Instructional Leadership Practices of School Administrators The Case of El Salvador City Division Philippines
Instructional Leadership Practices of School Administrators The Case of El Salvador City Division Philippines
Instructional Leadership Practices of School Administrators The Case of El Salvador City Division Philippines
Page: 12-32
Commonwealth Journal of Academic Research
YEAR: 2020 (CJAR.EU)
Abstract
About Author
AND
Author2 FACULTY, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY,
MALAYBALAY CITY, PHILIPPINES;
E-mail: caingcoymanuel@gmail.com ; manuelcaingcoy@buksu.edu.ph
Introduction
Instructional leadership practices of school administrators are vital in fulfilling the
primary responsibilities to ensure quality instruction and learning, growth of learners, and
professional development of teachers. As instructional leaders, school administrators help
teachers in identifying trends, discuss with them new teaching techniques and strategies that
enhance their teaching skills that benefit learners. They have to maintain open
communication with teachers as they provide support and feedback towards them, especially
in instruction. School administrators need to use data and plan for needed changes in an
instructional program to establish a clear focus on attaining learners’ achievement goals.
Administrators, as instructional leaders, are mandated in Republic Act. 9155 otherwise
known as Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 to take responsibility, authority, and
accountability in:
creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning;
implementing the school curriculum and being accountable for higher learning outcomes;
developing the school education program and school improvement plan; offering
educational programs, projects, and services which provide equitable opportunities for all
learners in the community; introducing new and innovative modes of instruction to achieve
higher learning outcomes; encouraging staff development; establishing school and
community networks. (Philippine Congress, 2001, Sec. 7)
Instructional leadership practices before are quite different from that of today. In the
21st century, teaching and learning processes need new strategies and a new mindset. With
the ever-increasing needs of today’s globalization, the transformation in the education system
needs to put in place and ensure that education seeks to provide the best 21st-century
education to future generations. However, planning of these various initiatives will not work
if the school administrators fail to handle them effectively. Competent school administrators
with instructional leadership skills are expected to help the government achieve the agenda
of the country’s education transformation, while the weak and troubled school administrators
in leadership are expected to thwart this great agenda (Ibrahim, 2017).
Instructional leadership practices in the locale of the present study may not be quite
different from that of other divisions in the region. There were reports that a few school
administrators were not able to come up with what is expected of them. They did not function
according to their job description but instead delegate their roles to teachers and
coordinators. A few of them were being awarded as best achievers while others poor
performers. In some occasions, some have visited classes for classroom observation and some
seldom did it. They were often busy with the paper works that they sometimes neglect their
most important job, which is the supervision of instruction. They were too focused on
allocating resources to beautify their schools and set aside the major role to provide quality
education to learners by constantly monitoring teachers, making sure that the competencies
in all subject areas were covered and accomplished. Some teachers, especially the old ones,
preferred traditional ways of teaching and they resisted change. Eventually, school
administrators would have a hard time making them adopt to all DepEd programs.
Hallinger (2011) claimed that when the teachers consider the practice of instructional
leadership, they will carry out changes and in fact will become more committed to
performing. When the instructional leaders show a positive attitude toward changes, the
school environment is the best place for a well thought out change (Busher, 2006). The
readiness of school administrators to face changes should also be accompanied by an effort to
improve their knowledge and skills to manage the coming changes. If school administrators
do not have the skills and deep knowledge of the change, then it would be impossible for
them to implement the changes effectively (Malakolunthu & Hoon, 2010). In this regard, the
school heads that practice instructional leadership should be a role model to teachers in
implementing changes by increasing their knowledge and skills (Leithwood et al., 2006). In
the Division of El Salvador City, there were reports on problems of efficiency and low- quality
educational outputs in some schools. This may be due to poor instructional leadership
practices of school administrators that affect the learners’ academic performance as well as
teachers’ teaching performance. To determine how well the school heads exercised their
instructional leadership roles, there is a need to assess them on related competencies of
instructional leadership and provide concerned officials with information needed for the
professional development of school administrators.
Primarily, this study is founded on the interrelated concepts of instructional
leadership introduced by the Department of Education (2012) in collaboration with
Educational Development Project Implementing Task Force. It is among the domains of the
National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads. As a competency, instructional
leadership is described in four competency strands such as the assessment for learning,
developing programs, and or adapting existing programs, implementing programs for
instructional improvement, and instructional supervision. Assessment for learning is limited to
managing the processes and procedures in monitoring student achievement, ensuring the
utilization of a range of assessment processes to assess student performance, assessing the
effectiveness of curricular and co-curricular programs and or the instructional strategies used
by teachers, and creating and managing school processes that ensure student progress.
Developing and adapting existing programs is limited to using research and expertise, and/or
other vehicles to assist in developing and implementing a coherent and responsive school
wide curriculum, addressing the deficiencies and sustaining successes of current programs in
collaboration with the teachers, learners, and stakeholders, and developing a culture of
functional literacy. Implementing programs for instructional improvement is managing the
introduction of curriculum initiatives in line with policies, working with teachers in
curriculum review, enriching the curricular offerings based on local needs, managing the
curriculum innovation and enrichment with the use of technology, and organizing teams to
champion instructional innovation programs toward curricular responsiveness. Instructional
supervision includes preparing an instructional supervisory plan, conducting instructional
supervision using appropriate strategy, evaluating lesson plans as well as classroom and
learning management, providing timely, accurate and specific feedback in a collegial manner
to teachers regarding performance, and providing technical assistance/expertise and
instructional support to teachers (DepEd, 2012).
This research is also anchored on the deliberate practice theory which was originally
theorized by Ericsson and colleagues. For almost three decades, Ericsson and the company
had been conducting studies that strengthen this theory and applied it to different contexts.
From its original assertion, it claims that deliberate practice is a condition for optimal
learning and improvement of performance. Recently, Ericsson and Harwell (2019) reargued
that deliberate practice is simply an engagement in structured activities to improve
performance. It is assumed that school administrators have been provided with structured
training by their agency at the district, division, regional or national level. This research
assumes that the higher the school administrators practiced the instructional leadership
roles, the more deliberate their efforts are and the more improved these administrators have
become. Thus, their optimal learning must be applied and eventually improved their
instructional leadership practices. The study used the lens of this theory in exploring their
challenges of practicing instructional leadership and ways of overcoming these challenges.
Research Problem
This research assessed the instructional leadership practices of public elementary
school administrators in the Division of El Salvador City. Specifically, this study sought to
answer the following questions:
1. What is the extent of instructional leadership practices of public elementary school
administrators in the following competency strands: assessment for learning;
developing programs & or adapting existing programs; implementing programs for
instructional improvement; and instructional supervision?
2. What are the challenges encountered by public school administrators in practicing
the instructional leadership?
3. How did the public school administrators overcome the challenges encountered in
practicing instructional leadership?
The researchers have done transcript reading, grouping the apparent narratives and excerpts,
and looking into the commonalities and similarities. The first step was done very closely and
it allowed the researchers to detect apparent narratives that answer the problems, while the
second step allowed the researchers to identify the themes. The researchers engaged in deep
immersion into the narratives and transcripts. The last step allowed them to finalize the
themes and the narratives were extracted for the discussion of results.
school administrators reportedly spend most of their time on administrative functions while
they had limited time in overseeing teaching and learning or supervising teachers (Hoadley et
al., 2007).
Table 3 shows the extent of instructional leadership practices in adapting programs that
are mandated by the Department of Education and or in developing programs at the school
level. The overall results appeared that public school administrators have always practiced
this instructional leadership competency to a very high extent. To name a few, some of the
programs implemented at the national level are on lectures and seminars series. Participants
are encouraged to re-echo the trainings to co-teachers. Some programs are in the form of
scholarships and distance learning. There are programs in which teachers study the content
and pedagogy together and plan the lessons collaboratively. Two examples of these are Small
Learning Action Cell (SLAC) and the teaching circles. This is the reason why school
administrators need to adapt or initiate programs that allow teachers to collaborate. Though
teachers have the ability and responsibility to take charge of their learning, they can learn
best through collaboration with peers and colleagues. These practices are encouraged in the
Republic Act No. 10533, series of 2013, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013
(Philippine Congress, 2013). The Department of Education issued an order no. 35, series of
2016. This is the policy on the Learning Action Cell (LAC) as the Kto12 Basic Education
Program School-Based Strategy for improving teaching and learning.
Lobo (2016) noted that it is important that teachers in the various school systems need to
consider the ultimate goal of their profession and the methods they can employ to be
successful in their careers and in preparing learners for an uncertain and undetermined
world. Sahlberg (2009) indicates that teachers around the world are taking a skills-based
approach to education to prepare students to build careers and be active citizens after
completing school. Desta et al. (2014) posited that the knowledge and skills obtained by
teachers in their professional development trainings and seminars play a significant role in
reducing problems encountered in daily life. Murchan et al. (2009) recommended that
teaching is productive when the process, pedagogy, and approaches are prepared. This is the
aspect in which school administrators cannot delegate responsibilities to senior teachers.
Although some teachers are designated as coordinators for programs or school activities that
provide them with opportunities, school administrators have to spend time teaching and
coaching them, assisting and assessing them to collaborate well for them to be fully equipped
7 Commonwealth Journal of Academic Research (CJAR.EU) Published By
Email: editor.cjar@gmail.com editor@cjar.eu Website: cjar.eu
Volume: 1, Issue: 2, Year: 2020 Page: 12-32 TWCMSI - International
with strategies and pedagogies. Some school administrators supplemented this by conducting
a school-based training program to develop the abilities and skills of teachers. This is
reinforced in O’Connor (2013) who said that collaboration is beneficial for it provides
opportunities and experiences to teachers that would enhance instruction.
to Papa (2011), the school administrators have the utmost responsibility to become effective
technology leaders who are influential for its integration, successful adoption and
implementation. They have to assume the role as technology leaders who can lead
technology-related activities in school including decisions and policies related to integration
(Dexter, 2011).
It has been a call for both school administrators and teachers to catch up with the new
technology and integrate it school. Also, innovation in education needs to observe the
changing society and solve educational problems (Whattananarong, 2011). Quality
innovation makes learners learn better in a shorter time and ensures learning proficiency.
Studies over the past years have confirmed that there is a relatively connection between the
work of the school administrator and the schools’ instructional improvement to a sound
result in learners’ achievement. In working and in framing goals and expectations, school
effectiveness can be achieved (Murphy & Torre, 2015) through technology that allows
innovative and creative ideas among teachers and administrators.
Orr and Orphanos (2011) argued that instructional leadership practices of
administrators are among the essential components of implementing a program for
instructional improvement. Moreover, their experiences contributed significantly to what and
how many of them learn the effective leadership. Subsequently, these experiences enable
them to function effectively. Furthermore, changes in school system through shared
leadership serves as a motivation and can have a positive effect on academic growth of
learners (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). As a result, school administrators increase the extent of
their influence over school improvement by sharing leadership with teachers, directly
influencing them and instruction (Louis et al., 2010; Supovitz et al., 2010).
Louis et al. (2010) claimed that teachers do not only need support to feel successful
and productive in their work but they need to be involved in school improvement initiatives.
It was found that the school system can influence teaching and learning, in part, through the
contributions they make to positive feelings of success. They possessed strong power beliefs
to manage and persist in school improvements. The school improvement strategies and the
actions of school administrators can help foster better learners’ attainment (Sammons et al.,
2014).
The narratives indicated that clinical supervision enables teachers to make revisions or
developments in their teaching practice to become better and more effective. The findings also
show that the effect of clinical supervision had increased effectiveness of classroom management.
Developmentally, clinical supervision helped teachers improved their use of teaching methods and
teaching performance (Zepeda, 2007). This was also true with prior studies that stated clinical
supervision increased teachers’ teaching accomplishment (Thomas, 2008). The study affirmed that
the majority of teachers have a positive perspective on clinical supervision. The finding of this
study implies that supervision assists teachers to enhance themselves and their teaching. Teachers
who are observed also admitted that supervision helped in increasing their teaching expertise level.
The findings of this study are consistent with the statement by Radi (2007) who claimed that
discussion session between school administrator and teacher has to be done to get the feedback of
the class observation. Through the discussion, the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers
concerning teaching technique, methodology, approach and instructional materials used can be
addressed collegially.
resist class observation or supervision. They manifest negativity attitude towards it. These
teachers can derail changes initiated by school administrators. They said:
The teachers are pessimistic towards instructional supervision (Participant 3); It’s the teachers. I can feel it
that teachers were negative if you have to schedule them for observation because they are not used to it
(Participant 10); There are few, especially the old ones, who feel that they are better than you… because of
their experiences (Participant 2); The teachers because they are the main actors or actresses that will
cater to the learners’ needs by giving them proper guidance that will lead to better development of the
children (Participant 1); and of course, the ones with higher education are the ones harder to deal with. Of
course, it is the teachers … some have a doctorate … so surely they have different sets of standards in terms
of command responsibility (Principal 9).
They have noted that teachers are more challenging to deal with because they
assumed they already knew everything. In reality, many of them spared their time in getting a
degree and learning the subject matter. They feel they have already mastered all that is
necessary to teach. The participants indicated that teachers need to value continuing learning
through supervision. It cannot be denied as well that some teachers have limited experience
and knowledge on educational theories and teaching techniques. Therefore, it is appropriate
for the school administrators to assist them by providing guidance in using appropriate
strategies for instruction. From the perspective of human resource management and
development in education, the success of the education system relies heavily on teacher
quality (Omebe, 2014). The primary role of Instructional leadership is to develop effective
teaching staff that would result in learner’s academic achievement. School administrators and
teachers must understand that their roles should work collaboratively in educating the
learners. School administrators who foster collaborative leadership appeared to influence
learning by developing teachers who perform well though shaping academic structures with
consistent impact on the learners’ achievement (MacBeath & Cheng, 2008). The finding is
consistent with the research of Tuytens et al. (2010) which concluded that the structure a
principal provides, along with the trust teachers have in their school administrators, is of
central importance to teachers’ perceptions and influence. Empirical work has also exhibited
that instructional leadership practices directly influence feedback’s effectiveness. Thus, they
directly influence teachers’ professional learning (Tuytens & Devos, 2011). School
administrators expressed the need to balance conflicting goals as they maintained a
collaborative and positive school culture at the same time comply with a potentially
contentious mandate in changing the process and content of teacher performance. One of the
reasons for instructional leadership practice is to increase classroom instruction by giving
positive influence towards teachers’ knowledge and teachers’ competency (Gu, 2014).
from the national need immediate action/implementation (Participant 11); Since our department has
many seminars. We have our instructional supervision plan. It’s only a plan. Sometimes so we cannot
implement it. So I used to have a video teaching with my teachers (Participant 2); The number one
challenge is time. As an instructional leader… instructional leadership focuses on serving (Participant 12).
School administration entails a lot of responsibilities. Managing the school operations,
overseeing instructional programs, and building relations among teachers need time (Horng
et al., 2010). That’s why, becoming more productive means looking for ways to carry out
more given limited time and resources. Managing one’s time more ably is one way to fulfill
this goal. Although overlooking time management specifically, in educational administration
has documented the importance of how school administrators organize and allocate their
time. Studies of school administrators’ time use using class observations and other
supervisory works show that school administrators’ time was spent on organizational
management and school operations. All these predict learner’s achievement and other school
end result (Horng et al., 2010; May et al., 2012). Further, studies also find that principals’ time
was invested in some instruction-related tasks, including coaching and teacher professional
development and were associated with more positive student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2012;
May et al., 2012) but they contributed large portions of the days’ planned and unplanned
meetings and on finishing administrative duties (Horng et al., 2010).
observed in learners influence a change in belief. Opfer et al. (2011) recommends that this
sequence is constantly happening and frequently influences teacher belief to continue the
change in practice.
It is one of the major roles of the school head to let teachers know why I should do it. I explain the
importance of observation and the benefit of every teacher in the teaching and learning process
(Participant 4); develop a positive attitude towards class observation by so doing such friendly activity…
developing a positive attitude towards leading them to be a very good teacher … (Participant 7); and we
should manage well so that teachers would be encouraged to teach their children well also depends on the
kind of leader they have (Participant 6).
Congcong and Caingcoy (2020) published some feedback mechanisms that every
school administrator can learn and effectively provide feedback to teachers. These
mechanisms may allow teachers to recognize the value of classroom observation. To do it,
school administrators can choose one or a combination of those mechanisms in the
framework. If school administrators are unable to carry out their roles effectively, like
observing class observation and checking teachers’ lesson plans then they will not be able to
motivate the teachers or take advantage of their knowledge and experience, and this may
affect their ability to motivate students to excel in their education (Sidhu & Fook, 2009). It
becomes the school administrators’ responsibility to work with teachers to supervise the
instructional programs. Instructional leaders should know what transpire in the classrooms
by having class observation and develop the capacities of their teachers by building on their
strengths and reducing their weaknesses (Spillane & Zuberi, 2009). If these are the aims of
classroom observation, teachers may recognize its value and benefits.
Conclusion
Looking at the findings from the lens of deliberate practice theory, it is concluded that
school administrators have indicated they have acquired knowledge and high level of
understanding on their instructional leadership roles in four areas namely the assessment for
learning, developing programs and or adapting existing ones, implementing programs for
instructional improvement, and instructional supervision. Despite the fact these
administrators can perform exceedingly their instructional leadership roles by practicing
them day-by-day, they also recognized they are challenged by teachers’ negative attitudes,
resistance to changes, and conflicting schedules of their respective schools, division, region,
and even with the national activities. The continuing professional development provided by
the Department of Education allowed them to apply the acquired knowledge and skills in
conducting clinical supervision, providing technical assistance to teachers, and innovating
teaching and learning. These administrators have tried their best to meet content and
performance standards of the basic education curriculum, modify and adapt the programs of
the agency. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the following were recommended: (1) The
Department of Education at national, regional, division, and district levels may sustain the
existing programs and initiatives that best prepare school administrators for their
instructional roles in school-based management. This is to maintain progress and even
surpass the current performance of school administrators in practicing instructional
leadership roles; (2) The school administrators may collaborate with their district
supervisors as their direct mentors and with co-school administrators, especially in
addressing challenges in performing instructional leadership roles to ensure optimal school
performance among teachers and learners; (3) The Department of Education may develop
and implement a continuing professional development program on how to handle negative
attitudes of teachers, especially those who are resistant to changes and innovation in teaching
and learning processes; (4) The Department of Education at different levels may design
programs intended for teachers with problems on attitudes and are resistant to changes and
innovation in teaching. This is to help school administrators in addressing these challenges;
and (5) The Department of Education at the national, regional, division and district levels may
provide school administrators in advance the calendar of their activities so that school-based
activities and schedules may not be hampered, especially their clinical and supervisory
functions to teachers. The study acknowledged the limited participants of the study,
especially the quantitative data. It is recommended to future researchers to conduct a similar
study with a bigger sample and more sophisticated design that ensure more external validity
and generalizable results.
Acknowledgment
The researchers acknowledged the great contributions of the participants and the
DepEd officials in the Division of El Salvador City. A million thanks.
References
Alemayehu, G.O. (2008). The current practices and problems of subject-area instructional supervision in
secondary schools of Addis. Ababa city administration. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Al Ateeqi, A. (2009). We have come along the way: Redefining education and its global challenges in
the United Arab Emirates. Paper presented at the 2009 Education without Borders Conference.
Arong, F. E. & Ogbadu, M. A. (2010). Major causes of declining quality of education in Nigeria from
administrative perspective: A case study of Dekina local government area. Canadian Social
Science, 6(3), 183-198.
Bickford, J. H. (2017). The Curriculum Development of Experienced Teachers who are Inexperienced
with History-Based Pedagogy. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 8(1), 146-192.
Busher. H. (2006). Understanding Educational Leadership: People, Power & Culture. Open University
Congcong, G. J. D., & Caingcoy, M. E. (2020). Feedback Mechanisms of School Heads on Teacher
Performance. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(3), 236-253.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3759781
Department of Education (2016). DepEd Order 35, series of 2016: The policy on the Learning Action Cell
(LAC) as the Kto12 Basic Education Program School–Based Strategy. DepEd.
Department of Education. (2012). National Competency-based Standards for School Heads Training
and Development Needs Assessment: Guide and Tools. Philippines: DepEd.
Desta, D., Chalchisa, C., & Lemma, G. (2014). School-Based Continuous Teacher Professional
Development: An Investigation of Practices, Opportunities and Challenges. Addis Ababa University.
Dexter, S. (2011). School Technology Leadership: Artifacts in Systems of Practice. Journal of School
Leadership, 21(2):166-189.
Ericsson, K. A., & Harwell, K. W. (2019). Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of
Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and
Recommendations for Future Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (2396), 1-19.
Fullan, M. (2010). All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2014). Supervision and Instructional Leadership: A
Developmental Approach (9th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grissom, J., & Loeb, S. (2012). Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents,
Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills.
American Educational Research Journal,48(5), 1091-1123.
Gu, S. L. (2014). The Relationships Between Instructional Leadership Behavior, School Climate and
Teacher Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Kedah. Northern University of Malaysia.
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing The Achievement Gap: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's learning for
mastery. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 8–31.
Hallinger, P.& Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative Leadership & School Improvement: Understanding The
Impact on School Capacity and Student Learning. School Leadership and Management, 30 (20),
95-110.
Hallinger, P. (2011). A Review of Three Decades of Doctoral Studies Using the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale: A Lens on Methodological Progress in Educational Leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271-306.
Hammond, L. (2008). Best Practice or Most Practiced? Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about Effective
Behavior Management Strategies and Reported Self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 33(4), 28-38.
Hoadley, U., Christie, P., Jacklin, H., & Ward, C. (2007). Managing to Learn- Instructional Leadership in
South African Secondary Schools. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s Time Use and School Effectiveness. American
Journal of Education, 116 (4), 491-523.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Ibrahim, M.Y. (2017). Literature Review on Instructional Leadership Practice among Principals in
Managing Changes. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Science,
7(12), 18-24.
Jita, L. C. (2010). Instructional Leadership for the Improvement of Science and Mathematics in South
Africa. Procodia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, (9)2, 851–854.doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.247.
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2010). Identifying Effective Classroom Practices
using Student Achievement Data. NBER Working Paper Series.
Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. D. (2007). The Work of Principals and their Preparation: Addressing Critical
Needs for the Twenty-First Century. In M Fullan (ed). The Jossey-Bass reader on educational
leadership (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership:
What it is and How it Influences Pupil Learning. London: DfES.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a Conception of How School Leadership
Influences Student Learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 671-706.
Lobo, I. D., (2016). Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Collective Action: A case study from the
Colombian Pacific Region. International Journal of the Commons, 10(2), 982–1012.
Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How Does Leadership Affect Student Achievement?
Results from a national US Survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315-
336.
MacBeath, J., & Cheng, Y.C. (2008), Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Sense
Publishers, Rotterdam.
Malakolunthu, S., & Hoon, S. K. (2010). Teachers Perspectives of School Based Assessment In A
Secondary School. St. Mary Secondary School, 52100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
May, H., Huff, J., & Goldring, E. (2012). A Longitudinal Study of Principals’ Activities and Student
Performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439.
Michalopoulos, L., Ahn, H., Shaw, T. V., & O’Connor, J. (2012). Child Welfare Worker Perception of the
Implementation of Family-Centered Practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(6), 656–664.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512453344
Murchan, D., Tohasa, J., Loxley, A., & Johnston, K. (2009). Teacher Learning and Policy Intention:
Selected Findings from an Evaluation of a Large-Scale Programme of Professional Development
in the Republic of Ireland. European Journal.
Murphy, J., & Torre, D. (2015). Vision: Essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 43(2), 177–197.
Nolan, J. F. & Hoover, L. A. (2008). Teacher Supervision and Evaluation: Theory Into practice (2nd
Edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
O’Connor, K. (2013). Characteristics of Effective and Engaging Secondary Social Studies Instruction in
an Era of Rising Accountability for Teachers and Students. A Thesis in Master of Arts in
Education at Northern Michigan University.
Omebe, C. A. (2014). Human Resource Management in Education: Issues and Challenges. British
Journal of Education, 2, 26-31.
Opfer, V.D., Pedder, D.G. and Lavicza, Z. (2011), “The Role of Teachers’ Orientation to Learning in
Professional Development and Change: A National Study of Teachers in England”, Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 443-53.
Orr, T. M., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How Graduate-Level Preparation Influences the Effectiveness of
School Leaders: A Comparison of the Outcomes of Exemplary and Conventional Leadership
Preparation Programs for Principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(18), 18–70.
Papa, R. (2011). Technology Leadership for School Improvement. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Philippine Congress. (2011). Republic Act No. 9155 or Governance of Basic Education Act of
2001.Republic of the Philippines: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/08/11/republic-
act-no-9155/
Philippine Congress. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533, s. 2013, or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013. Philippine Congress.
Ponnusamy, P. (2010). The Relationship of Instructional Leadership, Teachers’ Organizational
Commitment and Students’ Achievement in Small Schools. Unpublished Masters Project.
Pustejovsky, J., Spillane, J.P., Heaton, R.M., & Lewis, W. J. (2009). Understanding Teacher Leadership in
Middle School Mathematics: A Collaborative Research Effort. Journal of Mathematics and
Science: Collaborative Explorations, 11(2),19–40.
Radi, A. (2007) Prediction of Non-Linear System in Optics Using Genetic Programming. Int J Mod Phys
C 1(8)369-374.
Riesman, C. K. (2008). Concluding Comments. In Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (Eds.). (2008).
Doing Narrative Research. Sage Publications.
Sahlberg, P. (2009). Educational Change in Finland. In A. Hargreaves, M. Fullan, A.Lieberman, & D.
Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer.
Sammons, P., Davies, S., Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Using Mixed Methods to Investigate School
Improvement and the Role of Leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 52 (5), 565-
589.
Sidhu, G.K & Fook, C.Y, (2009) Postgraduate Students’ Level of Dependence on Supervisors In Coping
With Academic Matters and Using Digital Tools. Academy of Language Studies, Universiti
Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia.
Spillane, J. P., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing Piloting a Leadershipdaily Practice Log: Using Logs to
Study the Practice of Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, (45)3, 375–423.doi:
10.1177/0013161X08329290.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How Principals and Peers Influence Teaching and Learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–46.
Thomas, T. (2008). Fixing Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Educational Leadership, 66(2), 32-37.
Thompson, P. (2013). The Digital Natives as Learners: Technology Use Patterns and Approaches to
Learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33.
The Marzano Center. (2017). Teaching for Rigor: Three Challenges for Curriculum Directors. Retrieved
from http://iowaascd.org/files/3814/6879/3787/Whitepaper-EssentialsCurriculum-
Director.pdf
Too, C. Kimutai, C. K & Kosgei, Z. (2012). The Impact of Head Teachers’ Supervision of Teachers on
Students’ Academic Performance. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and
Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 3(3), 299-306.
Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2010). The Effect of Charismatic Leadership in the Relationship Between
Procedural Justice and Feedback Reactions in Teacher Evaluation. Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Tuytens, M., Devos, G. (2011) Stimulating Professional Learning through Teacher Evaluation: An
Impossible Task for the School Leader? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 891-899.
Tyagi, R.S. (2010). School-Based Instructional Supervision and the Effective Professional Development
of Teachers. A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Special Issue: Globalization,
Educational Governance and Decentralisation, 40(1), 111-125.
UNESCO (2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA Global Monitoring Report
2013/14. UNESCO, Paris.
Walker, A., & Hallinger, P. (2015). A Synthesis of Reviews of Research on Principal Leadership in East
Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 554-570
Whattananarong, K. (2011). Innovation and Technical Education Technology. Bangkok, Thailand: King
Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok.
Yunas, M., & Iqbal, M. (2013). Dimensions of Instructional Leadership Role of Principal.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(10), 629.
Zepeda, S. J. (2007). Cognitive Dissonance, Supervision, and Administrative Team Conflict.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(3), 224-232.
AND
ThoughtWares Consulting & Multi Services International (TWCMSI)