachers and staffs by corroborating together in handling all the programs
in schools. They must understand the vision and mission of the school in practicing the
Instructional Leadership (Hallinger, 2008). Therefore, it is important to look into certain
important aspects such as the leadership of the school head in school, teacher behavior and also
the communication between the school head and teachers. With this information, the teachers,
staff and students will be more satisfied, happier and more confident of\ working and learning in
a healthy school climate (Cheng, 1991).
Among the problems arise, regardless from among the junior and senior teachers is that some
teachers do not understand the concept of Instructional Leadership. The Principals stressed that
most teachers just come for teaching only and go back home when the lesson over. They do not
understand the meaning of shared vision and mission of the school. Thus, when the perception
could not be avoided, therefore the concept of Instructional Leadership will not be practiced.
According to Creswell (1998), he stated that the main weakness is the principals' leadership style
that always refers to bureaucratic model that affected their roles as leaders which need to make a
commitment with the school's teachers.
In discussing the issue of principals' leadership weaknesses, Ariffin Ba'ada (2001) and
Vishalache Balakrishnan (2005), they also reported that principals in Malaysia still practice a
way of communication, lack of interaction with teachers, that cause the decline of teachers'
commitment to school. For example, some programs like LADAP hold during the school
holidays disturbed their holidays, in addition to extra classes too. This problem faced by the
Principal in dealing with the teachers’ commitment due to lack of interaction and communication
(Abdul Shukor Abdullah, 2004).

1.3 Research Objectives
The purpose of this study is to identify and examine secondary school principals’ and teachers’
perception towards Instructional Leadership. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to:
1) To investigate the level of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in school.

2) To identify various Instructional Leadership practices of principals in secondary
schools.
3) To identify the challenges faced by the principals in practicing the instructional

leadership.
4) To identify the benefits of implementing Principals’ Instructional Leadership in
improving the schools.
1.4 Research Questions

Four questions were determined for the purpose of the study. Thus, the study endeavored to
answer the following research questions.
1) What is the level of Instructional Leadership practised by principals in school?

2) What are the Instructional Leadership practices demonstrated by principals in the
secondary schools?
3) What are the problems faced by the Principals when implementing Instructional
Leadership in schools?
4) What are the benefits of implementing Principals’ Instructional Leadership in
improving the schools?
1.5 Significance of the Study
The study conducted will give an overview of the level of Principals’ Instructional Leadership
the in school. It will identify the Principals’ Instructional Leadership practices in secondary
schools. The findings of this study should also be able to be a reference to the school principal

namely, on how to implement leadership practices that can improve teachers' commitment to the
school. Information obtained from this study also can help principals and evaluate the impact of
their leadership on teachers' commitment to the school. In this case, the principal will be able to
adopt a leadership style that can generate a full range of teachers in school in which already has a
relationship with a student's academic improvement.
The styles of leadership most closely relate to enhanced student learning will be identified from
the research. As the result, a good instructional leader produces a positive impact to school. The
teachers reported positive effects on their motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy, sense of
security, and feelings of support. .The principal's suggestions can motivate the teachers to
continually be reflective about their teachings and students’ responses/ outcomes (Blase, 2003)
According to Blase (2003), the effective principals as 'hold up a mirror", serve as "another set of
eyes", and are "critical friends" who engage in thoughtful discourse with teachers. Their
feedback focused on observed classroom behavior, was specific, expressed caring and interest,
provided praise, established a problem-solving orientation, responded to concerns about students,
and stressed the principal's. The focus on what needs to be done to raise levels of student
learning will be clarified from my study.
The findings can also provide information useful not only to the education planners in
formulating training, policies governing the appointment of school in Malaysia. It also serves as
an open space for researchers who are interested in carrying out research about school
leadership.
1.6 Limitations of the study
The small sample size and limited time to conduct the study restricted the generalizability of the
findings. The nature of the study was descriptive and it deals with the perceptions of Principals
about the style of leadership. The researcher's presence during data gathering can affect the

subjects' responses. May be during the interviews, the Principals and teachers will not give full
cooperation and feedback may be biased.
There were only 2 principals and 2 teachers (4 respodents) the data were qualitative in nature,
and the research was intended to increase the understanding of readers rather than to provide
results for verification or generalization. The interview process was based on individuals’
perceptions and understandings of the concepts, which relied on each respondent's willingness to
answer the questions openly and honestly. The perception of school specialists' contributions to
\
instructional leadership is not considered for this particular study. The study results only
pertained to two specific schools within the school division being studied. The teachers’
interview questions could not directly evaluate the principal, because of the Teachers’ Code of
Ethics. The research was done early in the academic year, by which time teachers are busy with
school programs, and this may have had an impact on their responses.
1.7 Definition of Terms
Instructional Leadership refers to Instructional leadership are those actions that a principal
takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning (Flath, 1989). Instructional
leadership also refers to specific behaviors such as making suggestions, giving feedback,
modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting collaboration, providing
professional development opportunities, and giving praise for effective teaching (Blase and
Blase, 2000). One that requires focusing on instruction; building a community of learners;
sharing decision making; sustaining the basics; leveraging time; supporting ongoing professional
development for all staff members; redirecting resources to support a multifaceted school plan;
and creating a climate of integrity, inquiry, and continuous improvement”. (Brewer , 2001)
Principal is a secondary school teacher who has been fully registered, or provisionally registered
or registered subject to confirmation by the Teachers Council and who has been appointed to the
position of principal of a secondary school (Secondary Principals’ Collective Agreement 2011-
2013).

Secondary Schools refers to the level of education whereby after completing a primary level,
the students are offered to secondary education. Secondary education is divided into two stages.
1) Lower secondary (form 1-3) 2) upper secondary (form 4-5) (Ministry of Education
Malaysia, 2012).
1.8 Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the researcher explained about the background of the study and statement of the
problems that support the research. After analyzing the statement of problems, we can see the
importance of Instructional Leadership on the principals and teachers teaching and learning that
can contribute to better student academic achievement. It is important for school leaders
understand the teachers need in school. By providing the best leadership style, it can help to
boost teacher morale and at the same time enhance their teaching skills. Therefore, conducive
and supportive school environment can create teacher’s high morale and also motivate teachers
to work at their best when teaching.
There are four research objectives and also four research questions presented in this study for the
researcher to answer. The significance of the study was conducted to give an overview of the
level of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in the school. It will identify the Principals’
Instructional Leadership practices in secondary schools. The findings of this study should also be
able to be a reference to the school principal namely, on how to implement leadership practices
that can improve teachers' commitment to the school. Information obtained from this study also
can help principals and evaluate the impact of their leadership on teachers’ commitment to the
school . The terms of definition used in the study was also listed in this chapter so that others
will find it easier to understand the concept of Instructional Leadership in the life of teachers.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter enclosed background of the study. Review of literatures for Instructional Leadership
was presented. The definitions of Instructional Leadership, theories of school climate, and five
dimensions of school climate investigated in the study, namely collegial leadership, professional
teacher behavior, achievement press, institutional vulnerability and communication were also
reviewed.
2.1 Definitions of Instructional Leadership
A major concept of instructional leadership - its practice, challenges and benefits are
interconnected and must exist simultaneously in order to increase teachers' skills and abilities.
The concepts work to obtain the ultimate goal of education-student learning or student success.
Understanding principals' (practice, challenges and benefits) and teachers' perceptions of
instructional leadership allows for insight into whether there is a need for change within the
school administration. This chapter will provide an examination into the body of literature on the
concepts of principal's instructional leadership for school improvement in the future.
According to Flath (1989), he defined Instructional Leadership as are those actions that a
principal takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning. According to
Blase and Blase (2000), he proposed that Instructional Leadership refers to the specific
behaviors of a leader such as making suggestions or ideas, giving feedback, modelling effective
instruction , soliciting opinions, supporting in work collaboration, providing professional
development opportunities for teachers, and giving praise for effective teaching are highly
emphasized in school.
According to Brewer (200 I) , he highlighted that an Instructional Leader is one that requires
focusing on instruction; building up a community of learners; sharing decision making;
10

sustaining the basics; leveraging time; supporting persistent professional development for all
staff members; redirecting resources to support a multifaceted school plan; and creating a climate
of integrity, inquiry, and continuous improvement.
2.2 Definitions of School Principal
Based on the Secondary Principals’ Collective Agreement (2011-2013, page 21-25), a principal
is defined as a secondary school teacher who has been fully registered or provisionally
registered or registered subject to confirmation by the Teachers Council and who has been
appointed to the position of principal of a secondary school.
2.3 Instructional Leadership Theories
A Principal should be an Instructional leader. According to Thomas R. Hoerr (2008), he stated

that principals should be instructional leaders. An instructional leader must have the
principalship, perusing job descriptions, or listening to superintendants talk about the role
building leaders too. Principals should be the instructional leaders. The title principal emanated
from the term principal teacher. This clarifies that the principal had more skill and knowledge
than anyone in the building. Therefore, he guides others in how to teach (Blase, 1999). Much
has changed in the schooling enterprise, but our expectations for the principal remain the same.
He or she needs to be the educational visionary, offering direction and expertise to ensure that
students learn (Barth, 1991).
2.3.1 Practice, challenges and benefits of Instructional Leadership
Instructional leaders exhibit a clear sense of direction for their schools and prioritize and focus
attention on the things that really matter in terms of the work of students. According to Blase, J.,
& Blase, J. (2000), he stated that those principals who learn to be instructional leaders acquire
many characteristics that are beneficial to their schools and communities as a whole.
11

Furthermore, instructional leaders know what is happening in their classrooms and develop the
capacities of staff by building on their strengths and reducing their weaknesses. These leaders
also attempt to sustain improvement effectively and change in their schools by overcoming the
challenges that will emerge along the way (Leithwood, 2010).
2.4 Overview of Instructional Leadership
The studies in the area of Instructional Leadership are well accepted by educators and there are
various literatures explored on the topic. Yet, the theoretical and operational clarity and methods
used to measure the Instructional Leadership are varied. Some of the Instructional Leadership
instruments are well-liked by most researchers because it is frequently used and cited in
literature.
According to Blase (2000), he emphasis that the instructional leadership can be defined as those
actions that a principal takes, or delegates to others, in promoting high growth in student
learning. In practice, this means that the principal encourages educational achievement by
making instructional quality the top priority of the school and brings that vision to realization.
However, the role of an instructional leader differs from that of traditional school administrator
in a number of meaningful ways. Therefore, it is the role of a principal who is an instructional
leader is charged with redefining his/her role to become the primary learner in a community in
striving for excellence in education (Hallinger,2008). It is the responsibility of the principal to
work with teachers to define the educational objectives and set a school-wide or district wide
goals, to provide the necessary resources for learning, and to create a new learning opportunities
for students and staffs (Blase, 2000).
The second part of the literature review of the challenges which provide an overview of some
ways that instructional leadership, in the form of the four variables, namely: promoting frequent
and appropriate school-wide teacher development activities; defining and communicating shared
vision and goals in school; able in monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and
12

learning process, and managing the curriculum and instruction which may respond to the
problems or challenges faced by principals with regard to learner performance (Hallinger, 2008).
The third part of the literature review emphasis on the benefits of practicing Instructional
Leadership in the school which provide an overview of some ways. Therefore, the effects of a
school leader who is an instructional leader will have a positive influence on the culture of the
school, which, affects teachers’ and students’ outcomes. Principals’ lack of time dedicated to
instructional leadership is due to the complexity of the principal’s role that involves in
understanding the historical context, purpose, function, personal qualities, and behaviours of
instructional leaders (Blase, 1999).
2.5 Dimensions of Instructional Leadership
In this study, Hallinger & Murphy instrument was used to measure the Instructional
Leadership. The instrument developed by Hallinger & Murphy (2008) consisted of three
dimensions, namely Defining The School Mission, Managing The Instructional Program and
Creating A Positive School Climate..
In the study, according to Hallinger (2008), he stressed that the instructional leader’s role in
defining a school mission was captured in a study of effective California elementary schools . In
the course of their study, he observed teachers in their classrooms for several days. There was
one teacher had an affective educational activity center entitled “I am. . In the back of the
room. However, he never saw students working at it. When questioned about this, the teacher
observed the situation. Later, during one of his interviews, the principal repeated this
expectation for almost word for word. It was obviously something that had been discussed with
and among the staff many times in school. This comment captures several characteristics of the
instructional leader’s role in defining a clear mission (McEwan, 1994).
13

According to Hallinger (2008), he emphasized that effective California elementary school's
school’s mission was absolutely clear. It was written down and visible around the school.
Second, it was focused on the academic development appropriate to the needs o f this particular
school population. Third, the mission has set a priority for the work of teachers. Fourth, it was
known and accepted as legitimate by teachers throughout the school. Fifth, the mission was
articulated, actively supported, and modeled by the principal (Glanz, 2006).
As an Instructional leader, the second dimension Managing the Instructional Program focuses
on the coordination and control of instruction and curriculum. This dimension incorporates three
leadership (or what might be termed management) functions: Supervising and Evaluating
Instruction, Coordinating the Curriculum, Monitoring Student Progress. Within this model of
instructional leadership, in managing the instructional program requires the principal to be
deeply engaged in stimulating, supervising and monitoring the teaching and learning in the
school (Glanz, 2006).
This dimension concerns the principal’s role in determining the central purposes of the school.
The dimension also focuses on the principal’s role as the Instructional Leader in working with
staff to ensure that the school has a clear, measurable, time-based goals focused on the academic
progress of students. It is also the principal’s responsibility to communicate these goals so they
are widely known and supported throughout the school community (Me Ewan, 1994).
Within this model, the process of goal development was considered less critical than the
outcome. Goals could be set by the principal or in collaboration with staff. The bottom-line,
however, was the school should have a clear, academic goals that staff support and incorporate
into their daily practice. This picture of goal-oriented, academically-focused schools contrasted
with the typical situation in which schools were portrayed as pursuing a variety of vague, ill-
defined, and sometimes conflicting academic and non-academic goals (Barth. 1991).
The third dimension, Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate includes several functions:
Protecting Instructional Time, Promoting Professional Development, Maintaining High
14

Visibility, Providing Incentives fo r Teachers, Developing High Expectations and Standards,
Providing Incentives fo r Learning. This dimension is broader in scope and purpose than the other
two. It conforms to the notion that the effective schools create an “academic press” through the
development of high standards and expectations for students and teachers.
2.5.1 Practice of Instructional Leadership
Based on Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025), it emphasized that the responsibility of a

principal as an instructional leader is to ensure that the teaching and learning process can be
carried out effectively and orderly; also to organize academic staffs effectively so that teachers
can teach efficiently. In order to realize the objectives, the study believe that the principals and
teachers must be hand-in hand, shoulder to shoulder to make it happens successfully through
various programmes such as teaching class observation (Pencerapan Guru) and LADAP
(Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think Programme, Kursus
Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-
house training).
According to Blase & Blase (1999a), he stated th a t, the role of a principal is essential to assists
the teachers to upholding the proficiency of Malay Language as the medium of learning and
teaching science and mathematics, thus increasing the proficiency of Malay Language and
English Language through extra teaching and learning periods, curriculum transformation,
increase in teaching capacity and human resource, availability of materials and equipment as
well as to integrate information technology and communication in teaching and learning.
In order to make the policy come into reality, the Ministry of Education has planned and carried
out various programmes to support this policy like LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) such
as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think Programme, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus
Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training). With that, courses
have been formulated to teachers in order to enhance their professional development as well as
equip them with pedagogical skills. The presence of collegial methods to leadership could give
more attention to learning and teaching and consequently, there can trigger to a significant and
15

clear benefits for pupils (Elmore, 2000; Harris & Muijis; 2003; Lambert, 2002). Nevertheless,
collegial relationship at unsatisfactory level could negatively influence on teacher commitment
to teaching (McLaughlin, 1993).
Instructional leadership gives a lot of benefits to school. The result of instructional leadership is a
collaborative learning environment where learning is not confined to the classroom solely but it
is the objective of all educators. Instructional leadership is an important departure from the
ancient model of administrator as authoritarian. Inherent in the concept is the idea that learning
should be a top-down process. If those in charge of the school are excited about learning, then
they will share their enthusiasm throughout the community. Other than that, the Association of
Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) argued professionalism for teachers include the requirement to
have knowledge about learning and curriculum syllabus, vast array of teaching methods, insight
and appreciation of specific pupils, awareness of the dynamic and tremendous forces in daily
life, and ability to revise teaching practices methods (Bousted & Johnson, 2004).
Roland Barth's (1991) wrote in his book that Jossey-Bass provides a model. Barth says that if
students are to grow and learn continuously, their teachers must grow and learn, too. He
discusses four aspects of collegiality: teachers talking together about students, teachers
developing curriculum together, teachers observing one another teach, and teachers teaching one
another. He also added that teachers and administrators also must work together to shape a
solution for a particular school issue.
When a staff could work together and given the opportunity to openly share ideas and data, the
ability of the school to develop ideas and strategies for change is higher. In particular, the
capability and expertise of each school member are developed more effectively through collegial
approaches and these also beneficial to both the individual and the school (Elmore, 2000; Harris
& Muijis; 2003; Lambert, 2002). Significantly, Barth (2006) put that the nature of the adults
affiliation within a school could increase the influence of the school’s characters and quality,
also on student academic performance than anything else.
The principal should be an instructional leader. If that is the case, then the principal needs to
have up-to-date knowledge on three areas of education, namely; curriculum, instruction and

assessment. According to Blase & Blase (2000), he stated that Instructional Leadership differs
from that of a school administrator or manager in a number of ways. Principals who pride
themselves as administrators are too preoccupied in dealing with strictly administrative duties
compared to principals who are instructional leaders. As the instructional leader, he must have
setting clear goals, allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum, monitoring
lesson plans, and evaluating teachers (Hallinger, 2008). Instructional leadership is those actions
that a principal takes, or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning. The
instructional leader makes instructional quality the top priority of the school and attempts to
bring that vision to realisation.
Nowadays, the definition of instructional leadership has been expanded towards deeper
involvement in the core business of schooling which is teaching and learning. Attention has
shifted from teaching to learning, and some have proposed the term "learning leader" over
"instructional leader". This explains that the principal need to work closely with the students,
developing some teaching techniques and methods as a means for understanding teacher
perspectives and for establishing a base on which to make curricular decisions (Blase, 2000).
Hence, to have credibility as an instructional leader, the principal should also be a practicing
teacher.
According to Hallinger and Heck's (1996a, 1996b), there are four skills essential for
Instructional Leadership :
• First, they need to be a resource provider. The Principal act as a resource provider in
school. It is not enough for principals know the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers,
but also recognize that teachers desire to be acknowledged and appreciated for a job well
done. For example, the principal can invite officers from PPD and JPS to give talks and
courses to improve teachers’ self -confidence and self- competency (Blase, 1999).
• Secondly, they need to be an instructional resource. Teachers count on their principals as
resources of information on current trends and effective instructional practices.
Instructional leaders are tuned-in to issues relating to curriculum, effective pedagogical
strategies and assessment (Bryk, 2002). For instance, the principal can help the teachers
to gain information and skills by attending some programs in schools like value-Frog and
17

I-Think Program. In Vle-Frog Program, the teachers learn to access information using the
value-Frog Application to give assignments, homeworks and monitor students’
achievements through online learning. I-Think Program helps the teachers in improving
teachers’ teaching performances using mind maps relating to subjects taught.
• Thirdly, they need to be good communicators. Effective instructional leaders need to
communicate essential beliefs regarding learning such as the conviction that all children
can learn and no child should be left behind. For instance, the principal must discuss and
give ideas in improving teaching methods in classrooms through observation (Heck,
1992).
• Finally, they need to create a visible presence. Leading the instructional programme of a
school means a commitment to living and breathing a vision of success in teaching and
learning. This includes focusing on learning objectives, modeling behaviors of learning,
and designing programmes and activities on instruction. For example, the principal need
to create mission and vision of school through various programmes so that all teachers
have targets to achieve the KPI (Key Performance Index).
In many schools, teachers are developing a collaborative practice of teaching which includes
coaching, reflection, group investigation of data, study teams, and risk-laden explorations to
solve problems. Besides that, there existed a “community of learners” which is the most
encouraged action to have in school between the Principal and teachers as a community in the
school, who also provide academic and moral service to students (Hallinger and Heck's ,1996).
Contemporary educational reform places a great premium on the effective leadership and
management of schools. The logic of this position is that an orderly, efficient and well-managed
school environment, provides the preconditions to enhance students’ learning in school.
Therefore, the proposed study aims to explore the experiences of principals who have supported
teachers’ with instructional leadership management. Principal's leadership exercised its strongest
independent influence on planning, structure and organization, setting up school mission and
school culture (Barber L. Wanda, 2010). Currently, it is suggested local management of
18

schools, external inspection, organization development or teacher appraisal only indirectly
affects student performance.
The principal also has two major themes: talking with teachers to promote reflection and
promoting professional growth. Therefore, this study is to sketch out more precisely the
relationship between leadership, problems and benefits . It is found that through effective
programs organized by the Principal reflect the principal-teacher interaction about instruction,
processes such as teaching class observation (Pencerapan Guru) and . LADAP (Latihan Dalam
Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Program, I-Think Program, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri,
Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) is the
model of effective instructional leadership was derived directly from the data (Hallinger, 1996).
The principal has to prepare himself for being as instructional leaders. The increasingly changing
role of the principal does not depend on the number of years that one has served as a principal to
enable one to adapt to new challenges. Barber, L. Wanda (2010) emphasized that the inefficient
instructional leadership is due to a lack of depth in the training of principals for their role as
instructional leaders and a time-consuming increase in paperwork which consumes much of the
principal^ time.
In school, there are problems arose in dealing with commitment among the teachers. In practice,
the management of the programs, including defining curriculum, co-curriculum and staff
development is the key competency of the Principals. It is also the core responsibilities whereby
He/she must have knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment. The study further
indicates that a principal needs to be a head learner by attending curriculum related seminars and
workshops with his teachers. Such practice would help to enable the principal to assist his/her
staff with regard to curriculum matters generally and learning related matters in particular. By
having an effective instructional leaders, many benefits can be gained by the teachers and school
staffs in achieving the KPI (Key Performance Index). Besides, trained Principals are able to
handle easily, with all problems occur in school management (Barber L. Wanda, 2010).
19

The literature review explains the increasingly changing role of the principal from that of a
traditional school manager and administrator to that of an instructional leader. The change of
roles produces many expectations of principals, including managing the curriculum and
instruction in school, monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process,
communicating a shared vision and mission in school, shared goals for the school, and providing
teacher development. This study sets out to investigate the principal’s basic skills and capacity
for involving in all the above instructional leadership roles, resulting the improvement of a
learner’s performance (Blase, 2000).
Effective principals will always give good feedback to teachers such as hold up a mirror", serve
as another set of eyes", and are critical friends" who engage in thoughtful discourse with
teachers. Specifically, their feedback focused on observed classroom behavior expressed caring
and interest, provided praise, established a problem-solving orientation, responded to concerns
about students, and stressed the principal's availability for follow-up talk. As the result, the
effects of this feedback included increased teacher reflection, creating innovation/creativity,
instructional variety, risk taking, better planning for instruction, and improved teacher
motivation, efficacy, sense of security, and self-esteem in school. For example, a teacher will
respond that he/she will like to have the Principal as the ‘supervisor’ in the next visit of teaching.
The confidence that the teacher gained will be in positive feedback and this will inspire the
teacher to use what works in the classroom without any fear and negative evaluation as well as
willing to take any risks (Hallinger, 2000).
Principals also need to approach their work in a way that will get the job done. According to
Andrew C. Porter, Joseph Murphy, et al. (2008) , they emphasized that Research behind VAL-
ED (the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education tool to assess principal performance,
developed by researchers at Vanderbilt University) suggests that there are six key steps - or
“processes” - that the effective principal takes when carrying out his or her most important
leadership responsibilities: planning, implementing, supporting, advocating, communicating and
monitoring. The school leader pressing for high academic standards would, for example, map out
rigorous targets for improvements in learning (planning), get the faculty on board to do what’s
necessary to meet those targets (implementing), encourage students and teachers in meeting the
20

goals (supporting), challenge low expectations and low district funding for students with special
needs (advocating), make sure families are aware of the learning goals (communicating), and
keep on top of test results (monitoring).
The effective school leadership depends on support from district and state officials. The
leadership aspects must be supported by the district and state departments (eg. Pejabat
Pendidikan Daerah (PPD) or Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri Selangor (JPNS). Except for the most
entrepreneurial, principals are unlikely to proceed with a leadership style
\
focused on learning if
the district and state are unsupportive, disinterested or pursuing other agendas. According to
Meredith I. Honig, Michael A. Copland, Lydia Rainey, Juli Anna Lorton and Morena Newton
(2010) stated that as one of the major Wallace-funded study reports, central offices need to be
transformed so that the work of teaching and learning improvement can be proceeded. That is to
say central offices need to “re-culture” themselves so they focus less on administration and more
on supporting principals to improve instruction.
According to teachers, effective principals must be a good ‘model’ who demonstrated teaching
techniques in classrooms and during conferences. They also modeled the positive interactions
with students. These forms of modeling were viewed as impressive examples of instructional
leadership that primarily yielded positive effects on teacher motivation as well as reflective
behavior. According to Meredith I. Honig, Michael A. Copland, Lydia Rainey, Juli Anna Lorton
and Morena Newton (2010), they stated that as one of the major Wallace-funded studies, reports
the effective principal utilizes a great deal of informal "coaching" and mentoring. He is in and
out of the entire faculty's classes. Teachers value his insights because he is an excellent teacher
because his love of children and young people was so obvious that teachers trusted him
somehow. The principal will often ask if he could teach a class. The Principal will enjoy it while
the teachers id some of their best reflecting after talking to or watching the Principal teach.
In summary, these are the practices of principals to enhance teacher reflective behavior by
distributing professional literature, encouraging teachers to attend workshops and conferences,
and encouraging reflective discussions and collaboration with others.
21

The principal became the leader who shaped the organization into the instructional leadership
model. Therefore, Hallinger (2003) identified instructional leadership models in the 1980s as
“strong, directive leadership focused on curriculum and instruction from the principal”. The top-
down approach became apparent in leadership that “focuses predominately on the role of the
school principal in coordinating, controlling, supervising, and developing curriculum and
instruction in the school” (Hallinger, 2003).
Hallinger (2003) synthesized that the essential elements of various researchers’ explanations of
\
instructional leadership and noted that the principal’s expertise and the principal’s character both
needed to be goal-oriented. Therefore, there must be a focus on the student outcomes and
achievement. The principal also needed to help improve teaching and learning through
curriculum and instruction.
2.5.2 Challenges of Instructional Leadership
In defining and establishing school goals, the role of a principal becomes complex when there is
no communication, good instruction and good school climate. In school, the teachers do not give
full commitment in their tasks due to these factors. These are the main factors which contribute
to set up the vision and mission of the school. The purpose of instructional leadership is to
improve students’ achievement. Thus, the question is how much influence a principal has on
improving student outcomes. According to Glanz (2006), he identified that the “word
‘education’ comes from the Latin root ‘educate’, meaning ‘to draw out’ or ‘to lead.’ That is, in
fact, the goal of educators - to draw out that unique latent potential within each student and
within each teacher.
Nevertheless, the challenges can be viewed to some angles. According to Hallinger & Heck
(1996), the general consensus was that the direct influence the principal has on the school
processes— such as academic, expectations, mission, student opportunities, instructional
organization, and academic learning—directly affects student achievement.
22

In managing instructional program, the role of a principal becomes complex when there is no
communication between the school , head teachers and lack of skills in promoting learning
environment as well less friendly and cooperative school environment. In school, if the school
head has difficulty in discussing some school programmes with teachers, it leads to failure of
some programmes (Andrews and Soder, 1998). Besides that, if the principal have the lack of
skills in promoting learning environment like no motivational courses, in-house trainings, and
teacher observation, the teachers get de-motivated and low self-esteem. This will also lead to
unfriendly environment in school. Therefore, principals need to have Instuctional Leadership in
\
handling all the challenges he faced. According to King (2002), he identified instructional
leadership in its simplest form to improve teaching and learning.
The instructional leadership models, studied in this research, were developed from the mid 1980s
to 2002 by Hallinger and Murphy (1986), Larsen and Hartry (1987, as cited in Quinn, 2002),
Heck (1992), Andrews and Soder (1987), McEwan (1994), and King (2002). When examining
the six models of instructional leadership, it became evident that early models of instructional
leadership, such as Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985), tended to be more top-down in nature,
whereas recent models such as McEwan’s (1996) and King’s (2002), embraced the shared
leadership approach, which focused on empowering teachers to be part of the process, resulting
in a positive school culture. Table 1 presents principals’ three functional areas related to
instructional leadership: communication, instruction, and culture.
In managing instructional program, communication is important The first function of

instructional leadership falls under the category of communication. The common factors for all
the models can be summarized as communicating the school’s mission or goals for instruction,
discussion of instructional issues, high expectations for students’ achievement, and creating
positive relationships and attitudes in the school community among students, parents, teachers,
and partners (Heck, 1992).
Andrews and Soder (1998) mentioned that written and verbal ability, precise and concise
communication of the school visions and missions, recognizing the school community’s
accomplishment are important in order to have principals’ organizational skills. Furthermore,
23

Heck (1992) and King (2002) emphasized in order to understand the needs of students, teachers,
and community. It is important to discuss with teachers about the student results and data to
assist in the decision-making process. The function of communication is to begin the process of
developing relationships with the school community, which allows the principal to understand
the needs of students, teachers, and community.
The principal must understand the needs of students, teachers, and community can only be
accomplished if principals do not forget the most important aspect of effective communication,
which is to listen. According to Brubaker (2004), he emphasized that the importance of the skill
of listening. Listening is part and partial of communication process. The principal must move
toward the second function of instructional leadership, which is instruction. The purpose of
effective communication is to allow both the teachers and principal to share and reflect on the
supervision process. The effective communication should assist in improving student
achievement, which is the ultimate purpose of instructional leadership (Heck, 1992).
24

Table 1
Table 1
Function o f Instructional Leaders cv
Function of Hallinger & Larsen & A n d r ew s H ec k M cEw an K ing 3
(1992) o'— V
Instructional Murphy Hartry & (1994) (2002)
Leaders (1986) (1987, as cited Sod er In struction al 7 steps of In structio n al o'
Instructional in Quinn, 2002) (1987) L e ad e rsh ip In str u c tio n al L e a d e rs
o
Leadership 6 Categories of Principal L e a d e r s h ip Fun c tion
Role Instructional L ead e rsh ip 5"
Leadership CO
Communication Framing school Goal setting C o m m u n ic a to r Instructional goals Slep 4: V isio n m ission >
Use of data to in fo rm p*
goals C o m m i t m e n t io c l e a r decisions o
S ch ool-com m unity p e rfo rm a n c e standards I n s t r u c t i o n a l is s u es S te p 5: S et h i e h
Relations a n d t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r to expectations o’
a c h i e v e g o a l s & vi sio n E m p h a s i z e test re s u lt s
Qj
S t e p 7 P o s i t i v e a t ti t u d e s
D is c u s s i o n a b o u t how t o w a r d s s t u d e n t s , s ta f f & n
i n s tr u c ti o n a f f e c ts parents CD
a;
achievem ent
S*
Instruction Supervising & Instructional Instructional Resource: R eg ular c la ssro o m Step 1 C lear instructional Lead learning
evaluating coordination by principal, establishes visits goals
e x p e c t a t i o n s to r F o c u s on te a c h i n g &
C oordinating S upervision & im proving perform ance M in im ize class Step 2: Sup po rt le a r n in g b y h e l p m g
curriculum evaluation & professional interruptions (collaboration, collegiality t e a c h e r s sk ills t h r o u g h
d e v e l o p m e n t th r o u g h c o o p e ra tio n & c reative supervision
D e v e l o p i n g h ig h Staff dev e lo p m en t supervision. M o n i t o r s tu d e n t p ro b le m solving;
a c a d e m i c standards progress Pn)le> >! ona ! L e a r n i :v:
& ex pectations R e s o u r c e s p r o v id e r : B y C om m unities PLC
ide ntifying te a c h e rs ’
Professional strengths & w e a kn esse s U s e R e s o u r c e s . re a; ?%
e
development and having them share
their skills and
P rotec ting k n o w l e d g e in o r d e r to
i n s t r u c t i o n a l li m e a c h i e v e g o a l s & vi sio n
Culture School clim ate V isible presence P ro te c t te a c h e r s fr o m S te p 3: C r e a t e a c u l t u r c & D i s t r i b u t i n g le a d e r s h i p

external pressures c l i m a t e c o n d u c i v e to (P IC )
le a r n in g
Step 6: D e ve io p teacher
leaders'

In defining and establishing school goals, instruction is important. Improving instruction is the
central motivation for instructional leadership. The principal will be motivated if the school
vision and mission are set up as the guideline in carrying out the programmes in school.
According to Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Larsen and Hartry (1987, as cited in Quinn, 2002),
Heck (1992), Andrews and Soder (1987), McEwan (1994), and King (2002), they emphasized
that the main factors are supervision and evaluation, professional development, monitoring
student progress, providing support for teachers, developing teachers’ skills and abilities, and
protecting instructional time.
In creating friendly and cooperative school environment, culture is very important. A positive
school climate is very important in upgrading the school performances. The principal must be
able to create a good collegial work environment in assigning duties. In school, teachers delay
works and absence form programmes if all the works are dumped solely to them. The early
function of leadership was centred on developing the climate of the school. A principal must
have collaboration, collegiality and empowerment, assists in the development of a positive
school culture. According to Steller (1988), an effective principal’s main objective is academic
achievement; the principal must develop a school environment through policies and procedures
that provide the appropriate support for teachers to focus on the goal.
In summary, the principal need a good leadership style in dealing with all the challenges in
school. This includes focusing on instruction; building a community of learners; sharing decision
making; sustaining the basics; leveraging time; supporting ongoing professional development for
all staff members; redirecting resources to support a multifaceted school plan; and creating a
climate of integrity, inquiry, and continuous improvement (Blase 2003).
2.5.3 Benefits of Instructional Leadership
There are several benefits that the principal can gain if he practices Instructional Leadership in
school. The effective instructional leaders have good interpersonal skills. They can motivate
26

team members to work towards the leads. Good interpersonal skills enable school leaders to
persuade, to give a boost and creating a sense of teamwork in all levels of school (Thomas,
2002). The effective instructional leader who has a vision and clear goals and capable of sharing
the vision that led to the team. Evaluating teaching and provide feedback that is honest, sincere
teachers to increase the effectiveness of the professional development of pupils (Quinn, 2002).
Personal qualities are important for an individual to be an effective instructional leader. The
overview of the literature provided a list of the researchers’ findings on the necessary personal
qualities for principals, which included trust and perseverance, gender, good communication,
flexibility, listening, open-mindedness, creative problem solving, vision, and expectations
(Blase, 1999).
According to Quinn (2002), he stated that the instructional leadership can be learned by the
principals. However, the principals need to have high expectations of all members of the school
community to create an atmosphere of trust and perseverance. A trusting atmosphere may be
accomplished through developing the positive relationships with teachers, allowing the teachers
to take risks without penalty, providing the opportunities for professional development, giving
leadership in the staff development, and working collaboratively. Though instructional
leadership can be learned, there are other variables, which need to be addressed. For instance,
Harchar and Hyle (1996) indicated that a successful classroom teacher is the key requirement for
a principal to be an instructional leader.
According to Blase (2004), he stated that for principals to produce a positive impact from their
instructional leaderships, they must utilize and emphasize the instructional supervisory role
which includes an understanding and commitment to the following elements:
• Training for the administrators as well as the teachers in supervision, mentoring, and
Coaching (Stronge, 2002)
• Be sensitive to the processes of professional growth and continuous improvement
• Give training in observation and reflection on the practice in teacher preparation programs
• Integration of supervision with staff development, curriculum development, and
27

school improvement systems (McQuarrie and Wood, 1991)
• Improved the professional practice both inside and outside of the classroom (Stronge, 2002)
• Continuous improvement as part of every educator’s daily life (Leithwood, 2001)
• Be focused on the group processes in the classroom rather than a one-on-one supervisory
experience
• Collegial assistance among educators, parents, and students (Mitchell, 2010)
• Use of terms such as colleague, consultation, and coaching to describe the collaboration
Among professionals in helping each other to improve the practice (Blase, 2000)
The utilization of these positive aspects of instructional leadership should help the principals to
avoid the negative repercussions of an authoritarian instructional leadership style. As the result,
the principal creates a school culture that does not limit to teachers’ involvement, but develops
teachers’ skills and abilities, through reflection, collaboration, shared leadership, and
empowerment (Thomas, 2002).
In planning some programs in schools, the principal needs to have a strong bond between the
teachers and staffs. The programs must be able to cater the teachers in upgrading their skills.
According to McQuarrie and Wood (1991), they pointed that the staff development like LADAP
and in-house training and supervision are two key elements needed for improving the teacher’s
instruction, because :
• Staff development and supervision can focus on assisting teachers to be more effective (Glanz,
2006)
• Staff development and supervision can create a judgment-free process to improve
Instructional practices in a non-threatening atmosphere (Hoy, 2008)
• Supervision can be provided by teachers, supervisors, and/or administrators (Glanz, 2006)
• Participation in these two elements promotes the ownership, commitment, and trust in
Instructional improvement.
A number of respondents in the study also emphasized that programmes held by the principals
such as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think Programme, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus
28

Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) like observation,
LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) and others can increase the professionalism among
teachers and enhance teaching and learning positively to teachers with greater efficiencies. The
students indirectly can increase the achievement in academic (Stronge, 2002).
In the teaching process, the teachers’ observations had given the improvements in the teachers’
methods. Besides using textbooks, the teachers used e-books, projector and slides, and videos
instead of using textbooks in classrooms. Teachers as the professionals should understand their
role in educating students to become a successful person (Glanz, 2006). In general, teachers that
are committed to student performance are eager in spending more time preparing lesson plans
and other teaching aids to make the lesson fun, interesting and easier for the student to
understand. They are willing to collaborate with other teachers during free time in order to
perform better in the classroom for the benefit of the students (Park, 2005).
In summary, the literature on instructional leadership is to address the developing Principals

Instructional Leadership practices in relationships with teachers. Through these relationships,
principals can create a school based on trust, collaboration, and empowerment. When principals
incorporate instructional leadership, they begin engaging teachers in dialogue about instruction
by way of supervision, providing the needed professional development to strengthen teachers’
and the principal’s own skills, and then reflecting on the whole process (Hoy, 2008). The
purpose of instructional leadership is to improve student achievement. A sensible way for
principals to assist in student learning is to concern themselves with the areas over which they
have direct control or influence. Principals have direct influence on teacher instruction through
supervision, professional development, and reflection (Stronge, 2002).
29

2.6 Conceptual Framework
Figure 1.1 shows how the principal’s areas - its practice, problem and benefits of Instructional Leadership. : Hallinger &
Murphy (2008).
Figure 1.1: : Hallinger & Murphy (2008) Model of Instructional Management
The above diagram represents the conceptual framework upon which the entire study is built. The two parts of the conceptual
framework are now discussed in detail. Source: Hallinger & Murphy (2008)

This study proposed a conceptual framework to identify the issues that relate to Instructional
Leadership (Figure 2.5). Numerous schools recognize the importance of school heads being
supportive, teacher commitment to their work, increasing student performance, having parents
involve in school activities, and good communication skill of the school leader.
This study also included six demographic profiles: school categories, school location, gender,
age, level of higher education, and years of services at the school. Teachers’ perception with
three demographic profiles, namely school categories, school location and gender are assumed to
have significantly different with school climate.
This dimension concerns the principal’s role in determining the central purposes of the school.
On managing program, the dimension focuses on the principal’s role as the Instructional Leader
in working with staff to ensure that the school has clear, measurable, time-based goals focused
on the academic progress of students. It is also the principal’s responsibility to communicate
these goals so they are widely known and supported throughout the school community.
Within this model, the process of goal development was considered less critical than the
outcome. Goals could be set by the principal or in collaboration with staff. The bottom-line,
however, was the school should have clear, academic goals that staff support and incorporate
into their daily practice. This picture of goal-oriented, academically-focused schools contrasted
with the typical situation in which schools were portrayed as pursuing a variety of vague, ill-
defined, and sometimes conflicting academic and non-academic goals.
According to Hallinger (2008), there are several characteristics of the instructional leader’s role
in defining a clear mission. First, at this school the mission was absolutely clear. It was written
down and visible around the school. Second, it was focused on academic development
appropriate to the needs o f this particular school population. Third, the mission set a priority for
the work of teachers. Fourth, it was known and accepted as legitimate by teachers throughout the
school. Fifth, the mission was articulated, actively supported, and modeled by the principal.
31

As Instructional leader, the second dimension Managing the Instructional Program focuses on
the coordination and control of instruction and curriculum. This dimension incorporates three
instructional leadership, managing the instructional program requires the principal to be deeply
engaged in stimulating, supervising and monitoring teaching and learning in the school.
The third dimension, Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate includes several functions:
Protecting Instructional Time, Promoting Professional Development, Maintaining High
Visibility, Providing Incentives fo r Teachers, Developing High Expectations and Standards,
Providing Incentives fo r Learning. This dimension is broader in scope and purpose than the other
two. It conforms to the notion that the effective schools create an “academic press” through the
development of high standards and expectations for students and teachers.
According to Hallinger (2008), he stated that distributed leadership refers to collaborative

leadership exercised by the principal, assistant principals, department heads, teacher leaders, and
other members of the school’s improvement team. According to Fullan (2001), he identified that
the rationale for focusing on distributed school leadership is grounded in the concept of
sustainable change. This is because, in schools, leadership must be able to create sustainable
changes that are embraced and owned by the teachers who are responsible for implementation in
classrooms. Moreover, given the observed intensification of work activities of leaders in schools,
leadership must also be sustainable for those who lead. As Hall and Hord (2001) conclude from
their research on successful change in schools, “principals can’t do it alone.” Thus, increasingly,
scholars assert that sustainable school improvement must be supported by leadership that is
shared among stakeholders.
In practice, the management of the programs including curriculum, co-curriculum and staff
development is the competency of the Principals, the paradigm of this variable also falls within
the scope of the principal‘s core responsibilities. The literature has revealed that the principal
must possess an array of skills and competencies in order to address the dynamic nature of this
variable. He/she must have knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment. The literature
32

further indicates that a principal needs to be a head learner by attending curriculum related
seminars and workshops with his teachers. Such practice would go a long way to enabling the
principal to assist his/her staff with regard to curriculum matters generally and learning related
matters in particular. By having an effective instructional leaders, many benefits can be gained
by the teachers and school staffs in achieving the KPI (Key Performance Index). Besides,
trained Principals are able to handle all problems occur in school management (Heck and
Hallinger, 2009).
\
The principal’s leadership had an impact on how much each concept correlated and
interconnected with the other concepts through the principal’s direct influence. When a principal
lacks strong instructional leadership, the concepts do not overlap as much. Therefore, the
teachers are left to work in isolation, thus creating a school environment that can lead to
meaningless supervision and staff development (Hoy, 2008). Thus, they are not given time for
sharing professional ideas and reflections with colleagues. When a principal is an effective
instructional leader, he or she develops an environment that fosters a direct influence on the three
concepts. In turn, the principal’s leadership creates a school environment based on trust,
collaboration, shared leadership, and empowerment (Hall and Hord, 2001).
The prescriptive models describe instructional leadership as the integration of the tasks of direct
assistance to teachers, group development, promoting staff development, creating curriculum
development, and action research ; as a democratic, developmental, and transformational
activity based on equality and growth ; as an inquiry-oriented endeavor that encourages teacher
voice and as a discursive, critical study of classroom interaction to achieve social justice.
Second, studies of instructional leadership, though few in number include exploratory studies of
indirect effects of principal-teacher instructional conferences and behaviors such as the effects of
monitoring student progress. Third, studies of direct effects of the principal behavior on teachers
and classroom instruction include Sheppard's (1996) synthesis of research demonstrating the
relationship between certain principal behaviors and teacher commitment, involvement, and
innovation. Fourth, studies of the direct and indirect effects on student achievement include
Hallinger and Heck's (1996a, 1996b) review of studies investigating the principal's role (e.g. use
33

of constructs such as participative leadership and decentralized decision making) in school
effectiveness
As an administrator, the principals are required not only to focus on administrative tasks, but also
cover aspects of teacher development in line with the Ministry of Education Malaysia. In order to
realize this ambition, the principal claimed that the practice of a variety of leadership styles
according to the situation of the school and teachers. This study is necessary to analyze the
relationship with the leadership of principals and teachers' commitment to school.
This conceptual framework of Hallinger & Murphy (2008) on Model of Instructional

Management dimension concerns the principal’s role in determining the central purposes of the
school. Thus, the dimension focuses on the principal’s role in working with staff to ensure that
the school has clear, measurable, time-based goals focused on the academic progress of students.
It is also the principal’s responsibility to communicate these goals so they are widely known and
supported throughout the school community.
2.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter discussed the relevant literature to the notion of Instructional Leadership and the
important concept of the three dimensions of Instructional Management, namely defining the
school mission, managing the Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate. To
answer the research questions posed in the previous chapter, a conceptual framework was
proposed and discussed. The rationale for choosing each of the study variables was analyzed
with reference to either related literature or general impression. The three dimensions of
Instructional Leadership relatively defining the school mission, managing the Instructional
Program and Creating a positive school climate were treated as independent variables and
Instructional Leadership as dependent variable.
34

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter discussed the research methodology and procedures used in the study of
\
Instructional Leadership through school teachers’ perceptions on their principals’ Instructional

Leadership’s. In general, research design, instrumentation, population and sampling, data
collection and data analysis of this study were discussed.
3.1 Research Design
The study employed a qualitative research. Qualitative methods can be defined as “interpretive
research” (Erickson, 1986 cited in Hittleman & Simon, 2002). The research questions developed
on the topic of Instructional Leadership guided this study towards qualitative research.
According to Bryman, (2004), he stated that qualitative research has the characteristic that data
are gathered more in a verbal and visual than in a numeric form. When analyzing the gathered
data, statistical procedures are often not used, but the essence of which is searching for codes in
the analyzed materials is taking place. .
In terms of qualitative research method, interviews were conducted with 2 Principals, 4 teachers
identified from two schools in the Klang district by using the interview questions. Hence, the
qualitative approach was first carried out to gather information (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).
According to Charmaz, (2006), the main part of the qualitative analysis of the material is formed
by the coding process, i.e. interpreting the analyzed text and attributing the meaning (of key
words, notions, codes) to its individual parts. Therefore, according to Creswell (2003), he stated
that qualitative research can be defined as “an inquiry process based on distinct methodological
traditions of inquiry that explores a social or human problem. Significantly, the research builds a
35

complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the
study in a natural setting.
The purpose for this research was to gain insight into Instructional Leadership through
describing (a) one school principal’s roles and responsibilities of Instructional Leadership, and
(b) the same school’s teachers’ perceptions of Instructional Leadership’s
practice/implementation of their Principals. The data for this qualitative were collected with the
assistance of two principals and four teachers from the two different .respective schools. Data
were collected using a set of standardized interview questions. The main source for the data
collection was from the interview. This chapter was an outline of the method decisions made to
conduct the study as they relate to the research questions.
This was an exploratory that investigated the benefits and challenges of Malaysian secondary
school heads on principals’ leaderships. The sample of the study involved 2 school heads from
schools located in Klang. The research instrument included interview questions. The interview
study using interview questions (Face-to-face Interviews) method with tape recorded ( 45min -
1 hour) , open-ended, and formal conversations. According to Patton (1993), there are three
types of qualitative data are interviews, observation and documents. The Qualitative study was
employed to extend a more in-depth understanding regarding the roles, responsibilities,
challenges and benefits of Principal’s leadership practices in secondary schools in Klang,
Selangor.
According to Ramchander (2004), he stated that the qualitative approach is grounded in

interpretive social science paradigm. The approach helps researchers to organize and describe the
data in a systematic way. The methodology is described in this chapter. The population, from
which the sample was drawn, and the development and administration of the questionnaires were
discussed. The statistical methods used to analyze the data were presented.
36

3.2 Population and Sample
Population refers to the “larger group to which one hopes to apply the results” (Fraenkel &
Wallen, 2010, p.90). The list of primary schools in Selangor was obtained from the Selangor
State of Education Department (JPNS). There are 375 primary schools in the state of Selangor
with 170 of SK, 108 of SJKC and 97 of SJKT. There are eight Districts of Educational
Department in Selangor namely Petaling Utama, Petaling Perdana, Klang, Gombak, Sepang,
Kuala Selangor and Hulu Langat. The study was merely restricted to thp district of Klang.
Gall et al. (2007) mentioned that sample size in qualitative research was typically small. In
addition, Patton (2002) suggested that a small sample size for a qualitative study can still provide
in-depth information although it is a small size sample.
The sample of the study involved principals and teachers from two schools in the Klang district
specifically in Kapar area. Klang (old alternative spelling: Kelang), is the royal city and former
capital of the state of Selangor, Malaysia. It is located within the Klang District in Klang Valley.
It is located about 32 km to the west of Kuala Lumpur and 6 km east of Port Klang. Kapar area is
a small town in Klang district which is surrounded by oil palm plantations and fishermen coastal
area. The final sample consisted of 2 Principals of Klang area. Besides the principals, the study
also involved a total of 4 randomly selected secondary school teachers from two schools in
Klang area.
The interview sessions were conducted with 2 principals and 4 secondary school teachers from
the two identified schools in the Kapar area (Klang district). In this study, the principals from
Kapar area are referred to as PI SA and P2 SB2 whereas the teachers are referred to as T1 SA,
T2 SA, T3 SB, T4 SB. A pilot study of the interview questions was carried out with that of the
interview questions in both schools in Klang. The main purpose was to check the realibility and
content validity of the items.
37

The target samples of this research were two government secondary schools in Klang, Selangor
Darul Ehsan. Those two secondary schools’ Principals and teachers were selected for this
research was due to specific criteria: urban and sub-urban location. The Principals and teachers
have become the center of this research to quest for Principals’ practice relating to his practice,
problems and benefits regarding the principal’s leadership practices in secondary schools. The
employees who took part in this study comprised of 2 Principals (2 schools), 4 secondary school
teachers. They served as the sample in this study. The respondents (include the principal) are
aware of the importance of conducting interviews and letter of consent is given before the
interview conducted.
3.3 Instrumentation
3.3.1 Interview Questions
The interview questions via face-to-face interviews were developed for quest principals’
practice and teachers' perception regarding the principal’s leadership in secondary schools based
on several criteria. In my questions, the criteria of interested are the objective statements and
mission statements: principal instructional leadership : practice, challenges and benefits.
During interviews, researcher used note-taking and audiotape to gather information from
respondents. The information gathered from the 6 respondents were then listened again by the
researcher before transcribe. The process of re-listening the audiotape was to certify no
information was left out during transcribing.
3.4 Validity
Validity and reliability were important because researcher needs to have some assurance that the
instrument used does measure what of supposes to measure (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010). The
reliability of the research was tested by using the same set of interview questions which was
38

given to different Principals as well as to four teachers of two schools in Klang district. The
Instructional Leadership interview questions consist of 7 questions measuring the perceptions of
the principal’s and teacher’s itself. It was constructed by the researcher herself and checked by a
supervisor. The questions were revised twice and re-checked. The supervisor commented to have
the questions to be more precise. Hence, it is important to assess the validity and reliability of the
instruments before real investigation carried out.
The purpose was to analyze the theme of Instructional Leadership of each of the Principals and
teachers in answering the same questions whether they have a similar or different understanding
in dealing with the questions provided. The method of recording, eg, audio, was noted, along
with procedures used for transcribing the data. The respondents were given a consent letter for
anonymity and confidentially so that the subject will be guaranteed. The participants’ responses
were considered on how they structured their responses and how they talked about the subject
being discussed, for example, the person's emotions, tone, nonverbal communication, etc.
The validity of the instrument measured what it was supposed to measure. As a process,
validation involved collecting and analyzing data to assess the accuracy of an instrument.
Content validity refers to the appropriateness of the content of an instrument. In other words, the
measures (questions, observation logs, etc.) accurately assess what I wanted to know. Therefore,
I knew what was the appropriate content which focused on the Instructional Leadership :
practice, challenges and benefits of my interview questions. Particular individuals (experience
English teachers) were chosen with characteristics relevant to the study who were thought as the
most informative and cooperative in editing my thesis and answering all the interview questions
given to them.
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
3.5.1 Data Collection Schedule
Before collecting the data, researcher submitted a research proposal to MOE to get the
permission to carry out the research. After obtaining the permission from MOE, researcher
39

forwarded the letter to JPNS to obtain the permission to do the research in the state of Selangor.
Once the permission to carry out the study was given by JPNS, researcher, downloaded the list of
names of secondary school in Selangor from the MOE website. Researcher randomly selected
two secondary schools based on the school list.
Questionnaire was attached with a cover letter to inform the respondents about the purpose of the
study being carried out and the confidentiality of their responses. Each school was also given a
copy of the permission letter obtained from MOE and JPNS to inform the school administrators
that the study was carried out with permission.
All of the questionnaires were distributed and collected by the researcher in the two selected
schools. Before distributing the questionnaires, respondents were gathered in a meeting room.
Introduction to the research was given to the respondents and a few minutes were taken to
motivate respondents so that they give sincere response to the questionnaire. Researcher assures
all the respondents that the information provided will be kept confidential and will be used by the
researcher only. Respondents are given a day to answer the questionnaires.
Subsequent to distributing of the questionnaires, researcher selected two principals and two
teachers that meet the criteria from each school to answer the interview questions. A duration of
45 minutes was allocated to carry out the interviews for each principal and teacher. In order to
assure the confidentiality of the information gathered from the interview, the researcher
promised that all the interview scripts and audiotape will be obliterated after the study was
completed.
In this study , the data were collected from the samples using the interview questions and the
sessions were conducted by me using interview questions (Face-to-face Interviews) method
with audio tape recorded for about 45 minutes to 1 hour, open-ended, and formal conversations..
More than words, attitude, feelings, facial expressions, data from interviews, transcript and field
notes from observation were carried out.
40

I fully took part in the sessions to ensure the understanding and get a full picture of the current
school phenomenon.
3.5.2 The Interview Questions
According to Opie in Opie (2004), he stated that interviews were used to explore deeper findings
on related topics. The principal’s interview questions consisted of 7 questions. The questions
were about the principal’s practices of the roles and responsibilities as Instructional Leader, the
programmes implemented in school, the benefits and challenges faced by the Principals (see
Appendix A).
There were 7 open-ended questions for the teachers. Teachers’ questions focused on their
perceptions and understandings of the Principal as Instructional Leader, the programs held by the
principals , benefits, and challenges of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in schools (Appendix
B).
Each of the four respondents was interviewed for approximately 15 to 40 minutes. With the
permission of the interviewee, an audio-recording was made of the conversation in order for me
to record the information collected as accurately as possible. According to Lincoln and Guba
(1985), they noted the advantage of recorded data allowed the researcher to have complete
records of the respondents’ answers to the questions.
Following the initial interview two respondents were told they might be contacted for further
explanation, clarification, and additional questions if needed. The conversations were transcribed
and each respondent was given a copy of the transcript to check the accuracy of the transcription.
When respondents received their transcripts, together we went through the questions to
determine whether the respondents had more information to add to any of the previous
responses. The purpose of going over their responses was to make sure that the respondents had
ample opportunity to review their initial responses. The process of going over the questions with
them and giving time to review their transcripts was to ensure the information they provided was
41

as accurate and reliable as possible. After additional comments and changes were completed, the
respondents were asked to sign transcript release forms, which stated that the information
collected and recorded was accurate (see Appendix C).
3.5.3 The Interview Protocol
According to Gall et al. (2007), he noted that an interview can be defined as the verbal questions
asked by the interviewer and verbal responses provided by the interviewee. The strategy for data
collection for my interview utilized the standardized open-ended interview, which involves a
sequence and wording of questions of the same set of questions to be asked from each
respondent. According to Patton (1990), he emphasized that the main reason for asking the exact
questions was to reduce the influence the interviewer may have had on the interviewee.
According to Patton (1990), he noted that the purpose of qualitative interviewing in evaluation is
to understand on how program staff and participants view the program, to learn their terminology
and judgm ents, and to capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and experiences.
Therefore, the face-to-face interview process for this study provided a comprehensive
explanation of each individual’s perspective and understanding of the research question and the
sub-questions. Patton noted the strength of the open-ended questions in the interview allowed for
the interviewees to provide their own thoughts, words and insights.
The interview session of the study used interview questions (Face-to-face Interviews) method
with tape recorded ( 45 min - 1 hour) , 7 open-ended questions , and formal conversations.
According to Gall et al. (2007), he pointed out that the interview process is flexible; it allows the
interviewer to build a trusting relationship with the interviewee, which influenced the individual
comfortable enough to reveal information that they would not normally communicate through
other forms of data collection. The importance of gaining the respondent’s trust was an essential
element for the success of the study. However, the relationship of trust was a fragile one. The
data collected from this type of study tended to be more personal, private, intimate, and
dependent on a relationship developing between the respondents and researcher. However,
42

Patton pointed out a weakness in the structured open-ended interview that it does not allow the
researcher to continue unanticipated responses provided by the interviewee. Ultimately, the
interview process allowed respondents to explain and share their knowledge, experience,
insights, and perceptions, as related to the research questions (Gall et al. ,2007).
3.6 Analysis of Qualitative Data

\
The following sections describe the qualitative data analysis procedures that were employed in
this study. Interview was used to gather additional information regarding principals’ and
teachers’ understanding, opinion and suggestion about their Instructional Leadership.
3.6.1 Interviews
During interviews, researcher used note-taking and audiotape to gather information from
respondents. The information gathered from the 6 respondents were then listened again by the
researcher before transcribe. The process of re-listening the audiotape was to certify no
information was left out during transcribing.
3.6.2 The Interview Data
Moreover, the data collected from interviews with the principals and teachers were compared
and contrasted with each other, as defined in the research questions and the literature review. The
data collected from the principal were analyzed and coded into common patterns, themes,
generalizations, and categories. The same process was applied to the teachers’ responses, with an
additional comparison among the teachers’ responses in order to identify similarities and
differences in perceptions. Finally, the principal’s responses were compared to the teachers’
responses to find the commonalities and differences in perceptions as related to the patterns,
themes, and research questions. This process was conducted manually and did not rely on a
computer program to find the constructs, patterns and themes (Gall et al. ,2007).
43

3.6.3 The Interview Process
The following sections describe the qualitative data analysis procedures that were employed in
this study. Interview was used to gather additional information regarding principals’ and
teachers’ understanding, opinion and suggestion about their Instructional Leadership.
Firstly, all narrative respondents were gathered from the principals and teachers. Their narrative
respondents were labeled PI SA and P2 SB for the Principals. Teachers were labeled T1 SA, T2
SA, T3 SB and T4 SB . According to Sara (2009), it was important to label the narrative
responses in order to keep the privacy confidentiality of the respondents. Also, the respondent
interviews were transcribed.
The interview transcriptions from Principals were labeled as PI SA and P2 SB. Next, the
researcher analyzed the data from narrative responses and the interviews administered from the
respondents. Teachers' respondents’ responses and Principals’ interview were adhered
continually read and re-read before the researcher drew any conclusions. Therefore, this indicates
the coincidence between the variables to answer the questions interviewed.
3.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter explains the overall research design and methodology

used in the study. In this chapter, the location of the study, population and sample
study, the research tool, the validity and reliability as well as the collection procedure and data
analysis were described. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the Instructional Leadership
style. In analyzing the hypothesis of the data, the data collected from interviews with the
principals and teachers were compared and contrasted with each other, as defined in the research
questions and the literature review. The data collected from the principal were analyzed and
coded into common patterns, themes, generalizations, and categories. The same process was
applied to the teachers’ responses, with an additional comparison between the teachers’
responses to identify similarities and differences in perceptions. Finally, the principal’s responses
44

were compared to the teachers’ responses to find the commonalities and differences in
perceptions as related to the patterns, themes, and research questions.
45

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Introduction
This chapter reports the findings of statistical analyses performed on data collected in this study.
The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics to address the objectives of the
study. The results are analyzed according to the research questions based on the following
objectives:
vii) To investigate the level of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in school.
v iii) To identify various Instructional Leadership practices of principals in secondary

schools.
ix ) To identify the challenges faced by the principals in practicing the instructional

leadership.
x) To identify the benefits of implementing Principals’ Instructional Leadership in
improving the schools.
The chapter presents the findings of this study which investigated the Instructional Leadership in
these aspects namely: practices, challenges and benefits. The study employed a qualitative
research method involved the use of interview questions. The findings begin with a brief
description of the demographic profile of the respondents, followed by the main findings of the
study which explored the practices, challenges and benefits. The summary concludes with a
summary of the main findings.
4.1 Profile of Respondents
This section was used to gather information in relation to respondents’ demographic factors. The
demographic profiles consist of school categories, school location, gender, age, level of highest
academic qualification and years of service in the present school.
46

In the Table 3.1, among the principal respondents, 1 of the Principals was male while 1 was
female. For working experience, both of the respondents had working experience between 30 to
32 years. In terms level of academic qualification, both principals held degree certificate.
Table 3.1
D em ography profiles consist^ o f Principals
______________ Principal_____________ ______ Description____________

Principal A A male respondent, aged 57 years
(P I S A ) old
32 years of working experience
Level of Highest Academic
Qualification : Degree
Principal B A female respondent, aged 55 years

(P2 SB) old
In the Table 3.2, among the teachers respondents, majority of the respondents were females. For
working experience, 3 of the respondents had working experience more than 10 years. Only 1
teacher had served below 10 years in school. In terms level of academic qualification, majorities
of the teachers held Bachelor’s Degree.
Table 3.2
Demographic profiles consist^ o f Teachers Respondents^________________________________
Principal____________________________ Description
Teacher 1 A female respondent, aged 46
(T1 SA) years old
Teacher 2 A female respondent, aged 45

(T2 SA) years old
47

Teacher 3 A female respondent, aged 40 years
( T3 SB) old
A female respondent, aged 25 years

Teacher 4 old
(T4 SB) 6 years of working experience
In order to have better samples that can answer the research objectives and questions, sampling
characteristic such as gender, school location and school categories were also taken into
consideration. These characteristics may had consequence to the study, thus it should be properly
signified in the sample (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2010).
In Table 3.3, a total of 6 respondents from 2 secondary schools (School A and School B ) were
selected from the school list to answer the interview questions. Two senior Principals and four
teachers who had good knowledge of the school were chosen to attend the interview. School A
(urban school) achieved an SPM result of 93.7 percent (2013) and School B (rural school)
achieved an SPM result of 88.9 percent (2013).
Table 3.3
Samples for School^ Categories^
School Category School Location Respondents

(Interview)
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Sekolah Menengah
Kebangsaan (SMK) 1 1 3 3
Total 1 1 6 6
48

In the Table 3.3, among the principal respondents, 1 of the Principals was male while 1 was
female. For working experience, both of the respondents had working experience between 30 to
32 years. In terms level of academic qualification, both principals hold degree certificate.
4.2 Practices of Instructional Leadership in School
From the open-ended questions, 2 principal respondents related the Instructional Leadership style
as an effective action to promote growth in student learning. They ageed that the principal also
must have the skills of talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional
growth. Therefore, they both agreed that through effective programs organized by the Principal
reflect the principal-teacher interaction about instruction, processes such as teaching class
observation (Pencerapan Guru) and LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog
Program, I-Think Program, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan
Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training).
Pincipal PI SA reported that he needed to be a resource provider. The Principal must act as a
resource provider in school. It was not enough for principals to know the strengths and
weaknesses of the teachers, but also recognized that teachers desired to be acknowledged and
appreciated for a job well done. For example, he invited officers from PPD and JPS to give talks
and courses to improve teachers’ self -confidence and self- competency. He gave certificates of
acknowledgements to teachers who get high score for I-Think and Vie Frog Programmes.
Besides that, he also hold some motivational programmes and time management talk given by
the PPD and JPS officers.
Pricipal P2 SB highlighted that he needed to be an instructional resource. Teachers counted on

their him as resources of information on current trends and effective instructional practices. He
tuned-in to issues relating to curriculum, effective pedagogical strategies and assessment. For
instance, he could help the teachers to gain information and skills by attending some programs in
49

schools like Vle-Frog and I-Think Program. In Vle-Frog Program, the teachers learned to access
information using the value-Frog Application to give assignments, homeworks and monitor
students’ achievements through online learning. I-Think Program helped the teachers in
improving teachers’ teaching performances using mind maps relating to subjects taught.
Principal PI SA reported that he needed to be good communicators. Effective instructional

leaders needed to communicate essential beliefs regarding learning such as the conviction that all
children could learn and no child should be left behind. For instance, the principal must discuss
and give ideas in improving teaching methods in classrooms through observation.
Principal P2 SB agreed that he needed to create a visible presence. Leading the instructional
programme of a school means a commitment to living and breathing a vision of success in
teaching and learning. This includes focusing on learning objectives, modeling behaviors of
learning, and designing programmes and activities on instruction. For example, he needed to
create mission and vision of school through various programmes so that all teachers had targets
to achieve the KPI (Key Performance In d e x ).
A total of 4 teacher respondents related Instructional Leadership as the style of leadership most
closely relate to enhance student learning. Yet, another 2 respondents agreed that that the
principals and teachers must be hand-in hand, shoulder to shoulder to make it happens
successfully through various programmes such as teaching class observation (Pencerapan Guru)
and LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think
Programme, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti,
Kursus Dalaman (In-house training).
Aligned with the teachers’ responses from the open-ended questions, a total of 2 teachers
pointed out the importance of the principal as a good model. According to teachers, the problem
of ineffective principals could affect the performance of the teachers in schools. They argued
that principals must be a good ‘model’ who demonstrated teaching techniques in classrooms and
during conferences. Teacher T1 SA reported that his principal modeled the positive interactions
with students. He reported that his principal utilized a great deal of informal "coaching" and
mentoring. He was in and out of the entire faculty's classes. Teachers valued his insights because
50

he was an excellent teacher because his love of the children and young people was so obvious
that teachers trusted him. This is supported by Teacher T4 SB highlighted that his principal often
asked if he could teach a class. The Principal enjoyed it while the teachers had some of their best
reflecting after talking with or watching the Principal teach.
4.3 Programmes to Enhance Instructional Leadership in School
Findings revealed that a majority of respondents agreed that there were programmes to enhance
Instructional Leadership in school. They agreed that there were positive impacts to the school
when their principals practiced the Instructional Leadership. For instance, Respondent T1 SA
who had b stressed that programmes like observation (Pencerapan Guru) and LADAP (Latihan
Dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think Programme, Kursus Kemantapan
Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training)
could increase the professionalism among teachers and enhanced the teaching and learning
positively to teachers with greater efficiencies. The students indirectly could increase their
achievements in academic.
Respondent PI SA added that there were many programmes that had been organized to enhance
the Instructional Leadership of principals in school. This was supported by respondent P2 SB,
who had organized observation (Pencerapan Guru) and LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan)
Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) programmes to
increase the Instructional Leadership in school and had arranged and planned those programmes
throughout the year. It really helped in enhancing their Instructional Leaderships in the schools.
4.4 Challenges faced by the principals when they practiced the Instructional Leadership
The qualitative data revealed that among the challenges arose, regardless from among the junior
and senior teachers was that some teachers did not understand the concept of Instructional
51

Leadership. The findings revealed that the Principals stressed that most teachers just came for
teaching purpose only and went back after the lesson over. Thus, when the habit could not be
avoided, therefore the concept of Instructional Leadership will not be practiced. Principal PI SA
reported that some teachers in her school did not know the vision and mission of the school.
They did not give full commitment in the school programmes by not attending some school
programmes. Therefore, she faced a bit of difficulty in handling teachers’ attitude in the school.
In school, if the school head has difficulty in discussing some school programmes with teachers,
it leads to failure. Besides that, if the principal have the lack of skills in promoting learning
environment like no motivational courses, in-house trainings, and teacher observation, the
teachers get de-motivated and low self-esteem. This will also lead to unfriendly environment in
school. Therefore, principals need to have Instructional Leadership in handling all the
challenges he faced. This statement was supported by the principal from a rural environment.
Principal PI SB reported that he also faced challenges in managing instructional program. He
could not communicate well with some teachers who were not cooperative in participating
school activities. This makes his role became complex because there was no communication
between the school heads, teachers and lack of skills in promoting learning environment as well
less friendly and cooperative school environment.
4.5 Challenges faced by the teachers when the principal practiced the Instructional
Leadership
A number of 4 teacher respondents interviewed also emphasized that there were problems when
the Principal practices the Instructional Leadership. Respondent T3 SB, a female experienced
teacher voiced that more programmes like Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri Pelajar and Program
Motivasi Diri Pelajar must be organized for the students to help them in future undertakings once
they leave the school. She argued that it could help the leaders to understand the situation better
and it is up to the teachers whether they are willing to cope and follow her or not.
52

However, in the interview session, teacher T2 SA from one of the urban school highlighted that
in fact they did not have positive interactions with the principal. The principal did not give
informal "coachin g ” and mentoring. He lacked of interaction and communication in giving ideas
of teaching in the classrooms. Besides, he was not always around in school but busy with outside
meetings and school administration job. This statement was supported by teacher T3 SB from a
rural school in the interview. The teacher stated that his principal did not discuss any problems
with the teachers. For example, in I-Think Programme, the teachers having difficulty in
accessing internet connection and some extra classes were held during school holidays.
Aligned with the teachers’ responses from the open-ended questions, a total of 2 teachers pointed
out the importance of having sufficient facilities such as classrooms, chairs, tables and
whiteboard in the school. These teachers agreed that inadequate facilities can influence the
Instructional Leadership. Teacher T1 SA pointed that lack of classrooms in her school had
affected the students’ learning performance. The students had to learn in ‘floating classes’ like in
school hall, library, seminar rooms and others. This statement was supported by teacher T3 SB
from a rural school in the interview. The teacher stated that his school also did not have enough
classrooms for Science laboratory. They had to conduct the lesson in the classroom and
definitely the students were not able to practice the skills needed. In fact, he pointed out that it is
very difficult for him to teach Science subject in the classroom especially when he needed to
perform experiment according to the syllabus.
4.6 Benefits of Instructional Leadership
From the open-ended questions, 2 principal respondents related the Instructional Leadership to
positive professionalism of teaching and learning. They also emphasized that programmes like
teacher observation, LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Programme, I-
Think Programme, Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan
Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) could increase the professionalism among teachers
53

and enhanced teaching and learning positively to teachers with great efficiencies. The students
indirectly could increase the achievement in academic.
Principal PI SA reported that for example, in 5S programme, she was glad that the working
station of teachers were organized and teachers were easier to arrange, plan and implementing
tasks, they were able to see the cooperation in getting the certificate of 5S. In co-curricular
activities, teachers could implement their plans and made plannings more thoroughly from the
trainings and friendly co-curricular competitions. This statement was also supported by Principal
P2 SB. He added that among those benefits were in V-LE Programme and I-Think Programme,
teachers gained knowledge in the programmes. They understood their duties and responsibilities
and thus practiced it before any instructions were put onto them.
Respondent T4 SB added that their Instructional Leader (Principals) ensured them (teachers) to
be more competency and knowledgeable as well as upgrading their skills in teaching and
learning process besides helping out the students in particular subjects effectively. According to
teacher T4 SB, she added that the programmes held by the principals like In-house Training and
LADAP (Latihan dalam Perkhidmatan) such as VLE Frog Programme, I-Think Programme,
Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri, Kursus Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman
(In-house training) could increase their knowledge and skills in handling school activities.
This was also corroborated by respondent T3 SA that he pointed that the benefits of VLE Frog
Programme helped teachers in using special software application to teach in the classes and gave
assignments to students through online classes. This strengthened the teaching and learning
process whereby the students could empower their learning skills and teachers could also
strengthen their teachings effectively. In-house Programme and Kursus Kemantapan Kendiri
could give useful inputs to teachers in teaching and learning process .
54

4.7 Chapter Summary
The major purpose of this chapter was to present the findings of statistical analyses of data
collected in the study. Results of analyses were to convene the objectives and provide answers to
the four research questions posed in the study. The chapter starts with the analysis of the profiles
of principal and teacher respondents. The analysis of respondent profile was carried out due to
the importance of understanding the background and context of the research in this study.
Findings revealed that there was no significant difference between principals and teachers’
perception towards Instructional Leadership’s practices in secondary schools. There was no
significant difference between principals and teachers’ perception towards the benefits of
Instructional Leadership in improving the schools.There was a difference between principals and
teachers’ perception towards the challenges faced by the principals in practising the Instructional
Leadership. There is no significant differences between the school mission, managing the
Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate with teachers’ perception towards
Instructional Leadership on categories of school. There was a positive relationship between the
three dimensions of Instructional Leadership. The variables of the school mission, managing the
Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate were identified as significance
predictors of Instructional Leadership.
55

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter presented the summary of the study, conclusion, implications and recommendations
for schools and Ministry of Education in Malaysia. Basically, the Instructional Leadership falls
into four broad areas.
The three dimensions of Instructional Leadership relatively defining the school mission,
managing the Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate were treated as
independent variables and Instructional Leadership as dependent variable.
This chapter presented the summary of the study, conclusion, implication and recommendations
for schools and Ministry of Education in Malaysia. Basically, the three dimensions investigated
namely the school mission, managing the Instructional Program and Creating a positive school
climate at the moderate level. However, three dimensions investigated namely the school
mission, managing the Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate were
perceived differently by teachers from different types of school. Generally, positive
relationships were identified among the three dimensions of Instructional Leadership. Besides
that, the three dimensions of Instructional Leadership namely the school mission, managing the
Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate were identified as the predictors of
positive Instructional Leadership.
5.1 Summary of the Study
The underlying principle for selecting each of the variables was based on related literature and
common impressions. Therefore, this conceptual framework of Hallinger & Murphy (2008)
Model of Instructional Management dimension concerned the principal’s role in determining
56

the central purposes of the school. The dimension focused on the principal’s role in working
with staff to ensure that the school has clear, measurable, time-based goals focused on the
academic progress of students. It was also the principal’s responsibility to communicate these
goals so they were widely known and supported throughout the school community.
Demographic characteristics such as gender, age and working experience were also included in
the data analysis.
A total of 6 respondents from 2 secondary schools (School A and School B) were randomly
selected from the school list to answer the interview questions. Two senior Principals and four
teachers who had good knowledge of the school to attend the interview. School A (urban
school) achieved PMR result of 92.1, SPM result of 90.7 percent (2013) and School B (suburban
school) achieved PMR result of 87.8 p erce n t, SPM result of 88.9 percent (2013). (Table 3.1)
Among the respondents, 1 of the Principal respondents was male, while 1 was female. For
working experience, both of the respondents had working experience between 42 and 46 years
while 2 of the teacher respondents had working experience between 20-29 years (Table 3.2)
while 2 of the teacher respondents had working experience between 6-12 years respectively.
(Table 3.3)
In terms of qualitative research method, interviews were conducted with 2 Principals, 4 teachers
identified from two schools in the Klang district by using the open-ended questions. The findings
from qualitative method gained into Instructional Leadership through describing (a) one school
principal’s roles and responsibilities of Instructional Leadership, and (b) the same school’s
teachers’ perceptions of Instructional Leadership’s practice/implementation of their Principals.
The data for this qualitative were collected with the assistance of two principals and four
teachers from the two different respective schools. Data were collected using a standardized
open-ended interviews. The main source for the data collection was from the interview.
Interview question was used to collect data. The open-ended questions were used to conduct
interview. The interviews were used to explore deeper findings on related topic. The principal’s
57

interview questions consisted of 7 questions. The questions generated for the principal sought the
principal’s practices of the roles and responsibilities as Instructional Leader, the programmes
implemented in school, the benefits and problems faced by the Principals.
There were 7 interview questions for the principals and teachers. Principals’ questions focused
on their perceptions and understandings as Instructional Leader, the implementation of
programmes held by them in schools. Teachers’ questions focused on their perceptions and
understandings of the Principal as Instructional Leader, the programmes held by the principals ,
benefits, and challenges of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in schools. Each of the
participants was interviewed for approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour. With the permission of the
interviewee, an audio-recording was made of the conversation in order for me to record the
information collected as accurately as possible.
To examine the suitability and clarity of the instruments, the questions was piloted by using the
same set of interview questions given to different Principals as well as to four teachers of two
schools in Klang district. The results from the actual study also assured the researcher that the
theme of Instructional Leadership was applicable in this study.
Aligned with the research objectives, two randomly selected secondary schools in the Klang
district of Selangor were chosen by the researcher to conduct the study. A sample of 2 principals
and 2 teachers from secondary schools were randomly selected to answer the interview
questions. In the interview session, two teachers were purposively selected from each schools
giving a total of 4 teachers interviewed during the study.
From the study conducted, the findings revealed that the theme of Instructional Leadership
overall as perceived by principals and teacher respondents of each of the Principals and teachers
in answering the same questions whether they had similar or different understanding in dealing
with the questions provided. The method of recording, eg, audio, will be noted, along with
procedures used for transcribing the data. The participants were given a consent letter for
anonymity and confidentially so that the subject will be guaranteed.
58

Regarding the theme of Instructional Leadership, the findings revealed a few differences
between the principal’s and teachers’ perceptions. Based on the findings obtained, 2 respondents
(2 Principals) confessed that they practiced the Instructional Leadership in their schools. A
majority of teachers (4 respondents ) agreed that their principals had implemented Instructional
Leadership in their schools. Findings revealed that a majority of respondents agreed that there
were programmes to enhance Instructional Leadership in school. They agreed that there were
positive impacts to the school when their Principals practiced the Instructional Leadership who
had been teaching for 29 years stressed that programmes like observation (Pencerapan Guru)
Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) increased the professionalism among teachers and enhanced
teaching and learning positively to teachers with great efficiencies. The students indirectly
increased their achievements in academic that programmes like observation (Pencerapan Guru)
Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) increased the professionalism among teachers and
enhanced teaching and learning positively to teachers with great efficiencies.
Finally, the more effort must put into the following themes: practices, benefits and challenges of
Instructional to creating a positive Instructional Leadership climate.
5.2 Conclusion
The major objective of the study was to explain and describe the differences of practices,
challenges and benefits between two principal’s and four teachers’ perceptions of different two
secondary schools and understandings of Instructional Leadership based on the model of
Hallinger & Murphy (2008). The respondents of the study were two principals and four
secondary school teachers from the Klang district in Selangor. In the effort to answer research
questions, a number of conclusions were made from the findings. This study was only limited to
59

a small sample from selected secondary schools, therefore conclusions made do not reflect on all
Malaysian secondary school teachers’ perception towards instructional leadership . In relation to
the objectives of the study, the conclusions that could be drawn from the findings are presented
as follows:
i. There was no significant difference between principals and teachers’ perception

towards Instructional Leadership’s practices in secondary schools.
ii. There was no significant difference between principal^ and teachers’ perception
towards the benefits of Instructional Leadership in improving the schools.
iii. There was a difference between principals and teachers’ perception towards the
challenges faced by the principals in practising the Instructional Leadership.
iv. There is no significant differences between the school mission, managing the
Instructional Program and Creating a positive school climate with teachers’
perception towards Instructional Leadership on categories of school.
v. There was a positive relationship between the three dimensions of Instructional

Leadership.
vi. The variables of the school mission, managing the Instructional Program and
Creating a positive school climate were identified as significance predictors of
Instructional Leadership.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 Programmes To Enhance Instructional Leadership in School
Based on the conclusion made from the findings, secondary school principals and teachers in
Selangor perceived Instructional Leadership at high level. Result indicated that principals and
teachers believed themselves as being professional towards their job. Principals in both two
schools had the same perceptions that they were practicing Instructional Leadership. As an
Instructional leader, managing the Instructional Program focuses on the coordination and control
60

of instruction and curriculum. This incorporates three main leadership management functions
which are supervising and evaluating Instruction, coordinating the curriculum, monitoring
students’ progress (Hallinger, 2003). Within this model of Instructional Leadership, managing
the instructional program requires the principal to be deeply engaged in stimulating, supervising
and monitoring teaching and learning in the school (Blase, 2000).
It is important for the principals to identify their skills in the roles and responsibilities of with
regard to their new role. However, teachers perceived their principals’ behavior was at the high
level. Result indicated that teachers in the two different categories of schools had the same
perception that their principals must practice highest standard of performance. However, the
principals needed to make improvements by restructuring of schools management in order to
empower teachers and to implement school-based shared decision making. This can resulted in a
move away from bureaucratic control and toward professionalization of teaching (Barber, 2010).
In many schools, the teachers were developing a collaborative practice of teaching which
includes coaching, reflection, group investigation of data, study teams, and risk-laden
explorations to solve problems. There were many in-house trainings and courses held by the
principals which had trained the teachers in developing their teaching professions. Significantly,
there existed a “community of learners” which is the most encouraged action to have in school
between the Principal and teachers as a community, who also provide academic and moral
service to students (Glanz, 2005).
Face-to-face interviews information were collected by the qualitative method. Interviews were
carried out through the interview questions and the commitment of Principals and teachers on the
school. A total of 4 teachers and 2 principals of the 2 schools that served in Klang had been
selected as respondents. Teachers were selected as respondents of the study because the teachers
were among those who accepted the leadership of the headteacher / principals in school. This
study had been asked to answer questions that enable them to identify the Instructional
Leadership style of a leader.
Overall, this study revealed that principals' Instructional Leadership is the main factor that
influenced teachers' commitment to the school. The principals confessed that they practiced the
61

Instructional Leadership in their schools. A majority of teachers agreed that their principals had
implemented Instructional Leadership in their schools. A majority of respondents agreed that
there were programmes to enhance Instructional Leadership in school. They agreed that there
were benefits to the school when their Principals practiced the Instructional Leadership. For
instance, that programmes like teachers observation, LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan)
and others increased the professionalism among teachers and enhance teaching and learning
positively to teachers with great efficiencies. Blase (2000) supported that courses and
programmes are good for teachers to enhance their professions and students indirectly can
increase their achievements in academic.
Leadership in implementing common practice, principals were more likely to practice

Instructional Leadership. Principal will adopt Instructional Leadership when he wanted to build
a school climate that is conducive and fun for the learning and teaching. Through the leadership
behavior of human resources, principals are so caring and sensitive to the problems faced by
teachers. The main purpose of the principals to do so is to produce teachers who committed to
the school and assigned responsibilities. As a manager of school, the principals were required to
prioritize professional duties, which pertains curricular and co-curricular and non-professional,
concerning administrative matters. According to Bryk (2010), he agreed that in carrying out
professional and non-professional, structural leadership adopted by the principals to ensure that
teachers and support staff to perform each assigned task. In addition, structural leadership is also
used by principals when enforcing school rules to be observed by all the teachers and students.
As the instructional leader in the school, the principal is planning all academic programs that
seeks to improve the quality of school performance in each national examinations (Hallinger,
2003).
Based on the practice of Instructional Leadership, the principal is the source of inspiration and
model for teachers and students. Principals are reminded to translating the school's mission and
goals national education to be internalized and applied to the self-esteem of teachers and
students. Principals conveyed the mission and goals through the rites school for example, when
Monday morning assembly, the council presented the prizes and programs embrace the Quran. In
achieving its mission and goals, principals must try to implement the goals and mission of the
school culture to be part of the goal of self-teachers and students (McEwan, 1994).
62

In school, the mission was absolutely clear. It was written down and visible around the school. It
was focused on academic development appropriate to the needs of this particular school
population. The mission set a priority for the work of teachers. It was known and accepted as
legitimate by teachers throughout the school. The mission was articulated, actively supported,
and modeled by the principal.
As Instructional leader, the second dimension of the conceptual framework of Hallinger &
Murphy (2008) emphasized that Managing the Instructional Program focuses on the
coordination and control of instruction and curriculum. This dimension incorporates three
Instructional Leadership, managing the instructional program requires the principal to be deeply
engaged in stimulating, supervising and monitoring teaching and learning in the school.
Principals surveyed also indicated that Instructional Leadership is a good practice. Indeed, they
have organized programmes which are well-planned throughout the year to enhance Instructional
Leadership in school. Every principals must implement programmes to enhance the Instructional
Leadership. This can be seen among the teachers in which they practice their tasks, orderly and
understand their responsibilities in the classrooms as well as the students. Among the challenges
faced are some teachers do not understand the concept of Instructional Leadership, they just
come and go from school. However, it’s a good practice to train a leader. The Principal must
have a mission and vision in clear picture to be able to plan well in order to achieve the
objectives of the school. Overall, it should be exposed to every individuals. Park (2009)
supported that it should be practiced by all principals in schools in order to realize with good
mission and vision. If everybody practice it together, the school will fully succeed its mission
and vision.
In the same situation, the majority of teachers’ evaluation showed that principal’s leadership
have an impact on their commitment to school improvement. Interview results also show that the
Instructional Leadership of principals have strong influence on the improvement of teachers'
commitment to school. A majority of teachers (4 respondents) agreed that their principals had
63

implemented Instructional Leadership in their schools. The principal have implemented some
programmes. In terms of teacher, observation in class and LADAP program and others. It
enhanced the professionalism of teachers and PDP, therefore it increased positivism on teachers
and to upgrade their level of proficiency and competency in the form of knowledge, develop
more confidence in delivering the lesson. For teachers, more motivated teachers teach will be
more quality. In- house training and LADAP had given useful input to help teachers in the
teaching and learning process . Students captured the subject better as well as gives positive
effects to teachers. Consequently, they were more competence and knowledgeable and skills in
teaching and learning process. . If principals held in- house training and LADAP. It could
increase their knowledge of skills more competent and skilled. In general, it should be in the
long run and future, to make it a better ones in future education. He or she could come up with
more modules for the teachers and to the school so as it could give more ideas to teachers, to be
able to be more advance. In short, he needed to continue this Instructional Leadership
consistently to improve the competence of teachers and enhanced the brilliant achievements of
students in academic and non- academic.
5.3.2 Challenges faced by the Principals when they practiced the Instructional Leadership
The qualitative data revealed that among the problems arised, regardless from among the junior
and senior teachers is that some teachers did not understand the concept of Instructional
Leadership. The findings revealed that the Principals informed that most teachers just come for
teaching without having to understand the mission and vision of the school. They did not have a
strong commitment in teaching such as absent from attending courses, programmes and delaying
doing school works. Some teachers did not use a variety of teaching methods and merely ‘chalk
and talk’ teaching method. Thus, when the habit could not be avoided, therefore the concept of
Instructional Leadership will not be practiced. Principals were having great challenges in
handling teachers’ attitude and task commitment in schools. Therefore, principals needed to have
Instructional Leadership in improving schools. Barth (1991) agreed that improving schools must
be implemented within the school.
64

5.3.3 Challenges faced by the Teachers when the Principal practiced the Instructional
Leadership
The results from the data analyzed indicated that the teachers had problems in coping with school
schedule programmes during school holidays, less interaction between principals and teachers and lack
of facilities. A teacher voiced that school facilities must be improved for the students in helping
them in future undertakings, once they leave the school like open more classes. Despite of
excessive students, some classes had to be handled in an open hall and language lab had to be
opened as classrooms. Besides, there were also floating classes. Some school programs and
extra classes were held during the school holidays. This problem faced by the teachers in dealing
with principals’ programmes. Therefore, there was a poor attendance among teachers. There was
a weak communication between principals and teachers. Thus, clear communication by school
head is required all the time when communicating with teachers and parents to prevent from
conflicts and miscommunication. According to Pashiardis (2000), he agreed that teachers prefer
their principals to state the expectation of the school that would like them to accomplish
particularly when the new idea or program are being introduced. Therefore, successful
communication can establish good interaction between teachers and school head and at the same
time increase teacher approval of the new plan initiated.
School head’s effective communication created a joyful working place for teachers. Teachers
were willing to work with high spirits if school head willing to listen and discuss to find solution
if any crisis take place in school. According to Hoy et al. (2003), he emphasized that the school
head that can communicate clearly with teachers in what they belief, shared difficulty in
handling problems so that teachers knew w hat’s going on inside the school, treated teacher as
friends, and being open and thoughtful in whatever action taken by the school head could
successfully reduced conflicts and build a better working environment for teachers.
5.3.4 Benefits of Instructional Leadership
A number of respondents in the study also emphasized that programmes held by the principals

Profesionalisme Perguruan dan Integriti, Kursus Dalaman (In-house training) like observation,
LADAP (Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan) and others increased the professionalism among teachers
and enhanced teaching and learning positively to teachers with greater efficiencies. The students
indirectly increased the achievement in academic.
Another aspect investigated in this study was the benefits of practising Instructional Leadership
in school. The Instructional Leaders commented that even though the concept had problems
during the implementation, nevertheless there were benefits or positive impacts associated with
the implementation of the Instructional Leadership. The data obtained from interview session
was analyzed. The findings revealed that there were numerous benefits gained by the Principals
and teachers in schools. Experienced Principals like PI SA and P2 SB mentioned that the first
and foremost benefits that can be observed among the teachers is whereby some excellent
teachers had implemented it orderly because they understood their responsibilities with good
mission and vision of the school especially in teaching and learning process.
In the teaching process, the teachers' observations had given the improvements in the teachers’
methods. Besides using textbooks, the teachers used e-books, projector and slides, and videos
instead of using textbooks in classrooms. Teachers as professionals should understand their role
in educating students to become a successful person. In general, teachers that were committed
with student performance were eager in spending more time preparing lesson plans and other
teaching aids to make the lesson fun, interesting and easier for the student to understand. They
were willing to collaborate with other teachers during free time in order to perform better in the
classroom for the benefit of the students (Park, 2005).
Overall, the Principals had been identified to practice Instructional Leadership in schools. The
practice had given some problems and benefits to them and teachers. This shows that it was
significantly important and essential needs for the Principals to apply and practice Instructional
Leadership in schools in order to improve for the betterment in the future. Thus, Instructional
Leadership must be parallel to vision and mission of the school.
66

5.4 Recommendations for Future Study
5.4.1 Using Larger Sample
The study conducted involved only a small number of teachers from secondary schools in Klang
district. Therefore, the findings from this study cannot be used to generalized other secondary
school's teacher’s perception of their Instructional Leadership. For that reason, to identify the
Instructional Leadership of secondary schools in Malaysia, it is advisable for future research to
include more samples of principals and teacher respondents from all the states in Malaysia
including samples of principals and teacher respondents from Sabah and Sarawak. The findings
of the research will be more significant if larger samples were used.
5.4.2 Using Different Sample
The present study was to identify teacher’s perception towards the Principals’ Instructional
Leadership. Perhaps, in the future research, the study conducted can use urban schools and rural
schools as samples in order to explore teachers’ perception of the Principal’s Instructional
Leadership. We can make a comparison between two different locations of samples to
investigate the principals Instructional Leadership practice, benefits and challenges in schools.
67

REFERENCES
Andrew C. Porter, Joseph Murphy, et al. Vanderbilt Assessment o f Leadership in Education,

2010, 16-19.
Barth, R. S. (1991). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass provides a
model.
Blase, J.R. and Blase, J. (1996), "M icropolitical strategies used by administrators and teachers in
instructional conferences", Alberta Journal o f Educational Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp.
345-60.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999a). Effective instructional leadership through the teachers’ eyes. High
School Magazine, 7( 1), 16-20.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999b). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 349-379.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in school. Journal o f Educational
Administration, 38(2) 130-141.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Bunce, D.
(2008).
Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E. and Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2008). Principals Improving Instruction: Supervision, Evaluation,
and Professional Development. Boston: Pearson.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2010). How To Design And Evaluate Research In Education
(7th ed). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Glanz, J. (2005). Action research as instructional supervision: Suggestions for principals.

National Association o f Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 59(643), 17-27.
68

Glanz, J. (2006). What every principal should know about instructional leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading education change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal o f Education. 33(3), 329-351.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and
Practice (7th ed). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Leithwood, K. (2001), School leadership in the context of accountability policies, International

Journal o f Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217-35.
McEwan, E. K. (1994). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. New York: Scholastic
Inc. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nded.).
Newbury, CA: Sage Publication Ltd.
Malaysia Education Blueprint ( 2013-2025), Ministry of E ducation., 2-17.
Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and Teacher Perceptions of
School Climate: A Multilevel Exploration of Patterns of Discrepancy. Journal o f School
Health, 80(6), 271-279.
Nico Stehr (2002) A World Made of Knowledge. Lecture at the Conference “New Knowledge
and New Consciousness in the Era o f the Knowledge Society", Budapest, January 31,
2002.
Thomas R Hoerr, December 2007/January 2008 | Volume 65 | Number 4 Informative

Assessment Pages 84-85.
Meredith I. Honig, Michael A. Copland, Lydia Rainey, Juli Anna Lorton and Morena Newton,
Central Office Transformation fo r District-Wide Teaching and Learning Improvement,
University of Washington, 2010.
New Straits Times (November 10th, 2013), Kuala Lumpur.
New Straits Times (Sunday, November 3rd, 2013), Kuala Lumpur.
69

Karen Seashore Louis, Kenneth Leithwood, Kyla L. Wahlstrom, Stephen E. Anderson, Learning
from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning: Final Report of
Research to The Wallace Foundation, University of Minnesota and University of
Toronto, 2010, 9. 168-171.
Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025, (September 2012), Ministry of Education.
Park, V. and Datnow, A. 2009. Co-constructing distributed leadership: district and school
connections in data-driven decision making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5):
477-494.
Park, I. (2005). Teacher Commitment and its Effects on Student Achievement in American High
Schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(5), 461-485.
Pashiardis, G. (2008). Towards a knowledge base for school climate in Cyprus’s schools. The
International Journal o f Educational Management, 22(5), 399-416.
Pepper, K , & Thomas, L. H. (2002). Making a Change: The Effects of the Leadership Role on
School Climate. Learning Environment Research, 5, 155-166.
Stronge, J. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. In M. S. Tichenor & J. M. Tichenor (Eds.),

Understanding Teachers’ Perspective on Professionalism. The Professional Educator,
27(1 &2), 89-95.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (2nded.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publication, Inc.
70

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Interview Questions for P rin cip al.................................................................... 73
Appendix B - Interview Questions for T ea ch ers...................................................................... 74
Appendix C - Consent Form........................................................................................................ 75
Appendix D - Transcript Release Form ....................................................................................... 76

\
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Hallinger & Murphy (2008) Model of Instructional M anagement................. 30
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.: Function of Instructional Leaders.............................................................................. 25
71

Instructional Leadership of Principals in Secondary Schools in Kajang

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instructional Leadership of Principals in Secondary Schools in Kajang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OF PRINCIPALS

NOR AZREINA BINTI ABDUL RAMAN

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

segala rujukannya telah saya nyatakan.

Nama : Nor Azreina Bt Abdul Raman

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

institution or non-academic institution for any other degree or qualification.

Name of Student Nor Azreina Bind Abdul Raman

Student ID No. 2011835378

Faculty Faculty of Education, Uitm Shah Alam

Thesis Title Instructional Leadership of Principals in

Secondary Schools in Klang.

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

Keywords : Instructional Leadership, Principal, Secondary school

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

to strive towards my goal.

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION,

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

3.1 Samples of School Categories 47

3.2 Demographic Profiles consists of Principals 47

3.3 Demographic Profiles consists of Teachers Respondents 48

2.6 Research Framework 30

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

JPS Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri Selangor

LADAP Latihan Dalam Perkhidmatan

MOE Ministry of Education

MBMMBI Memartabatkan Bahasa Melayu Memperkasakan Bahasa

PPD Pejabat Pelajaran Daerah

SMK Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

1.1 Background of The Study

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

In our country, principals tend to be more manageable-administrators oriented, but the

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

Principal is an effective booster in achieving excellent academic performances in school.

Based on Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025), it stated that to ensure high-performing

1.2 Statement of the Problem

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

1) To investigate the level of Principals’ Instructional Leadership in school.

3) To identify the challenges faced by the principals in practicing the instructional

1.4 Research Questions

1) What is the level of Instructional Leadership practised by principals in school?

1.5 Significance of the Study

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

1.6 Limitations of the study

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

1.7 Definition of Terms

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

1.8 Chapter Summary

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

2.1 Definitions of Instructional Leadership

COPYRIGHT UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

2.2 Definitions of School Principal

2.3 Instructional Leadership Theories

________ Principal_ Description________