Instructional leadership

Last updated

Instructional leadership is generally defined as the management of curriculum and instruction by a school principal. This term appeared as a result of research associated with the effective school movement of the 1980s, which revealed that the key to running successful schools lies in the principals' role. However, the concept of instructional leadership is recently stretched out to include more distributed models which emphasize distributed and shared empowerment among school staff, for example distributed leadership, shared leadership, and transformational leadership.

Contents

History

The concept of instructional leadership emerged and developed in the United States within the effective school movement of the 1980s. The research resulting from this movement revealed that a principal is critical to success in children's learning within poor urban elementary schools. [1] [2] [3] [4] This research revealed that the personality characteristics of the ideal principal are strong mindedness, directness, top-down management and charisma.

During the 1990s, a strong instructional leadership model was still at the center of the educational leadership discussion, because of its effectiveness in the schools. However, since then this concept has been criticized for focusing too much on the individual principal's heroic role. As a result, the scholars started to explore leadership models to supplement these critics and point out the distributed nature of instructional leadership such as transformational leadership, teacher leadership, shared leadership, and distributed leadership, all of which understand educational leadership as broader perspectives practice that includes school communities. [5] Moreover, the accountability movement of the 21st century sheds new light on instructional leadership since this paradigm puts more emphasis on the learning outcomes for students. [4] [6]

Approaches

Researchers have further defined instructional leadership to include different approaches. First, the concept of instructional leadership could be divided into an "exclusive" and an ‘inclusive’ approach. [7] Researchers who count instructional leadership as "exclusive" regard the principal as the sole holder of responsibility when it comes to setting goals for the school, supervision, and in developing instruction that enhances academic achievement. This perspective tends to focus only on the role of principals as instructional leaders (e.g. Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 [8] ).

However, other researchers have recently expanded the concept of instructional leadership to include not only principals, but also other school staff. They take an "inclusive" approach to instructional leadership. Especially, Marks and Printy (2003) [9] have pointed out the importance of the collaboration between principals and teachers to develop curriculum and instruction for improving pupils' performance. Thus, they conceptualized this inclusive approach as “shared instructional leadership” and understood the role of principals as that of “leaders of instructional leaders”. Hallinger (2003) [3] has argued the transformational leadership approach, in which leadership is shared with school staff; this approach is said to empower staff. Transformational leadership is a good supplement to the instructional leadership approach that focuses solely on principals and top-down strategies. For this reason, Hallinger has proposed the integration of instructional and transformational leadership approaches.

Second, researchers have classified modes of instructional leadership according to "direct" and "indirect" activities. [10] [11] [12] [13] The former is considered a "narrow" mode and the latter a"broad" mode of instructional leadership. This distinction is due to the fact that a direct perspective focuses only on immediate actions related to instruction, such as classroom observation and curriculum development, whereas an indirect perspective broadly focuses on indirect activities, such as creating the school climate, as well as direct activities.

Characteristics

Several researchers have outlined the characteristics and components of instructional leadership. Hallinger and Murphy's (1985) [8] conceptual model has been most widely used in empirical studies of instructional leadership. [3] [4] The authors proposed the key role of instructional leaders in three dimensions: 1) Defining the school mission, 2) Managing the instructional program, and 3) Promoting a positive school-learning climate. In these three dimensions, principals have different functions. First, their analyses of a leader's role in defining the school mission focuses on two functions: framing clear school goals and communicating clear school goals. Second, in the area of managing the instructional program, principals have three functions: supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, and monitoring student progress. Third, in regards topromoting a positive school-learning climate principals have five functions: protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing incentives for learning.

Murphy (1990) [14] proposed four major dimensions of instructional leadership: 1) Developing mission and goals, 2) Managing the education production function, 3) Promoting an academic learning climate, and 4) Developing a supportive work environment.

Duke(1982) [15] suggested six functions of instructional leadership related to teacher and school effectiveness: 1) Staff development: recruitment, in-service education, and staff motivation, 2) Instructional support: organized activities to maintain an environmentgeared towards improving teaching and learning, 3) Resource acquisition and allocation: adequate learning materials, appropriate facilities, and skilled support personnel 4) Quality control: evaluation, supervision, rewards, and sanctions, 5) Coordination: activities that prevent cross-purposes or duplicate operations, and 6) Troubleshooting: anticipation and resolution of problems in school operation. The first four functions of instructional leadership are directly related to instruction behaviors, whereas the remaining functions are indirectly relevant to instructional activities.

Andrew, Bascom, and Bascom (1991) [16] defined four strategies that instructional leaders use to enhance student achievement: 1) Resource provider: provision of resources to attain learning goals, 2) Instructional resource: provision of strategies and skills to achieve better teaching practice, opportunities for professional development, and assessment for school performance related to instruction, 3) Communicator: promoting discussion among school members about school vision, goals, and culture for successful learning, and 4) Visible presence: showing up through face-to-face interaction as well as through informal exchanges in day-to-day activities.

Through extensive literature review, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) [5] identified that instructional leaders have several macro-school-level functions. "1) constructing and selling an instructional vision, 2) developing and managing a school culture conducive to conversations about the core technology of instruction by building norms of trust, collaboration, and academic press among staff, 3) procuring and distributing resources, including materials, time, support, and compensation, 4) supporting teacher growth and development, both individually and collectively, 5) providing both summative and formative monitoring of instruction and innovation, and 6) establishing a school climate in which disciplinary issues do not dominate instructional issues."

Empirical study

A study by Hallinger and Heck (1996, 1998) [17] [18] reviewed extensive empirical research conducted between 1980 and 1995 about the effects of principals on student achievement and identified three models to describe these (1996, p. 16; 1998, p. 162).

-A direct-effects model, where principals directly affect student outcomes without mediating variables.

-A mediated-effects model, where principals indirectly affect student outcomes through mediating variables (e.g. features of school organization, teachers, and staff)

-reciprocal-effects model, where principals and features of the school have an interactive relationship

A direct-effect model

With regard to the direct effect of principals on student outcomes, the result showed that the effects were "nonexistent, weak, conflicting or suspect in terms of validity" (1996, p. 37). It indicates that principals do not directly affect student achievement or, if they do, the effects are quite small. Also, critics point out that this approach does not reveal through what hidden process school leaders impact on student performance.

A mediated-effects model

In comparison to this findings above, the mediated-effect model was based on more "sophisticated theoretical, strong research design, and powerful statistical methods" (1996, p. 37). It found that principals significantly impact students' performance through other mediating variables, such as other school staff, events or organizational factors.

Reciprocal-effects model

In defining the reciprocal-effect model, the authors pointed out that there were no studies to demonstrate this effect yet. However, it is important to note this model because principals not only carry out their leadership role in ways that influence academic achievement, but school outcomes inversely affect principals’ activities as well. Thus, principals and school performance have a reciprocal relationship.

Other studies

Besides Hallingers and Heck's broad review, several studies conducted in the 1990s and 2000s have also explored the effect of instructional leadership on teacher and student outcome. With respect to the effect of principals on teachers, Shepperd(1996) [13] study in Canadian schools revealed that principals’ instructional leadership activities are positively related to the level of teacher commitment to the school, professional involvement, and innovativeness in the school.

Stages in developing instructional leaders

Marsh (1992) [19] argued that instructional leaders develop in three stages; 1) Getting started, 2) Doing the pieces of instructional leadership, and 3) Understanding the whole of instructional leadership. In the first stage, principals get to socialize themselves into the role of site administrator and develop routine management skills. However, they do not have real focus on instructional leadership yet. In the second stage, principals could improve their capacity for management. At this stage, principals reflect management and instructional leaderships as an isolated notion, and they still have a fragmented understanding about instructional leadership. In the third stage, principals fully understand the relation between management and instructional leadership. At this stage, they can integrate management and instructional leadership, activities and functions. Finally, they comprehend and reflect instructional leadership as an integrated view.

Limitation

With the extensive review of empirical studies, Hallinger (2003) [3] pointed out limitations of the concept of instructional leadership and the attentive point of empirical studies. First, the narrowed role of principals, which is confined to developing instructional activities for student performance, does not allow us to fully understand the nature of principals since a principal has various roles when managing a school.

Second, strategies of instructional leadership are influenced by the context of schools such as school size, language background, community, and a school's socio-economic status. [20] That is, the effective activities of instructional leaders, which affect student achievement and school performance, should be considered in the context of school and community environment. In this sense, the effort to measure the effects of instructional leadership without consideration of the school context might be avoided in empirical research.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mentorship</span> Guidance relationship

Mentorship is the patronage, influence, guidance, or direction given by a mentor. A mentor is someone who teaches or gives help and advice to a less experienced and often younger person. In an organizational setting, a mentor influences the personal and professional growth of a mentee. Most traditional mentorships involve having senior employees mentor more junior employees, but mentors do not necessarily have to be more senior than the people they mentor. What matters is that mentors have experience that others can learn from.

A headmaster/headmistress, head instructor, bureaucrat, head teacher, head, chancellor, school administrator, school coordinator, principal or school director is the staff member of a school with the greatest responsibility for the management of the school. In some English-speaking countries, the title for this role is principal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Classroom management</span> Aspect of educational work

Classroom management is the process teachers use to ensure that classroom lessons run smoothly without disruptive behavior from students compromising the delivery of instruction. It includes the prevention of disruptive behavior preemptively, as well as effectively responding to it after it happens. Such disruptions may range from normal peer conflict to more severe disturbances of the social class dynamics, such as bullying among students, which make it impossible for the affected students to concentrate on their schoolwork and result in a significant deterioration of their school performance.

Mastery learning is an instructional strategy and educational philosophy, first formally proposed by Benjamin Bloom in 1968. Mastery learning maintains that students must achieve a level of mastery in prerequisite knowledge before moving forward to learn subsequent information. If a student does not achieve mastery on the test, they are given additional support in learning and reviewing the information and then tested again. This cycle continues until the learner accomplishes mastery, and they may then move on to the next stage.

Constructivist teaching is based on constructivist learning theory. Constructivist teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction as opposed to passively receiving information.

This glossary of education-related terms is based on how they commonly are used in Wikipedia articles. This article contains terms starting with G – L. Select a letter from the table of contents to find terms on other articles.

Follow Through was the largest and most expensive experimental project in education funded by the U.S. federal government that has ever been conducted. The most extensive evaluation of Follow Through data covers the years 1968–1977; however, the program continued to receive funding from the government until 1995. Follow Through was originally intended to be an extension of the federal Head Start program, which delivered educational, health, and social services to typically disadvantaged preschool children and their families. The function of Follow Through, therefore, was to provide a continuation of these services to students in their early elementary years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery learning</span> Technique of inquiry-based learning and is considered a constructivist based approach to education

Discovery learning is a technique of inquiry-based learning and is considered a constructivist based approach to education. It is also referred to as problem-based learning, experiential learning and 21st century learning. It is supported by the work of learning theorists and psychologists Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Seymour Papert.

Educational leadership is the process of enlisting and guiding the talents and energies of teachers, students, and parents toward achieving common educational aims. This term is often used synonymously with school leadership in the United States and has supplanted educational management in the United Kingdom. Several universities in the United States offer graduate degrees in educational leadership.

Direct instruction (DI) is the explicit teaching of a skill-set using lectures or demonstrations of the material to students. A particular subset, denoted by capitalization as Direct Instruction, refers to the approach developed by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley C. Becker that was first implemented in the 1960s. DI teaches by explicit instruction, in contrast to exploratory models such as inquiry-based learning. DI includes tutorials, participatory laboratory classes, discussion, recitation, seminars, workshops, observation, active learning, practicum, or internships. Model includes "I do" (instructor), "We do", "You do".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence-based education</span> Paradigm of the education field

Evidence-based education (EBE) is the principle that education practices should be based on the best available scientific evidence, rather than tradition, personal judgement, or other influences. Evidence-based education is related to evidence-based teaching, evidence-based learning, and school effectiveness research. For example, research has shown that spaced repetition "leads to more robust memory formation than massed training does, which involves short or no intervals".

Value-added modeling is a method of teacher evaluation that measures the teacher's contribution in a given year by comparing the current test scores of their students to the scores of those same students in previous school years, as well as to the scores of other students in the same grade. In this manner, value-added modeling seeks to isolate the contribution, or value added, that each teacher provides in a given year, which can be compared to the performance measures of other teachers. VAMs are considered to be fairer than simply comparing student achievement scores or gain scores without considering potentially confounding context variables like past performance or income. It is also possible to use this approach to estimate the value added by the school principal or the school as a whole.

Shared leadership is a leadership style that broadly distributes leadership responsibility, such that people within a team and organization lead each other. It has frequently been compared to horizontal leadership, distributed leadership, and collective leadership and is most contrasted with more traditional "vertical" or "hierarchical" leadership that resides predominantly with an individual instead of a group.

The task-relationship model is defined by Donelson Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances". Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models which are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances. Task-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) is a variation of peer-mediated instruction that has been used in elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms. In CWPT students form pairs and take turns in the roles of tutor and student. Students earn points for their teams by participating in the tutoring and the winning team is recognized. Researchers have investigated CWPT's effectiveness in several different academic areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Teacher leadership</span> Teachers that take on additional administrative roles outside of the classroom

Teacher leadership is a term used in K-12 schools for classroom educators who simultaneously take on administrative roles outside of their classrooms to assist in functions of the larger school system. Teacher leadership tasks may include but are not limited to: managing teaching, learning, and resource allocation. Teachers who engage in leadership roles are generally experienced and respected in their field which can both empower them and increase collaboration among peers.

Distributed leadership is a conceptual and analytical approach to understanding how the work of leadership takes place among the people and in context of a complex organization. Though developed and primarily used in education research, it has since been applied to other domains, including business and even tourism. Rather than focus on characteristics of the individual leader or features of the situation, distributed leadership foregrounds how actors engage in tasks that are "stretched" or distributed across the organization. With theoretical foundations in activity theory and distributed cognition, understanding leadership from a distributed perspective means seeing leadership activities as a situated and social process at the intersection of leaders, followers, and the situation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Learning environment</span> Term in education

The term learning environment can refer to an educational approach, cultural context, or physical setting in which teaching and learning occur. The term is commonly used as a more definitive alternative to "classroom", but it typically refers to the context of educational philosophy or knowledge experienced by the student and may also encompass a variety of learning cultures—its presiding ethos and characteristics, how individuals interact, governing structures, and philosophy. In a societal sense, learning environment may refer to the culture of the population it serves and of their location. Learning environments are highly diverse in use, learning styles, organization, and educational institution. The culture and context of a place or organization includes such factors as a way of thinking, behaving, or working, also known as organizational culture. For a learning environment such as an educational institution, it also includes such factors as operational characteristics of the instructors, instructional group, or institution; the philosophy or knowledge experienced by the student and may also encompass a variety of learning cultures—its presiding ethos and characteristics, how individuals interact, governing structures, and philosophy in learning styles and pedagogies used; and the societal culture of where the learning is occurring. Although physical environments do not determine educational activities, there is evidence of a relationship between school settings and the activities that take place there.

Data-driven instruction is an educational approach that relies on information to inform teaching and learning. The idea refers to a method teachers use to improve instruction by looking at the information they have about their students. It takes place within the classroom, compared to data-driven decision making. Data-driven instruction works on two levels. One, it provides teachers the ability to be more responsive to students’ needs, and two, it allows students to be in charge of their own learning. Data-driven instruction can be understood through examination of its history, how it is used in the classroom, its attributes, and examples from teachers using this process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Educational management</span> Administration of education systems

Educational management refers to the administration of the education system in which a group combines human and material resources to supervise, plan, strategise, and implement structures to execute an education system. Education is the equipping of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, habits, and attitudes with learning experiences. The education system is an ecosystem of professionals in educational institutions, such as government ministries, unions, statutory boards, agencies, and schools. The education system consists of political heads, principals, teaching staff, non-teaching staff, administrative personnel and other educational professionals working together to enrich and enhance. At all levels of the educational ecosystem, management is required; management involves the planning, organising, implementation, review, evaluation, and integration of an institution.

References

  1. ↑ Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
  2. ↑ Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
  4. 1 2 3 Hallinger, P. (2009). Leadership for 21st century schools: From instructional leadership to leadership for learning.
  5. 1 2 Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34
  6. ↑ Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, and Thomas(2006) The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School leadership, January 17
  7. ↑ Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly
  8. 1 2 Hallinger, P., & Murpht, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-248.
  9. ↑ Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397
  10. ↑ Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.
  11. ↑ Peterson, K.D.(1989). Secondary principals and instructional leadership: Complexities in a diverse role. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research
  12. ↑ Kliene-Kracht, P. (1993). Indirect instructional leadership: an administrator’s choice, Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(4), 1-29
  13. 1 2 Sheppard, B. (1996).Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership, The Alberta journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-344
  14. ↑ Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the school, 1(Part B), pp.163-200.
  15. ↑ Duke, D. (1982). Leadership functions and instructional effectiveness. NASSP Bulletin, 66(456), 1–12.
  16. ↑ Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R., & Basom, M. (1991). Instructional leadership: Supervision that makes a difference. Theory into Practice, 30(2), 97–101.
  17. ↑ Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
  18. ↑ Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995∗. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
  19. ↑ Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing Instructional Leadership: Lessons from the California School Leadership Academy. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 386–409.
  20. ↑ Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21–34.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.