Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:321607 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
Journal of
Educational Effective instructional
Administration
38,2
leadership
Teachers' perspectives on how principals
130 promote teaching and learning in schools
Received June 1999
Accepted August 1999
Joseph Blase and Jo Blase
The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA
Keywords Teachers, Schools, Leadership, Development
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
Abstract Few studies have directly examined teachers' perspectives on principals' everyday
instructional leadership characteristics and the impacts of those characteristics on teachers. In
this study, over 800 American teachers responded to an open-ended questionnaire by identifying
and describing characteristics of principals that enhanced their classroom instruction and what
impacts those characteristics had on them. The data revealed two themes (and 11 strategies) of
effective instructional leadership: talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting
professional growth.
The goal in a learning community is to build connections between people, socially and
intellectually. Control interferes with this process; it distances people from one another.
Commitment strengthens interpersonal connections...building a learning community is
tantamount to developing a commitment to shared learning. (Prawat, 1993, p. 9)
In recent years, the restructuring of schools to empower teachers and to
implement school-based shared decision making has resulted in a move away
from bureaucratic control and toward professionalization of teaching (Louis
et al., 1996). 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 (Dowling and Sheppard,
1976; Glanz and Neville, 1997). The emergent discourse is one of critique, not
criticism, and it exists within a ``community of learners'', professionals who
provide academic and moral service to students.
We report here the findings of a study designed to determine teachers'
perspectives on effective instructional leadership. We asked the question:
What characteristics of school principals positively influence classroom
teaching, and what effects do such characteristics have on classroom
instruction?
Instructional leadership
Current literature about instructional leadership falls into four broad areas.
First, prescriptive models describe instructional leadership as the integration
of the tasks of direct assistance to teachers, group development, staff
Journal of Educational
development, curriculum development, and action research (Glickman, 1985);
Administration, as a democratic, developmental, and transformational activity based on
Vol. 38 No. 2, 2000, pp. 130-141.
# MCB University Press, 0957-8234 equality and growth (Gordon, 1997); as an inquiry-oriented endeavor that
encourages teacher voice (Reitzug and Cross, 1993); and as a discursive, critical Effective
study of classroom interaction to achieve social justice (Smyth, 1997). Second, instructional
studies of instructional leadership, though few in number (Short (1995), include leadership
exploratory studies of indirect effects of principal-teacher instructional
conferences and behaviors such as the effects of monitoring student progress
(e.g. Blase and Blase, 1996; Dungan, 1993; Blase and Roberts, 1994; Reitzug,
1994). Third, studies of direct effects of principal behavior on teachers and 131
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 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 of
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
Method
To examine teachers' perspectives on effective instructional leadership, we
used the Blumer (1969)-Mead (1934) approach to symbolic interaction theory.
This approach to research focuses on understanding the meanings human
beings construct in their social settings. We developed an open-ended
questionnaire, the Inventory of Strategies Used by Principals to Influence
Classroom Teaching (ISUPICT), to investigate the question: What
characteristics (e.g. strategies, behaviors, attitudes, goals) of school principals
positively influence classroom teaching, and what effects do such
characteristics have on classroom instruction?
We pilot tested an initial version of the questionnaire before constructing the
final form of the instrument. The ISUPICT introduced the research topic,
requested background information, asked respondents to provide detailed
descriptions of one characteristic of a principal with whom they worked that
had a positive impact on their classroom teaching, and requested descriptions of
Journal of one characteristic of a principal with whom they worked that had a negative
Educational impact on their classroom teaching. We also asked respondents to describe the
Administration effects of principals' behaviors on classroom instruction, the principals'
38,2 apparent goals, and the effectiveness of the principals' behaviors. Professors
from a variety of disciplines in education administered the Inventory to a total
of 809 full-time public school teachers taking courses at both on- and off-
132 campus sites at three major universities located in the south-eastern,
midwestern, and north-eastern USA. Involvement in the study was voluntary
and anonymous.
Respondents included 25l males and 558 females; 275 rural, 291 suburban,
and 243 urban teachers; 380 elementary, 177 middle/junior high, and 252 high
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
school teachers. They averaged 37 years old, with 11 years in teaching. The
sample included 606 tenured and 203 nontenured teachers, 598 married and 211
single teachers holding 218 bachelor's, 459 master's, 97 specialist's, and 35
doctoral degrees. Their responses included descriptions of 398 male and 411
female principals. The mean number of years with the current principal at the
time of this study was four.
Data from the 809 teachers who participated in the study (about 500 words
from each respondent) were coded according to guidelines for inductive-
exploratory research and comparative analysis (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser
and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Line-by-line analysis produced
categories and subcategories for principal characteristics (e.g. strategies,
behaviors) teachers identified with both effective instructional leadership and
ineffective instructional leadership, as well as impacts on teaching (i.e.
teachers' thoughts, behaviors, and feelings related to teaching, and
effectiveness of each leadership characteristic). To check the researchers'
analysis, coders inspected segments of the research data, reaching a high
degree of consistency (0.90).
Owing to space limitations, only very brief excerpts (with names omitted)
from the data are presented here to illustrate selected ideas. Also because of
space considerations, this article focuses on the strategies teachers identified
with effective instructional leadership and their impacts on teachers. A report
of the negative principal behaviors and their adverse effects on teachers is
forthcoming (Blase and Blase, forthcoming).
Results
We found that in effective principal-teacher interaction about instruction,
processes such as inquiry, reflection, exploration, and experimentation result;
teachers build repertoires of flexible alternatives rather than collecting rigid
teaching procedures and methods. Our model of effective instructional
leadership was derived directly from the data; it consists of the two major
themes: talking with teachers to promote reflection and promoting professional
growth.
Talking with teachers to promote reflection Effective
According to our data, effective principals valued dialog that encouraged instructional
teachers to critically reflect on their learning and professional practice. This leadership
dialog consisted of five primary talking strategies including:
(1) making suggestions,
(2) giving feedback, 133
(3) modeling,
(4) using inquiry and soliciting advice and opinions, and
(5) giving praise.
Making suggestions. Principals made suggestions to teachers both during post-
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
The effect of these behaviors was to enhance teachers' reflective behavior (e.g.
using greater variety in teaching, responding to student diversity, planning
more carefully, and taking more risks). Teachers reported positive effects on
their motivation, satisfaction, self-esteem, efficacy, sense of security, and
feelings of support. One teacher said, ``The principal's suggestions encouraged
me to continually be reflective about my teaching and student responses/
outcomes. As I am teaching, I am more conscious of student attention...I am not
afraid to change my strategies.''
Giving feedback. Effective principals ``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
Journal of availability for follow-up talk. The effects of this feedback included increased
Educational teacher reflection, innovation/creativity, instructional variety, risktaking,
Administration better planning for instruction, and improved teacher motivation, efficacy,
sense of security, and self-esteem.
38,2
This type of strategy builds my confidence. My supervisor reinforces the fact that I am a
teacher. As I collaborate with her, I learn more about my teaching. I look forward to her next
134 visit as a chance to grow. The confidence I have described shows in my teaching. As I gain
positive feedback, I continue using what works in the classroom. And because I do not fear
negative evaluation, I am willing to take risks.
Giving praise. Teachers reported that principals gave praise that focused on
specific and concrete teaching behaviors:
The principal wrote a note at the bottom of the evaluation form that said, ``You are a credit to
the teaching profession''. In our conference he asked if he could send other teachers to observe
my classroom.
Principals' efforts along these lines, however, were in their infancy, thus no
strong effects on teachers were apparent in our data.
References
Beck, L.G. (1994), Reclaiming Educational Administration as a Caring Profession, Teachers
College Press, New York, NY.
Beck, L.G. and Murphy, J. (1994), Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: An Expanding
Role, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Beck, L.G., Murphy, J., Mertz, N.T., Starratt, R.J., Shapiro, J.P., Stefkovich, J.A., Duke, D.,
Grogan, M. and O'Keefe, J. (1997), Ethics in Educational Leadership Programs: Emerging
Models, The University Council for Educational Administration, Columbia, MO.
Blase, J. and Blase, J. (forthcoming), ``Ineffective instructional leadership and its effects on
classroom teaching'', manuscript in preparation.
Blase, J. and Roberts, J. (1994), ``The micropolitics of teacher work involvement: effective
principals' impacts on teachers'', The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 67-94.
Blase, J.R. and Blase, J. (1996), ``Micropolitical strategies used by administrators and teachers in
instructional conferences'', Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 345-60.
Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Calhoun, E. (1994), How to Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
Dewey, J. (1933), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Dowling, G. and Sheppard, K. (1976), ``Teacher training: a counseling focus'', paper presented at
the national convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, New York,
NY.
Dungan, S.L. (1993), ``Effects of evaluation, demographics, and perception on control strategies in
supervisory conferences in the southeast'', unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Georgia, Athens, GA.
Giroux, H.A. (1992), ``Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government'',
Educational Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 4-11.
Glanz, J. and Neville, R.F. (1997), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues, and
Controversies, Christopher-Gordon, Norwood, MA.
Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Journal of Glaser, B.G. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA.Glickman, C.D. (1985), Supervision of Instruction: A Developmental
Educational Approach, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Administration Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
38,2 Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. and Ross-Gordon, J.M. (1995), Supervision of Instruction: A
Developmental Approach, 3rd ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
140
Gordon, S.P. (1997), ``Has the field of supervision evolved to a point that it should be called
something else?'', in Glanz, J. and Neville, R.F. (Eds), Educational Supervision: Perspectives,
Issues, and Controversies, Christopher-Gordon, Norwood, MA, pp. 114-23.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H. (1996a), ``The principal's role in school effectiveness: an assessment
of methodological progress, 1980-1995'', in Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D.,
Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (Eds), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
Smyth, J. (1997), ``Is supervision more than the surveillance of instruction?'', in Glanz, J. and
Neville, R.F. (Eds), Educational Supervision: Perspectives, Issues, and Controversies,
Christopher-Gordon, Norwood, MA, pp. 286-95.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
This article has been cited by:
1. Michael Ryan, Monica Taylor, Amanda Barone, Leslie Della Pesca, Sona Durgana, Kelly Ostrowski,
Tonianne Piccirillo, Kelly Pikaard. 2017. Teacher as Researcher, Teacher as Scholar, and Teacher as Leader.
The New Educator 13:2, 102-116. [CrossRef]
2. Heather D. Kindall, Tracey Crowe, Angela Elsass. 2017. The principals influence on the novice teachers
professional development in literacy instruction. Professional Development in Education 82, 1-4. [CrossRef]
3. Teresa Sosa, Catherine D. Bhathena. 2017. Classroom Discussions as Distortions. Journal of Cases in
Educational Leadership 20:1, 22-33. [CrossRef]
4. Izhak Berkovich, Ori Eyal. 2017. The effects of principals communication practices on teachers emotional
distress. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34, 174114321769489. [CrossRef]
5. Piety RunhaarFactors Influencing Professional Development in Teacher Teams within CBE Contexts
755-773. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
6. Izhak Berkovich, Ori Eyal. 2016. Good cop, bad cop. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
174114321665929. [CrossRef]
7. Mahmut Kalman, Mustafa Cneyt Arslan. 2016. School principals evaluations of their instructional
leadership behaviours: realities vs. ideals. School Leadership & Management 36:5, 508-530. [CrossRef]
8. Eleni A. Katsigianni, Amalia A. Ifanti. 2016. Tenured and non-tenured school principals in Greece: a
historical approach. Journal of Educational Administration and History 48:3, 225-242. [CrossRef]
9. Pak Tee Ng. 2016. What is a good principal? Perspectives of aspiring principals in Singapore. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice 15:2, 99-113. [CrossRef]
10. Jos Weinstein, Macarena Hernndez. 2016. Birth pains: emerging school leadership policies in eight
school systems of Latin America. International Journal of Leadership in Education 19:3, 241-263. [CrossRef]
11. Emine Gumus, Mehmet Sukru Bellibas. 2016. The effects of professional development activities on
principals perceived instructional leadership practices: multi-country data analysis using TALIS 2013.
Educational Studies 42:3, 287-301. [CrossRef]
12. Sookweon Min Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA Marsha E. Modeste Department of Educational Leadership and
Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA Jason Salisbury Department
of Educational Administration, School of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA Peter T.
Goff Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Wisconsin Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin, USA . 2016. Heeding the CALL (Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for
Learning). Journal of Educational Administration 54:2, 135-151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Michalinos Zembylas, Sotiroula Iasonos. 2016. The Entanglement of Leadership Styles and Social Justice
Leadership: A Case Study from Cyprus. Leadership and Policy in Schools 1-26. [CrossRef]
14. Kate BertramThe Cultural Architecture of Schools 105-123. [CrossRef]
15. Motoko Akiba Measuring Teachers Professional Learning Activities in International Context 87-110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
16. Joseph Murphy Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA . 2015. The empirical and moral foundations of
the ISLLC Standards. Journal of Educational Administration 53:6, 718-734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Peng Liu Department of Education Policy and Leadership, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong
Kong, China . 2015. Motivating teachers commitment to change through transformational school
leadership in Chinese urban upper secondary schools. Journal of Educational Administration 53:6, 735-754.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Roger Goddard, Yvonne Goddard, Eun Sook Kim, Robert Miller. 2015. A Theoretical and Empirical
Analysis of the Roles of Instructional Leadership, Teacher Collaboration, and Collective Efficacy Beliefs
in Support of Student Learning. American Journal of Education 121:4, 501-530. [CrossRef]
19. Men Ye Chong, Kasim Mansur, Yew Joe Ho. 2015. The influence of perception of school principals
leadership on teachers job satisfaction in the interior of Sabah, Malaysia: a case study in Beaufort. Korean
Social Science Journal 42:1, 1-12. [CrossRef]
20. Georgia Kouali Department of Education, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus Petros Pashiardis
Department of Education, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus . 2015. Time management profiles
of Cypriot school principals: a mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Educational Management
29:4, 492-518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Kostas Dimopoulos, Katerina Dalkavouki, Vasilis Koulaidis. 2015. Job realities of primary school principals
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
in Greece: similarities and variations in a highly centralized system. International Journal of Leadership in
Education 18:2, 197-224. [CrossRef]
22. Heather E. Price and Nienke M. Moolenaar Ben Pogodzinski College of Education, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI, USA . 2015. Administrative context and novice teacher-mentor interactions.
Journal of Educational Administration 53:1, 40-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. James Fox, Tao Gong, Prince Attoh. 2015. The Impact of Principal as Authentic Leader on Teacher Trust
in the K-12 Educational Context. Journal of Leadership Studies 8:4, 6-18. [CrossRef]
24. Kristina Brezicha, Ulrika Bergmark, Dana L. Mitra. 2015. One Size Does Not Fit All. Educational
Administration Quarterly 51:1, 96-132. [CrossRef]
25. Emily Bedwell, Joshua Cowen, Peter Jones, Eugenia Toma. 2014. Do Public Managers Promote Employee
Development in Hard-to-Staff Locales?. Public Performance & Management Review 37:4, 529-551.
[CrossRef]
26. Bennie Grobler. 2013. The school principal as Instructional Leader: A structural equation model.
Education as Change 17:sup1, S177-S199. [CrossRef]
27. Loyiso C. Jita, Matseliso L. Mokhele. 2013. The role of lead teachers in instructional leadership: A case
study of environmental learning in South Africa. Education as Change 17:sup1, S123-S135. [CrossRef]
28. Bennie Grobler, Lloyd Conley. 2013. The relationship between emotional competence and instructional
leadership and their association with learner achievement. Education as Change 17:sup1, S201-S223.
[CrossRef]
29. Karin Katterfeld. 2013. Setting Instructional Expectations: Patterns of Principal Leadership for Middle
School Mathematics. Leadership and Policy in Schools 12:4, 337-373. [CrossRef]
30. Philip Hallinger, Moosung Lee. 2013. Exploring principal capacity to lead reform of teaching and learning
quality in Thailand. International Journal of Educational Development 33:4, 305-315. [CrossRef]
31. Ashley Keshwar SeebaluckDepartment of Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius Trisha
Devi SeegumDepartment of Management, University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius. 2013. Motivation
among public primary school teachers in Mauritius. International Journal of Educational Management 27:4,
446-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Sedat Gumus, Mete Akcaoglu. 2013. Instructional Leadership in Turkish Primary Schools. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 41:3, 289-302. [CrossRef]
33. Gavin T.L. BrownFaculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Constance
ChaiFaculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 2012. Assessing
instructional leadership: a longitudinal study of new principals. Journal of Educational Administration 50:6,
753-772. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. David Ng Foo SeongPolicy and Leadership Studies, National Technological University, Singapore Jeanne
Marie HoMinistry of Education, Singapore. 2012. How leadership for an ICT reform is distributed within
a school. International Journal of Educational Management 26:6, 529-549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. David Ng, Jeanne Ho. 2012. Distributed Leadership for ICT Reform in Singapore. Peabody Journal of
Education 87:2, 235-252. [CrossRef]
36. Wan Har Chong, Christine Anne Kong. 2012. Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-Efficacy:
The Case of Lesson Study. The Journal of Experimental Education 80:3, 263-283. [CrossRef]
37. Maribeth Gettinger, Karen C. Stoiber. 2012. Curriculum-Based Early Literacy Assessment and
Differentiated Instruction with High-Risk Preschoolers. Reading Psychology 33:1-2, 11-46. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
38. Clement K. Agezo, Warren C. Hope. 2011. Gender leadership in Cape Coast Municipality primary schools.
International Journal of Leadership in Education 14:2, 181-201. [CrossRef]
39. Dora Choi Wa Ho. 2011. Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes.
International Journal of Leadership in Education 14:1, 47-59. [CrossRef]
40. Christine Anne Lawrence, Wan Har Chong. 2010. Teacher collaborative learning through the lesson study:
identifying pathways for instructional success in a Singapore high school. Asia Pacific Education Review
11:4, 565-572. [CrossRef]
41. Heather E. Duncan, Mark J. Stock. 2010. Mentoring and Coaching Rural School Leaders: What Do They
Need?. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 18:3, 293-311. [CrossRef]
42. Marsha IngUniversity of California, Riverside, California, USA. 2010. Using informal classroom
observations to improve instruction. Journal of Educational Administration 48:3, 337-358. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
43. John Patrick, Gemma Scrase, Afia Ahmed, Michal Tombs. 2009. Effectiveness of instructor behaviours
and their relationship to leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82:3, 491-509.
[CrossRef]
44. Andrea K. Rorrer, Linda Skrla, James Joseph Scheurich. 2008. Districts as Institutional Actors in
Educational Reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 44:3, 307-357. [CrossRef]
45. Cynthia B. Vavasseur, S. Kim MacGregor. 2008. Extending Content-Focused Professional Development
through Online Communities of Practice. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 40:4, 517-536.
[CrossRef]
46. Adam E. Nir, Ronit Bogler. 2008. The antecedents of teacher satisfaction with professional development
programs. Teaching and Teacher Education 24:2, 377-386. [CrossRef]
47. Louise Anderson Allen, Nancy J. Brooks. 2007. Horizonal Leadership: Seeing Afresh the Face of the
Other in Educational Leadership Practices. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 4:2, 135-149. [CrossRef]
48. Stephen M. Nettles, Carolyn Herrington. 2007. Revisiting the Importance of the Direct Effects of School
Leadership on Student Achievement: The Implications for School Improvement Policy. Peabody Journal
of Education 82:4, 724-736. [CrossRef]
49. Dan RileyUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia Bill MulfordUniversity of Tasmania, Hobart,
Australia. 2007. England's National College for School Leadership: a model for leadership education?.
Journal of Educational Administration 45:1, 80-98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Bruce G. Barnett, Gary R. OMahony. 2006. Developing a culture of reflection: implications for school
improvement. Reflective Practice 7:4, 499-523. [CrossRef]
51. Carol Cardno. 2006. Leading change from within: action research to strengthen curriculum leadership in
a primary school. School Leadership & Management 26:5, 453-471. [CrossRef]
52. Carolyn Timms, Deborah Graham, Marie Caltabiano. 2006. Gender Implication of Perceptions of
Trustworthiness of School Administration and Teacher Burnout/Job Stress. Australian Journal of Social
Issues 41:3, 343-358. [CrossRef]
53. Stephen L. Jacobson, Christopher Day and Kenneth LeithwoodChristopher DaySchool of Education,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2005. Sustaining success in challenging contexts: leadership
in English schools. Journal of Educational Administration 43:6, 573-583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Carol CardnoUNITEC Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 2005. Leadership and
professional development: the quiet revolution. International Journal of Educational Management 19:4,
292-306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Auckland Library At 14:45 13 June 2017 (PT)
55. Christopher Day. 2005. Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging
circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education 8:4, 273-290. [CrossRef]
56. Pamela S. Flood. 2004. Instructional Leadership: It's Not Just for Principals Anymore. Middle School
Journal 36:1, 54-60. [CrossRef]
57. Barrie O. PettmanRichard Dobbins. 2002. Leadership: a selected bibliography. Equal Opportunities
International 21:4/5/6, 1-192. [Abstract] [PDF]
58. Bennie GroblerThe Relationship between Emotional Competence and Instructional Leadership and Their
Association with Learner Achievement 373-407. [CrossRef]
59. Doron ZingerDeveloping Instructional Leadership and Communication Skills through Online
Professional Development: 354-370. [CrossRef]
60. Andreas Kythreotis, Panayiotis AntoniouExploring the Impact of School Leadership on Student Learning
Outcomes: 349-372. [CrossRef]
61. Andreas Kythreotis, Panayiotis AntoniouExploring the Impact of School Leadership on Student Learning
Outcomes: 953-977. [CrossRef]