Letter to the Editor

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Perceptions of teachers on 1–17
ª The Author(s) 2020

the instructional leadership Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143220938365
behaviours of secondary school journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

principals in Rwanda

Innocent Sibomana

Abstract
This article draws on data collected from a wider PhD study conducted in the Nyamagabe district
of Rwanda in 2017. The main purpose of that study was to identify instructional leadership
behaviours enacted by secondary school principals, and investigate the extent to which these
behaviours influence professional practices of teachers. This article focuses only on identifying
instructional leadership behaviours of school principals from the perceptions of the teachers in the
district using the survey questionnaires. Data collected were analysed using SPSS software and
means and standard deviations were computed to determine the extent to which school principals
enacted instructional leadership behaviours. The findings suggest that, as perceived by the
teachers, principals to a large extent do engage in instructional leadership behaviours in their
schools. These behaviours included supervising instruction, providing feedback and discussing this
feedback with teachers. It was observed that defining and communicating shared goals, promoting
teacher professional development, providing teaching and learning resources and reviewing cur-
ricula were also enacted. Teachers ranked their principals as moderately enacting instructional
leadership behaviours. Although these findings are not generalisable across the country, they can
serve as a roadmap for school principals and policy makers to improve instructional leadership in
Rwandan secondary schools.

Keywords
Instructional leadership, principalship, Rwandan education, secondary schools, shared instructional
leadership, teachers’ perceptions of leadership

Introduction
This article draws on data collected from a wider PhD study conducted in the Nyamagabe district of
Rwanda in 2017. The main purpose of that study was to identify instructional leadership behaviours

Corresponding author:
Innocent Sibomana, Doctoral Student in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, School of Education,
University of the Witwatersrand, 27 St Andrew Road, Parktown, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Email: sibinnocent75@gmail.com.
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

enacted by secondary school principals and investigate the extent to which these behaviours influ-
ence the professional practices of teachers. This article focuses only on identifying the instructional
leadership behaviours of school principals as perceived by the teachers in the Nyamagabe district.
The relevance of instructional leadership continues to attract much attention in educational
research. As Bendikson et al. (2012) report, considerable emphasis in the area of instructional
leadership is currently placed on the need for principals to be instructional leaders because of the
impact such a leadership approach has on student outcomes compared to other types of leadership
frameworks (Bush, 2013; Robinson et al., 2008). Alam and Ahmad (2017) and Dinham (2013)
emphasise that instructional leadership makes a significant difference in student outcomes through
the focus on teachers and the quality of instruction that schools provide to the students.
Isaiah and Isaiah (2014) state that the principal as school leader holds a position that has a
substantial role in maintaining and improving the quality of instruction in schools. Principals
working as instructional leaders ensure that instructional quality is the top priority in schools. They
involve themselves in setting school-wide goals, communicating these goals to the staff, providing
the resources needed for learning to occur, supervising instruction and providing feedback, coordi-
nating staff development programmes and creating collegial relationships with and among teachers
(Gawlik, 2018; Hallinger, 2005). The performance of these functions requires principals to work
collaboratively with teachers and make schools learning places in relation to shared goals, teacher
collaboration, teacher learning opportunities, teacher commitment and student learning (Jenkins,
2009; Mestry, 2013).
Despite the fact that the principal’s instructional leadership is known to have influence on student
outcomes through the focus on teachers, in Rwanda, there are very few studies on school leadership.
It is apparent that none of these has provided insights into instructional behaviours enacted by
secondary school principals, or the perceptions of teachers of these leadership behaviours. This
study attempted to fill that gap by demonstrating the level of principals’ involvement in instructional
leadership behaviours designed towards ensuring productive teaching and learning in the Rwandan
secondary school context.

Background and context

Instructional leadership targets the core business of schooling, namely teaching and learning (Bush,
2013; Gawlik, 2018). Mestry (2013:120) defines instructional leadership as all actions that princi-
pals take, or delegate to others, to promote growth in students’ learning. Instructional leadership
focuses on the behaviours of school leaders, especially principals, as they engage in activities that
positively influence the work of teachers and student achievement. Since its inception, instructional
leadership has traditionally been conceived as relating to one single leader in a school: the principal
(Bush, 2013; Hallinger, 2005). The principal was viewed as the primary source of educational
expertise, power and authority in schools. Accordingly, the performance of a school was expected
to improve if, and only if, the principal was engaged extensively with supervising classroom instruc-
tion, monitoring student progress, coordinating the school curriculum, promoting a climate of
learning and creating a working environment through a top-down and directive management
approach (Kwan, 2016; Ylimaki, 2007).
The criticism against the perception of the school principal as the centre of expertise, power and
authority has led some researchers to think of a new concept of instructional leadership. For example,
Printy and Marks (2006) and Robinson et al. (2008) advocate instructional leadership that empha-
sises active collaboration of the principal and teachers on curricula and instruction, known as ‘shared
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 3

instructional leadership’. This model acknowledges that other school members, especially teachers,
are important elements in shaping the instructional processes in schools (Grant, 2005; Printy and
Marks, 2006). Shared instructional leadership calls for various efforts from different players to
collaboratively work for effective teaching and learning. It is in this collaborative process that the
principal seeks out the ideas, insights and expertise of teachers around instructional matters (Alam
and Ahmad, 2017).
Despite the key role of principals in making learning more successful in schools, existing studies,
especially in developing countries, show that the principal’s role in the teaching and learning process
is very limited (Hallinger and Lee, 2013; Hoadley et al., 2009; Isaiah and Isaiah, 2014; Naidoo and
Petersen, 2016; Taole, 2013). In many schools in developing countries, the barrier between the
school principal’s office and teachers’ classrooms is strong. Principals distance themselves from
their teachers and believe that anything to do with teaching and learning is the responsibility of
teachers or heads of departments (Hoadley et al., 2009; Taole, 2013).
In Rwanda, the situation is similar. Despite the government effort to improve the quality of
education through enhancing the quality of school leadership (Peeraer et al., 2014), school principals
still display a gap in their leadership practices and competencies (Ntahomvukiye et al., 2017).

Model of instructional leadership

In order to conceptualise instructional leadership in Rwandan secondary schools, the study drew on
Weber’s model (1996). This model introduces a notion of shared instructional leadership among
school members who strive to raise student achievements. Weber’s model (1996) includes five
essential domains of instructional leadership, namely defining the school’s mission, managing the
curriculum and instruction, promoting a positive climate, observing and improving instruction and
assessing the instructional programme. However, I selected only aspects from this model that fit
into the Rwandan context. Each of these aspects is discussed below.

Defining and communicating school missions and goals

Gawlik (2018), Harris et al. (2017) and Salleh (2013) in their research admit that an important
dimension of the principal’s role as instructional leader is to define and communicate a vision,
mission and purpose of the school. This suggests that effective schools have principals who are
visionaries, who constantly dream about the future of schools and strategies and innovative ways to
reach this future. School vision forms an image of what school leaders wish their schools to be in
the future (Kantabutra, 2008; Mombourquette, 2017). The role of principals is to create opportu-
nities in schools to talk about this broad picture and link it to current activities in order to discover
discrepancies from which changes in the classroom can be made (Kin et al., 2018).
Principals who perform the instructional leadership role understand that one of their tasks is to
encourage teachers and other school members to join their efforts and concentrate their energy on
the school purpose. A factor that helps a school principal to achieve the school mission is to have
clear, measurable and achievable school academic goals. The principal as instructional leader
plays a key role in determining the areas in which teaching staff will focus their attention and
resources during a given year (Gowlik, 2018; Harris et al., 2017). To be effective, school missions
and goals do not need to be defined unilaterally by the school principal. Rather, school goals should
be developed in collaboration with other school members, especially teachers, to stimulate their
energy and commitment towards their achievement (Hallinger, 2005; Murphy and Louis, 1994).
4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Once these goals are defined, the role of the principal is to continue reminding teachers and
other school members about them and specifically assist teachers to incorporate such goals into
their daily classroom practices. Harris et al. (2017) and Kin et al. (2018) advise principals to
communicate regularly the school goals to teachers to help them make sense of their work and
commit to it. Discussing school goals with teachers also helps the principal to determine whether
good progress is being made in teaching and learning and what kind of support can be given to the
teachers for effective implementation of the curriculum.

Planning and coordinating the curriculum

Planning and coordinating the curriculum is among the key activities of principals as instructional
leaders. One of the roles of school principals is to know if the existing curriculum meets the needs of
students in the school and continue to assess it on a regular basis. Principals are responsible for
jointly organising the curriculum to help all students to maximise their learning (Çalıskan and
Tabancalı, 2009). According to Ifeoma (2013), organising curricula refers to a process of formulat-
ing and selecting curriculum objectives, content and the actions to achieve these objectives. The role
of principals is then to work with teachers and share information regarding the relevant instructional
content and methods to facilitate curriculum implementation (Mafora and Phorabatho, 2013). Prin-
cipals are also responsible for guiding and supporting teachers to choose the appropriate teaching
and learning support materials that are aligned with the selected content and objectives.
By the nature of their responsibilities, principals as instructional leaders should ensure that
teachers are an integral part of the curriculum planning process. Here, the effort must be made to
help teachers have a good understanding of curriculum theory and practices, and develop the
necessary skills for competently implementing this curriculum (Çalıskan and Tabancalı, 2009).
Muijs and Harris (2006) argue that teacher involvement in curriculum planning results in sharing
knowledge, professional understanding and practice. There is a possibility for teachers to learn about
other types of teaching and learning, especially new techniques from their colleagues. Goddard et al.
(2007) conclude by saying that teachers who are given a voice in curriculum organisation and
development claim ownership of the teaching and learning process and are able to sustain changes
decided at the classroom level. Such collaboration also reduces teachers’ isolation, which could be a
barrier to a collective creativity and engagement in instruction.

Supervising instruction
The supervision of the teaching and learning process by principals is among their major functions. As
an instructional leader, the principal needs to follow up the activities of teachers in the classroom and
supervision is an important tool to accomplish this task. According to Gongera (2013), supervising
instruction means collecting specific information about what is going on within a classroom and
making decisions regarding teaching quality improvement. Bush and Glover (2009) consider super-
vising instruction to be visiting classrooms, observing teachers at work and providing them with
feedback. Here, supervising instruction does not imply making judgements about teachers or con-
trolling them. Rather, it is a collaborative activity, where the intention is to guide, direct and facilitate
teachers in their teaching (Archibong, 2012; Esia-Donkoh and Baffoe, 2018). Effective supervision
is thus an activity that brings improvement in instruction through promoting teachers’ competences
(Esia-Donkoh and Baffoe, 2018; Omemu, 2017).
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 5

The supervision of instruction is a professional, continuous and cooperative activity that covers
all aspects of teaching and learning in school. However, it becomes more beneficial and productive
when it is followed by immediate and constructive feedback (Kalule and Bouchamma, 2014;
Wanzare, 2012). This suggests that principals need to inform teachers about their level of perfor-
mance, point out what actions can be taken to improve performance and provide assistance for the
improvement of this performance. Research has revealed that formal and informal classroom
supervision followed by constructive feedback is associated with teachers’ practice improvement
(Blasé and Blasé, 1999, Blasé and Roberts, 1994). Oye (2009) in his research, for example, notes
that the principal’s supervision and interaction with teachers increase teachers’ reflection and
awareness of the need to effectively plan and prepare lessons. Information collected from instruc-
tion supervision can also serve as a guiding tool to promote teacher professional development in
the school (Esia-Donkoh and Baffoe, 2018; Mafora and Phorabatho, 2013).

Promoting teacher professional development

The teacher is the most important factor in student learning in school (Dinham, 2013). Dinham
(2013) also argues that there cannot be improvement in education without improving the effec-
tiveness of teachers in the classroom. Teachers need to be professionally skilled, competent and
updated in their career, and the role of principals as instructional leaders is to facilitate and support
them in this process. To do so, principals are required to work in collaboration with teachers to plan
and promote the continuous professional development (CPD) activities in their schools. Research
findings indicate that teacher development activities are most effective when carried out colla-
boratively in an atmosphere of mutual support and encouragement (Jun, 2014; Thomas, 2015).
Kavanagh (2006), Khan and Khan (2014) and Thomas (2015) argue that the professional devel-
opment of teachers can be provided in various ways, ranging from formal training (seminars, work-
shops, conferences, study tours) to interaction among teachers themselves (peer coaching, peer
observations, discussions among teachers). Principals as instructional leaders are responsible for
creating conditions that allow teachers to collaboratively take part in these activities, talk about their
professional work in teams and share information that enhances their effectiveness in the classroom.
The findings from several studies suggested that the active and collaborative involvement of teachers
in their own professional development programmes reduced their isolation and helped them to adopt
instructional practices that enhance students’ learning opportunities (Blasé and Blasé, 1999; Jun,
2014). The allocation of sufficient and adequate resources by the principal is, however, sine qua non
to help teachers practice new skills and knowledge gained from professional development activities.

Providing resources
The allocation of adequate resources to the instructional activities is a key role that the principal as an
instructional leader plays. Such a principal is expected to help teachers to have access to learning and
teaching support materials and to ensure that they are distributed in a timely manner to assist teachers
in preparing and delivering the lesson content. Teachers become more effective in classrooms when
they have all necessary resources that facilitate teaching and learning. Quinn (2002) in his research
sees the provision of resources by principals as the most important instructional activity that affects
the way teachers engage in their teaching activities. He adds that teachers perceive their principals as
effective instructional leaders when they possess the ability to garner resources for improving
learning. The availability of sufficient and adequate learning resources keeps students busy and
6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

active and helps teachers to illustrate the concepts more clearly and effectively using a variety of
pedagogical approaches (Bizimana and Orodho, 2014; Lingam and Lingam, 2013, Okobia, 2011).

Methodology
To collect data, a descriptive survey design was employed. According to McMillan and Schumacher
(2010), surveys are used to learn about people’s attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, behaviours,
motivations, desires and other types of information. A descriptive survey, therefore, was considered
as useful to study different perceptions of teachers that describe the instructional roles of their
principals in the schools. Data collected were used to address the following questions.
What instructional leadership behaviours do the secondary school principals in the Nyamagabe
district enact?
What instructional leadership behaviours do the secondary school principals in the Nyamagabe
district prioritise in their everyday leadership activities?

Population, sample and sampling strategy

To collect data, 816 teachers from 48 secondary schools of the Nyamagabe district were targeted.
As the number of teachers in the target population (teachers) was high, I opted to use a sample.
The sample size was calculated using Taro Yamane’s (1967) formula n ¼ 1þNNðeÞ2 , where n is the
sample size required, N is the population and e is the allowable error (0.05). By substituting
816
numbers into the formula (n ¼ 1þ816ð0:05Þ 2 Þ; Iobtained a sample size of268:4: To obtain reliable

data, I increased this sample and 269 teachers were chosen from 48 schools to take part in the
study. Both proportionate stratified random sampling and purposeful sampling were used to select
sampled teachers who have worked at least for three years in the same school. The use of the
proportionate stratified random sampling technique was informed by the fact that the schools in
the district were vastly different in number of teachers (strata) and this technique allowed all
secondary schools to be proportionally represented in the study. The reason behind the use of
purposeful sampling through the choice of teachers with three or more years of teaching in the
same school is that these years give the opportunity for teachers to be academically familiar with
the school principal’s leading approach compared with teachers who are almost new in the school.
A list of secondary schools, teachers allocated to each school and their teaching years in the same
school was collected from the Department of Education at the district to facilitate the sampling
process and data collection.

Research instrument and data collection procedure

The data collection instrument was a close-ended questionnaire. The content of this questionnaire
was adapted from the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale Questionnaire (PMRSQ)
developed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) and some aspects of instructional leadership skills
identified by Weber (1996). The questionnaire, however, was subject to some modifications to
adapt it to the Rwandan context. It was necessary to conduct a pilot study to test the instrument
validity and make adjustments following the recommendations suggested by the respondents. The
validity of the instrument was also strengthened by running a principal component analysis (PCA) to
assess the length, intelligibility, redundancy and content specificity of the instrument (Cohen et al.,
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 7

2011). With PCA, the number of PMRSQ items from the pilot study results was reduced from 52 to
39. All retained items were significantly loading on their components with a lot of weight (.40).
The reliability of the instrument, on the other hand, was assessed by its internal consistency and
the test yielded the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of .963, indicating a very high level of
reliability for the instrument (Cohen et al., 2011). The final questionnaire that I administered to
teachers contained 39 items grouped into six subscales. Out of 269 distributed questionnaires, 231
were completed and returned, which was 85.8%, a high return rate according to Cohen et al. (2011).

Ethical considerations
Key ethical considerations in human subject research were addressed before embarking on data
collection. First and foremost, the participation was voluntary and the participants were assured
that the information provided would be used solely for the purpose of the research and that their
identity would remain anonymous throughout the writing and publication of the results. Prior to the
data collection process, the participants were also guaranteed that they had freedom to withdraw
from the study at any time without any repercussion. Before completing the questionnaire, they
signed a consent form indicating their willingness to participate on a voluntary basis.

Data analysis
Using the Likert-type scale questionnaire, teachers were asked to rate their principals’ involvement
in instructional leadership behaviours by rating how frequently they enact them. For each behaviour,
5 represented ‘always’; 4 represented ‘frequently’; 3 represented ‘sometimes’; 2 represented
‘rarely’; and 1 represented ‘never’. The data were then analysed using a descriptive statistical
method and SPSS software (version 23) was used to compute means and standard deviations, which
indicated the extent to which principals exhibited each of the behaviours on a Likert-type scale. A
score of 3 was taken as a cut-off mean for accepting the behaviour. To be specific, behaviours that
ranged between 4 and 5 were considered to be excellently performed; between 3 and 3.99 as
moderately performed; between 2 and 2.99 as poorly performed; between 1 and 1.99 as very poorly
enacted; and behaviours that scored less than 1 (0.00–0.99) were considered to be almost absent.

Key findings
The data results were presented and discussed around six instructional leadership dimensions that
emerged from teachers’ responses. These are as follows: (a) defining and communicating school
goals; (b) promoting teacher professional development; (c) supervising instruction and providing
feedback; (d) providing resources; (e) reviewing curricula; and (f) discussing observation feed-
back. Means and standard deviations indicating the level of the principals’ involvement in each
behaviour are presented in the following.
As indicated in Table 1, school principals enact all instructional leadership behaviours that
comprise defining and communicating school goals. However, some mean differences are
observed which indicate that some behaviours in this dimension are more performed than others.
For instance, while teachers rank their principals high in using student performance data to define
school goals (M ¼ 3.77, SD ¼ 1.20), they indicate that the principals are relatively low in defining
school goals that are easily translated into classroom (M ¼ 3.36, SD ¼ 1.24). Taken together, the
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of defining and communicating school goals.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Uses student performance data to frame school goals 3.77 1.20 1 5
Holds meetings to discuss school goals 3.74 1.30 1 5
Keeps on reminding teachers of school goals 3.68 1.16 1 5
Promotes individual school goal commitment 3.64 1.16 1 5
Refers to school goals for curricular decisions 3.63 1.15 1 5
Creates opportunity for informal discussion of school goals 3.52 1.13 1 5
Defines goals in terms of teacher responsibilities 3.52 1.20 1 5
Creates opportunity to formally discuss school goals 3.43 1.20 1 5
Is receptive to teacher’s input while framing school goals 3.42 1.28 1 5
Defines school goals with teachers and others 3.40 1.29 1 5
Defines school goals easily translated into classroom 3.36 1.24 1 5
Overall mean score 3.55 1.21 1 5

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of promoting teacher professional development.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Encourages teachers to take responsibilities for their own growth 3.54 1.18 1 5
Encourages teachers to teach each other how to improvise teaching and learning local 3.51 1.90 1 5
materials
Supports professional development activities initiated by teachers 3.42 1.17 1 5
Supports the use of skills acquired from teacher in-service training sessions 3.38 1.17 1 5
Ensures that in-service training sessions attended by teachers are consistent with their 3.30 1.21 1 5
needs
Creates opportunity for teachers to share skills from in-service training sessions 3.21 1.27 1 5
Plans professional development activities together with teachers 3.21 1.25 1 5
Organises in-service activities based on classroom observation and feedback 3.20 1.17 1 5
Provides individual opportunity to discuss instructional issues 3.11 1.28 1 5
Creates ongoing opportunity to collectively discuss teaching practices 3.06 1.27 1 5
Encourages teachers to visit other schools 2.79 1.31 1 5
Overall mean score 3.24 1.22 1 5

overall mean score establishes that defining and communicating school goals is practised moder-
ately (M ¼ 3.55, SD ¼ 1.21).
Statistics in Table 2 show that all instructional behaviours comprising promoting teacher
professional development are enacted at different levels. The highest performed instructional
leadership behaviour, according to teachers’ perceptions, is encouraging teachers to take the
responsibility for their own growth (M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ 1.18), while the lowest behaviour is
encouraging teachers to visits other schools (M ¼ 2.79, SD ¼ 1.31). These results suggest
generally that providing ongoing teacher professional development is done at the moderate
level because the average mean (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 1.22) is slightly greater than the benchmark
mean.
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 9

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of supervising instruction and providing feedback.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Encourages interaction and cooperation during the classroom observation process 4.11 1.05 1 5
Conducts walkthrough observations 4.08 1.00 1 5
Provides honest, open and constructive feedback 4.04 1.04 1 5
Plans supervision activities with teachers 4.01 1.03 1 5
Reviews teachers’ work while supervising instruction in classroom 4.00 1.15 1 5
Provides teachers with classroom observation feedback 3.95 1.11 1 5
Conducts formal classroom observations 3.78 1.18 1 5
Ensures that classroom objectives are consistent with stated goals of the school 3.72 1.16 1 5
Overall mean score 3.96 1.09 1 5

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of providing resources.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Provides teachers with instructional resources 3.49 1.13 1 5
Provides teachers with enough instructional resources 3.19 1.12 1 5
Provides instructional resources on time 3.10 1.05 1 5
Overall mean score 3.26 1.10 1 5

With regard to dimension 3, which is supervising instruction and providing feedback to teach-
ers, the results in Table 3 indicate that the majority of instructional leadership behaviours are
excellently performed. Principals’ interaction and cooperation in observation (M ¼ 4.11, SD ¼
1.05), conducting walkthrough observations (M ¼ 4.08, SD ¼ 1.00) and providing honest, open
and constructive feedback (M ¼ 4.04, SD ¼ 1.04) are behaviours that are excellently performed
by the principals, as shown by their means ranging between 4 and 5. The less performed instruc-
tional leadership role is ensuring that classroom lesson objectives are consistent with the stated
goals (M ¼ 3.72, SD ¼ 1.16). However, the fact that this item’s mean is greater than the cut-off
mean confirms that principals perform well in all instructional leadership behaviours of this
dimension. This is also indicated by the average mean, which is almost equal to 4 (M ¼ 3.96,
SD ¼ 1.09).
As indicated in Table 4, providing instructional resources is not strongly performed by the
school principals as perceived by their teachers (M ¼ 3.26, SD ¼ 1.10). All items that comprise
this behaviour have means that are slightly greater than the cut-off mean. The highest mean is 3.49
(SD ¼ 1.13) for providing instructional resources, while the lowest mean is 3.10 (SD ¼ 1.05) for
providing instructional resources on time.
The statistics in Table 5 indicate that three behaviour items comprising the dimension of
reviewing curriculum are moderately enacted by school principals (M ¼ 3.14, SD ¼ 1.30). The
highest performed instructional behaviour is the active participation of school principals in
reviewing curricular materials (M ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 1.242), whereas the lowest item is encouraging
teachers to use student performance data when selecting content, teaching methods and teaching
resources (M ¼ 3.07, SD ¼ 1.37). Due to the fact that none of these behaviours is excellently
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Table 5. Means and standard deviations of reviewing curriculum.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Participates actively in reviewing curricular materials with teachers 3.29 1.24 1 5
Participates in selecting content, teaching methods and teaching aids together with 3.08 1.29 1 5
teachers
Encourages teachers to use student performance data to select content, teaching 3.07 1.37 1 5
methods and teaching aids
Overall mean score 3.14 1.30 1 5

Table 6. Means and standard deviations of discussing observation feedback.

Item Mean SD Mn Mx

My principal:
Points out teacher strengths and weaknesses in teaching 3.91 1.14 1 5
Provides teachers with opportunities to discuss observation feedback 3.70 1.16 1 5
Values teacher input while discussing classroom observation feedback 3.68 1.06 1 5
Overall mean score 3.76 1.12 1 5

performed, these results suggested that school principals in the Nyamagabe district are not very
active and supportive in planning and organising instruction in their schools.
The dimension of discussing classroom observation feedback comprises three behaviour items,
as indicated in Table 6. Although none of them is excellently enacted (M  4), teachers rank them
as strongly performed in the sense that their means are far greater than the cut-off mean. Pointing
out teacher strengths and weaknesses in the feedback discussion is the highest behaviour that is
enacted by school principals (M ¼ 3.91, SD ¼ 1.14), while valuing teachers’ input in discussing
classroom observation is the lowest behaviour (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.06) but with a mean that is
greater than the cut-off mean. Taken together, all behaviours in this dimension indicated that
principals are collaborative and supportive in discussing observation feedback with teachers
(M ¼ 3.76, SD ¼ 1.12).

The priority of principals’ instructional leadership behaviours as

perceived by teachers
The study identified instructional leadership behaviours that secondary school principals prioritise
in their everyday leadership activities in the Nyamagabe district. To do so, average means and
standard deviations were computed for all subscales of instructional leadership.
As indicated in Table 7, the results of average means demonstrated that all instructional
behaviours are moderately enacted by the school principals because their means range between
3 and 3.99 and none of them is reported to be excellently enacted (M  4). However, the
differences observed in the means demonstrate that some behaviours are prioritised more than
others. According to teachers’ perceptions, supervising instruction and providing feedback is the
highest instructional behaviour enacted by the school principals (M ¼ 3.96; SD ¼ 1.09). It is
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 11

Table 7. Overall principals’ instructional leadership behaviours enactment.

IL subscales Mean SD Mx Mn

Defining and communicating school goals 3.55 1.21 1 5

Promoting teacher professional development 3.24 1.22 1 5
Supervising instruction and providing feedback 3.96 1.09 1 5
Discussing observation feedback 3.76 1.12 1 5
Providing resources 3.26 1.10 1 5
Reviewing curriculum materials 3.14 1.30 1 5
IL: Instructional leadership.

followed by discussing observation feedback (M ¼ 3.76; SD ¼ 1.12) and defining and commu-
nicating school goals (M ¼ 3.55; SD ¼ 1.25), respectively. On the other hand, providing instruc-
tional resources (M ¼ 3.26; SD ¼ 1.10), promoting teacher professional development (M ¼ 3.24;
SD ¼ 1.11) and reviewing curriculum materials (M ¼ 3.14; SD ¼ 1.30) are the dimensions of
instructional leadership not highly performed by the school principals.

Discussion
The descriptive results that emerged from the teachers’ perceptions suggest that the school princi-
pals were performing various instructional tasks in relation to instructional leadership responsi-
bilities. With regard to defining and communicating school goals, the results suggested that
secondary school principals in the Nyamagabe district set the direction of their schools by estab-
lishing school goals and inspiring teachers’ commitment to effectively achieve these goals.
Although defining and communicating school goals is not excellently done, the results show that
the school principals understand the role of having shared goals in the teaching and learning
process. Principal–teacher collaboration was shown to be at the heart of the school development
process, where the principals tapped into teachers’ expertise and experience to ensure that schools
had clear and collective goals that focused on student learning and achievement.
This collaboration is in line with the new conception of instructional leadership where, according
to Printy and Marks (2006), effective principals seek out the ideas and insights of teachers around
instructional matters. Nyagosia et al. (2013) in their research revealed that schools perform well
when principals put more emphasis on setting and sharing the school mission and goals with teachers
as compared to low-performing schools. The effort that the school principals invest in having a
shared school purpose is an indicator that teaching and learning in the Nyamagabe district is not the
sole responsibility of teachers but rather a collective activity that binds all school members, including
the principals. The fact that the principals accept teachers being part of the school goal development
process confirms Kin et al.’s (2018) findings that teachers who understand school goals make better
sense of their work and commit to it for the sake of positive change in the classroom.
Promoting teacher professional development is another instructional leadership aspect that is
moderately performed by the principals. The results revealed that the school principals provided
professional development opportunities to teachers to increase their competence in teaching.
However, some professional development activities, such as encouraging teachers to participate
in observational visits to other schools, seemed to be neglected and teachers learned only from their
school context. This does not, however, accord with Kavanagh (2006) and Thomas (2015), who
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

argued that teacher professional development also occurs in collaboration between teachers from
different schools. The main advantage of visiting other schools, according to Mestry (2017), is that
it is ‘live learning’, which provides strong potential for idea transfer. Although the principals were
not very supportive in taking teachers to visit other schools, the study results indicate that other on-
the job training and opportunities for learning were provided to teachers, including training work-
shops and seminars, teacher collaboration within school and sharing new knowledge gained from
external workshops. The school principals’ commitment to teacher learning and professional
growth as evidenced in this study is supported by Dinham (2013) and Guskey (2002), who stipulate
that improvement in education cannot be achieved if there is no focus on promoting teacher
professional development.
Supervising instruction and providing feedback to teachers is an important and dominant instruc-
tional behaviour enacted by the school principals. Results showed that the principals in the Nya-
magabe district performed well in this area and understood that instructional improvement in the
classroom is achieved when there is a systematic way of collecting information about teaching and
learning. The school principals showed great interest in learning what teachers and students are
doing in the classroom and direct classroom observations, walkthrough visits and examination of
pedagogical documents are the dominant supervision tools to do so. While in some previous studies,
such as that of Bellibaş (2016) in Turkish schools and Manaseh (2016) in Tanzanian schools,
principals see classrooms as the private zones of teachers, while the principals in the Nyamagabe
district made efforts to see how teachers are teaching and to identify teachers who need more support,
and those aspects that require improvement. From the perspective of teachers, the school principals
provided feedback to teachers so that they could be aware of the strengths and weaknesses that need
to be addressed. Blasé and Blasé (1999) assert that providing effective feedback is crucial because it
encourages teachers to become aware of and critically reflect on their learning and professional
practices for classroom improvement.
It was observed in the Nyamagabe district that the provision of supervision feedback is usually
followed by professional dialogue between teachers and their principals. The results reveal that the
principals provided teachers with opportunities to share information on what was observed during
instruction supervision. The principals believed that observing instruction and providing feedback
was not enough to improve the content delivery and student learning. In addition, having time to
discuss the feedback with teachers and allow them to express their ideas in an honest and non-
threatening way was another strategy to help teachers to reflect on their practices and analyse their
teaching more deeply for instruction improvement. This is what Blasé and Blasé (1999) and Oye
(2009) support by saying that improvement in teachers is likely to occur when there is a mutual,
open and critical dialogue between teachers and their supervisors. Thus, the principals providing
teachers with time to openly and mutually discuss the observed behaviours in classroom showed an
intent to guide and support these teachers in improving instruction by bringing positive changes in
their teaching and in their students’ learning.
The allocation of resources to instruction by the school principals is an instructional leadership
aspect perceived by teachers to be moderate. The school principals seemed to secure and allocate
resources to teachers but these resources were not always distributed on time and were not enough
to support learning. These findings corroborate the previous study by Bizimana and Orodho
(2014), in which the biggest challenge in secondary schools in Rwanda was insufficient teaching
and learning resources. School principals in this study supplied teachers with fewer resources,
while they play a vital role in boosting teaching and learning. The availability of such resources,
according to Lingam and Lingam (2013) and Najumba (2013), ignites teacher effectiveness and
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 13

student performance. It keeps students busy and active in their learning and helps teachers to
illustrate the concepts clearer and better with various pedagogical approaches.
Reviewing curricula is another instructional activity that teachers report was performed by the
school principals in the Nyamagabe district. The results suggest that from the teachers’ percep-
tions, the principals are not very active in working with teachers and selecting curriculum content,
instructional methods, activities and resources needed to facilitate curriculum implementation. The
principals’ role in providing information and direction regarding instruction plans was shown to be
limited, while this is known to be an important aspect of principals’ instructional leadership
(Gawlick, 2018). These findings correspond to the previous studies in Nigeria (Ifoema, 2013) and
Tanzania (Manaseh, 2016), where school principals do not fully engage in the review of the
curriculum materials and tend to leave the task to the teachers and department heads. In contrast
to these findings, Ifoema (2013) and Manaseh (2016) advise school principals to review curricula
to ensure that the teaching and learning materials used by teachers are of the good quality. By
doing this, principals determine whether students are being taught the body of knowledge, the
understanding and skills that they are expected to learn in the core curriculum. Muijs and Harris
(2006) add that reviewing curricula together increases the opportunity for teachers to share knowl-
edge, professional understandings and practice. Teachers learn new teaching techniques from their
colleagues with different teaching styles and approaches.
Data in this article also show that school principals put more effort into some instructional
behaviours and less emphasis on others. It was, for example, found that school principals focus
more on supervising instruction and providing feedback than reviewing curriculum materials. In
such a situation both the work of teachers and students in the classroom may not improve properly
and effectively. From the results, it can be argued that principals need to ensure that they fully
embrace all aspects of instructional leadership in ways that contribute to effective implementation of
the curriculum. One means of doing this is, for example, to distribute some administrative respon-
sibilities among other school leaders to have sufficient time to focus on instructional leadership
functions in the school.

Conclusion and implications

The results reveal that, from the perceptions of the teachers, principals in secondary schools of the
Nyamagabe district, to a certain extent, performed instructional leadership behaviours. It was
found that teachers understand the concept of instructional leadership and the functions of instruc-
tional leadership that their principals are expected to perform. Teachers perceived that school
principals to a large extent do engage in supervising instruction, providing feedback and discussing
this feedback with teachers. Other instructional leadership aspects, such as defining and commu-
nicating goals, promoting teacher professional development, providing teaching and learning
resources and reviewing curricula, were also enacted but at a moderate level.
The findings from the study as presented in this article may help to address the paucity of
knowledge on the instructional behaviours of school principals in Rwanda. It may also help princi-
pals become more aware that there are some leadership behaviours they can model to effectively
guide both teachers and students in the learning process. The results are also of the prime importance
for policy makers to develop policies designed to improve principals’ instructional roles in schools.
As the instructional leadership practices examined in the Nyamagabe district are enacted moder-
ately, I hope that the results will stimulate further research into the challenges that inhibit school
principals from implementing effective instructional leadership in their schools. More longitudinal
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

qualitative research should be conducted to complement and enrich the statistical results presented in
this study.

Recommendations
Following the results mentioned above, schools should be empowered in terms of provision of
resources and regular training programmes to enable principals to provide the best instructional
leadership in their schools.

Limitations
The results of this study are limited to the teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership of the
principal using only a survey questionnaire. Also, due to time and financial constraints, the sample
was restricted to the secondary schools of one district among 30 districts of the country.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to express his deepest and sincere thanks to Dr Caroline Faulkner for editing the
manuscript paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Innocent Sibomana https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1306-8904

References
Alam A and Ahmad M (2017) The impact of instructional leadership, professional communities and extra
responsibilities for teachers on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Management
31(3): 383–395.
Archibong FI (2012) Instructional supervision in the administration of secondary education: A panacea for
quality assurance. European Scientific Journal 8(13): 61–70.
Bellibaş MS (2016) Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of efforts by principals to improve teaching and
learning in Turkish middle schools. Education sciences: Theory and Practice 16(1): 1–16.
Bendikson L, Robinson V and Hattie J (2012) Principal instructional leadership and secondary school
performance. SET: Research Information for Teacher 1(1): 2–28.
Bizimana B and Orodho JA (2014) Teaching and learning resources availability and teachers’ effective
classroom management and content delivery in secondary schools in Huye district, Rwanda. Journal of
Education and Practice 5(9): 111–122.
Blasé J and Blasé J (1999) Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: teachers’ perspec-
tives. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(3): 349–378.
Blasé J and Roberts J (1994) The micro-politics of teacher work investment: Effective principals’ impacts on
teachers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 15(1): 69–94.
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 15

Bush T (2013) Instructional leadership and leadership for learning: Global and South African perspectives.
Education as Change 17(1): 5–20.
Bush T and Glover D (2009) Managing Teaching and Learning. A Concept Paper. Johannesburg: MGSLG.
Çalıskan ZZ and Tabancalı E (2009) New curriculum and new challenges: What do school administrators
really do? World Academic of Science, Engineering and Technology 31: 759–763.
Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2011) Research Methods in Education. 7th ed. New York: Routledge.
Dinham S (2013) Connecting clinical teaching practice with instructional leadership. Australian Journal of
Education 57(3): 225–236.
Esia-Donkoh K and Baffoe S (2018) Instructional supervisory practices of headteachers and teacher motiva-
tion in public basic schools in Anomabo education circuit. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research
5(1): 43–50.
Gawlik M (2018) Instructional leadership and the charter school principal. School Leadership and Manage-
ment 38(5): 539–565.
Goddard YL, Goddard RD and Tschannen-Moran M (2007) A theoretical and empirical investigation of
teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools.
Teacher College Record 109(4): 877–896.
Gongera EG (2013) An evaluation of the principal’s instructional supervision on academic performance:
A case of Sameta primary school Kisii County, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice 4(11):
195–209.
Grant C (2005) Teacher leadership: Gendered responses and interpretations. Agenda: Empowering Women for
Gender Equity 19(65): 44–57.
Guskey TR (2002) Professional development and teacher change. Teacher and teaching: Theory and Practice
8(3/4): 381–391.
Hallinger P (2005) Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade
away. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 221–239.
Hallinger P and Lee M (2013) Exploring principal capacity to lead reform of teaching and learning quality in
Thailand. International Journal of Educational Development 33(4): 305–315.
Hallinger P and Murphy J (1985) Assessing the instructional management behaviour of principals. Elemen-
tary School Journal 86(2): 217–247.
Harris A, Jones M, Cheah KSL, Devadason E and Adams D (2017) Exploring principals’ instructional
leadership practices in Malaysia: Insights and implications. Journal of Educational Administration
55(2): 207–221.
Hoadley U, Christie P and Ward C (2009) Managing to learn: Instructional leadership in South African
secondary schools. School Leadership & Management 29(4): 373–389.
Ifeoma OE (2013) Curriculum planning in secondary schools: Principals’ practices and challenges in an era of
knowledge and learning management. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Edu-
cation and Development 2(1): 443–453.
Isaiah AN and Isaiah MN (2014) Perceptions of teachers on the instructional roles of school heads in the
secondary schools in Botswana. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities 7(1): 112–124.
Jenkins B (2009) What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal 88(3): 34–37.
Jun LX (2014) Principals’ instructional leadership: Fostering teacher professional development. The Standard
International Journals 2(4): 240–246.
Kalule L and Bouchamma Y (2014) Teacher supervision practices and characteristics of in- school super-
visors in Uganda. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability 26(1): 51–72.
Kantabutra S (2008) What do we know about vision? The Journal of Applied Business Research 24(2):
127–138.
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership XX(X)

Kavanagh B (2006) Providing Educational Leadership: First Nations Schools Administration Handbook.
Available at: http://www.fnesc.ca/publications/index.php (accessed 19 August 2014).
Khan AN and Khan IA (2014) Academic role of a principal and continuous professional development.
Journal of Education and Human Development 3(2): 925–942.
Kin TM, Kareem OA, Nordin MS and Khuan WB (2018) Principal change leadership competencies and
teacher attitudes toward change: The mediating effects of teacher change beliefs. International Journal of
Leadership in Education 21(4): 427–446.
Kwan P (2016) The effect of trust on the relationship between instructional leadership and student outcomes
in Hong Kong secondary schools. Asia-Pacific Education Research 25(1): 111–121.
Lingam GI and Lingam N (2013) Making learning and teaching a richer experience: A challenge for rural
Fijian primary schools. Education Research and Review 8(21): 2160–2168.
Mafora P and Phorabatho T (2013) Curriculum change implementation: Do secondary school principals
manage the process? Anthropologist 15(2): 117–124.
Manaseh AM (2016) Instructional leadership: The role of heads of schools in managing the instructional
programme. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management 4(1): 30–47.
McMillan JH and Schumacher S (2010) Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. 7th ed. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Mestry R (2013) The innovative role of the principal as instructional leader: A prerequisite for high student
achievement? International Proceeding of Economics Development and Research 60(25): 119–123.
Mestry R (2017) Principals’ perspectives and experiences of their instructional leadership functions to
enhance learner achievement in public schools. Journal of Education 69: 257–280.
Mombourquette C (2017) The role of vision in effective school leadership. International Studies in Educa-
tional Administration 45(1): 19–36.
Muijs D and Harris A (2006) Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching and
Teacher Education 22(8): 961–972.
Murphy J and Louis KS (1994) Reshaping the Principalship. Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Naidoo P and Petersen N (2016) Towards a leadership program for primary school principals as instructional
leaders. South African Journal of Childhood Education 5(3): 1–8.
Najumba J (2013) The Effectiveness of Teaching and Learning in Primary Schools. Boston: Sage.
Ntahomvukiye C, Otara A, Tusiime M, Sengarama R and Karasira C (2017) Closing the gap: Analytical study
on leadership and demonstrated competencies among primary school head teachers in Rwanda. Rwanda
Journal of Education 4(1): 22–33.
Nyagosia P, Waweru S and Njuguna F (2013) Factors influencing academic achievement in public secondary
schools in Central Kenya: An effective schools’ perspective. Educational Research International 2(2):
174–184.
Okobia EO (2011) Availability and teachers’ use of instructional materials and resources in the implementation
of social studies in junior secondary schools in Edo State. Nigeria. Review of European Studies 3(2): 90–97.
Omemu F (2017) Correlates of effective instructional supervision in Bayelsa State secondary schools. World
Journal of Education 7(4): 40–49.
Oye O (2009) Perceived influence of supervision of instruction on teachers’ classroom performance in Ijebu-
north education zone, Ogun State. Master Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nigeria.
Peeraer J, Zult H and Mugenzi LN (2014) Coaching School Leadership in Primary Education in Rwanda.
Evolution in Head Teachers’ Self-Assessment. Kigali: Rwanda.
Printy SM and Marks HM (2006) Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory into Practice
45(2): 125–132.
Sibomana: Perceptions of teachers on the instructional leadership behaviours 17

Quinn DM (2002) The impact of principal leadership behaviours on instructional practice and student
engagement. Journal of Educational Administration 40(5): 447–467.
Robinson V, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes. An analysis of the
differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.
Salleh MJ (2013) Best practice of framing and communicating school goals by principals of cluster secondary
schools Malaysia. International Journal of Arts and Commerce l2(2): 33–44.
Taole MJ (2013) Exploring principal’s role in providing instructional leadership in rural high schools in South
Africa. Studies of Tribes and Tribals 11(1): 75–82.
Thomas S (2015) Teacher professional development. Current practices in a secondary school in Brunei
Darussalam. International Journal of Social, Behavioural, Educational, Economic, Business, and Indus-
trial Engineering 9(8): 2856–2864.
Wanzare Z (2012) Instructional supervision in public secondary schools in Kenya. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership 40(2): 188–216.
Weber J (1996) Leading the instructional program. In: Smith S and Piele P (eds) School leadership. Clearing
House of Educational Management: Eugene, Oregon, pp. 253- 278.
Yamane T (1967) Statistics: An introductory analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
Ylimaki RM (2007) Instructional leadership in challenging US schools. International Studies in Educational
Administration 35(3): 11–19.

Author biography
Innocent Sibomana has been the Director of Education in the Nyamagabe District in Rwanda
since 2006. He moved to South Africa from Rwanda in 2014 to pursue doctoral studies. He is
currently a doctoral student in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, School
of Education, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. He has a specific research interest in
leading and managing teaching and learning.