Models of Instructional Leadership

There are about as many versions of instructional leadership as there are people who write about it. To sketch the evolution of instructional leadership, this part will focus on three models of leadership that have been elaborated during the past two decades.

Hallinger & Murphy’s model (1985) They developed their model of instructional management by examining the instructional leadership behaviors of elementary principals and reviewing the literature on school effectiveness. From their empirical and theoretical analyses, they created a framework of instructional management with three dimension and eleven job descriptors. The three major functions were defining mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school climate. Mission was defined in term of framing and communicating goals. Instruction was elaborated in terms of supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, and monitoring student progress.

A positive school climate was created by principals protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high visibility, providing teaching incentives, enforcing high academic standards, and providing incentives for students. These functions and their elements are summarized in table 1

Manages instructional program Promotes school climate Table 1: Elements of Murphy and Hallinger’s (1985) Model of Instructional Leadership Defines the mission Manages instructional program Promotes school climate Framing school goals Communicating school goals Supervising and evaluating instructions Coordinating curriculum Monitoring students progress Protecting instructional time Promoting professional development Maintaining high visibility Providing incentives for teachers Enforcing academic standards Providing incentives for students

Murphy’s model (1990) He continued to refine and elaborate the model with a systematic and comprehensive review and integration of the research from four major sources: the literature on effective schools, on school improvement, on staff development, and on organizational change. Based on this review, he sketched and elaborated an instructional leadership framework that consisted of four basic dimensions of instructional leadership broken down into sixteen different roles or behaviors.

Developing mission and goals remained a fundamental feature of instructional leadership, but managing the instructional programs was expended to included the principal’s roles of promoting quality instruction and monitoring student progress. Murphy (1990) also expanded the nation of promoting a positive school climate to include both promoting an academic learning climate and developing a supportive work environment. Thus, the elaborated model of instructional leadership now had four basic dimension rather than three and16 functions.

Table 2: Elements of Murphy’s (1990) Model of instructional Leadership Developing mission and goals Managing the educational production function Promoting an academic learning climate Developing a supportive work environment Framing school goals Communicating school goals Promoting quality instruction Supervising and evaluating instruction Allocating and protecting instructional time Coordinating the curriculum Monitoring student progress Establishing positive expectations and standards Maintaining high visibility Providing incentives for teachers and students Promoting professional development Creating a safe and orderly learning environment Providing opportunities for meaningful student involvement Developing staff collaboration and cohesion Securing outside resources in school goals Forging links between the home and the school

Weber’s model (1996) Addressed the need for instructional leadership regardless of the school’s organizational structure and concluded that even if an instructional leader were not packaged as a principal, such a leader was imperative. He concluded from his review of the research that, “The leaderless-team approach to a school’s instructional program has powerful appeal, but a large group of professionals still needs a single point of contact and a active advocate for teaching and learning” (1996,p254).

Weber’s point is especially poignant in today’s educational arena of shared leadership and site-based management, and he emphasizes the conclusion that instructional leadership is necessary regardless of the hierarchical nature of a school organization. Weber (1996) identified five essential domains of instructional leadership based on his review of the literature: defining the school’s mission, managing curriculum and instruction, promoting a positive learning climate, observing and improving instruction, and assessing the instructional program. His model is consistent with the two earlier models and incorporates many of the same elements.

Table 3: Elements of Weber’s (1996) Model of Instructional Leadership Defining the school’s mission Managing curriculum and instruction Promoting a positive learning climate Observing and improving instruction Assessing the instructional programs The instructional leader collaboratively develops a common vision goals for the school with stakeholders. The instructional leader monitors classroom practice alignment with the school’s mission, provides resources and support in the use of instructional best practices, and models and provides support in the use of data to drive instruction. The instructional leader promotes a positive learning climate by communicating goals, establishing expectations, and establishing and orderly learning environment. The instructional leader observes and improves instruction through the use of classroom observation and professional development opportunities. The instructional leader contributes to the planning, designing, administering, and analysis of assessments that evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum.

Synthesis and Theoretic Grounding: A Simplified Model The three models all show the importance of three fundamental instructional leadership functions: Defining and communicating goals Monitoring and providing feedback on the teaching and learning process Promoting and emphasizing the importance of the professional development The three process of instructional leadership are consistent with Locke and Latham’s goal setting theory, which is arguably one of most effective theories of motivation (Baron,1998; Hoy & Miskel, 2001)

Table 4:Elements of the Simplified Model of Instructional Leadership Defines and Communicates Shared Goals Monitors and provides Feedback on the teaching and learning process Promotes school wide professional development This means that the leader works collaboratively with staff to define, communicate, and use shared goals of the school. Goals are used in making organizational decisions, aligning instructional practice, purchasing curricular materials, and providing targets for progress. These goals focus the staff around a common mission to achieve. This dimension describes the activities of an instructional leader around the academic curriculum. These activities include being visible throughout the school, talking with students and teachers, providing praise and feedback to teachers, students, and community on academic performance and ensuring that the instructional time of the school is not interrupted. encompassed in this dimension are behaviors that are consistent with life-long learning. The instructional leader encourages teachers to learn more about student achievement through data analysis, provides professional development opportunities that are aligned to school goals, an provides professional literature and resources to teachers.

Table 5: Instructional Leadership Inventory (by Jana M Alig-Mielcare and Wayne K Hoy: The Ohio State University)

Promotes school wide professional Development Encourages teachers to attend professional development activities that are aligned to school goals Provides for in-house professional development opportunities around instructional best practices Plans professional development around teacher needs and wants Supports individualized professional development plan Plans professional developments in-service with teachers Furnishes useful professional materials and resources to teachers Schedules time on in-service for collaboration along teachers

Defines and Communicates Shared Goals Uses data on student achievement to guide faculty discussions on the instructional program Encourages teachers to use data analysis of student academic progress Develops data-driven academic goals in collaboration with teachers Communicates the school’s academic goals to the faculty Works with teachers to interpret asessment data for instructional implications Uses school goals when making academic decisions Develops school goals that promote high standards and expectations for all students Sets high but achievable standards for all students

Monitors and provides Feedback on the and learning process Visits the classroom to ensure classroom instruction aligns with school goals Monitors classroom to ensure classroom instruction aligns with school goals Work with students on academic tasks Stays in the office all day (reversed score) Observes teachers for professional development instead of evaluation Evaluates teachers to improve instructional practice Provides private feedback of teacher effort Provides private feedback on student effort

AKTIVITI Bincangkan sejauhmana pemimpin di institusi tempat anda bertugas melaksanakan kepemimpinan pengajaran. Beri contoh untuk menjelaskan jawapan anda.