Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Division of Cotabato
PIKIT CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Poblacion, Pikit, Cotabato
School I.D. 130330
_____

BASIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL

SCHOOL HEAD INTERVENTION ON INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN ELEMENTARY

SCHOOLS OF PIKIT MUNICIPALITY

PROPONENT:
Evelyn L. Kalantongan
Principal
Pikit Central Elementary School

I. INTRODUCTION

School head instructional leadership is critical to the development and sustainability of

successful schools. Effective instructional leaders successfully influence others to utilize
appropriate instructional leadership with their exceptional knowledge of the relevant subject
matter. In well-functioning schools, the focus is always on improved student outcomes. To this
end, school heads need to ensure that teachers are provided with relevant and continued
professional development.

Mendels (2012) made the point that school head who regard themselves as effective
leaders do not solely focus on management and administrative matters; their main concern is
instructional leadership. According to the Wallace Foundation (2013), the key responsibility of
school head is to improve ‘instruction’ in order to assist teachers to teach in a manner that
enables learners to achieve their best academic results. Barrett and Breyer (2014) noted the
importance of instilling motivation in teachers for them to become passionate about effective
curriculum delivery. The overwhelming challenges that teachers and middle managers encounter
can sometimes result in a loss of interest in teaching, which is further exacerbated by a lack of
structured support from principals.

In the Municipality of Pikit, great attention is given to education. Government vision

strongly focuses on the fact that education is the main pillar for the upcoming education. Pikit’s
school heads exert a lot of effort to make sure that the educational organizations deliver high
quality and good intervention on instructional leadership. This study was to identify the school
heads intervention on instructional leadership of elementary schools in the municipality of Pikit and its level
of instructional leadership.
RATIONALE

Common strategies of school heads within schools classified as effective and successful include
noting examination of assessment results, work driven by clear morals and ethical values, respect and trust
of and among staff and parents, varied learning opportunities, and use of data as related strategies of
instructional leadership practices. Additionally, successful school heads are those with qualities of intuition,
knowledge, and strategy with practices that promote cultures of learning, engagement, and increased student
achievement. Successful school heads impact student outcomes through an interactive process dependent
upon core values and beliefs. Furthermore, outcomes related to academic achievement, social development,
and student empowerment were found to be factors influenced by school head intervention on instructional
leadership as well as evaluation, capacity building, and student social skill development served as common
factors in successful schools.

Liu et al. (2016) encouraged school heads to organise in-school workshops as they believed that there
is immense knowledge and skills that teachers can share with one another, rather than relying solely on
outside knowledge. The authors concur with Li et al. (2016) believing that teacher development programmes
are appropriate vehicles to address the challenges that teachers experience within schools. Relying only on
district interventions can be misguiding and irrelevant, as Vilakazi (2016) claimed that workshops planned
by district officials do not always address the needs of individual schools.

Fancera & Bliss, 2011 have pointed out in many studies that principals’ participation in selecting the
most qualified teachers to fill vacancies, creating, and choosing the best professional development growth
opportunities, being involved in teachers’ observation, following up teachers’ progress and providing them
with high quality feedback are some of the major contributions that school head make, and it leads to great
impact on the teachers’ quality. It is also believed that when school heads set clear goals for their schools,
monitor curriculum and instruction, participate in teachers’ supervision and follow up students’ progress, it
can influence schools’ success to a great extent.

Indeed literature, which shall be explored further in this research proposal, concerning the school
head intervention on instructional leadership. As a fellow school head, I have been interested to explore the
different school head interventions to have high quality instructional leadership practices. Research has
revealed different views that exist between scholars as to whether instructional leadership of school heads
intervention have a measurable effect on school development.
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter therefore ventures into the literature to form a theoretical base for the
investigation of the variables related to instructional leadership and their contribution to the
improvement of learner performance in the matriculation examination.

Understanding Instructional Leadership

What does instructional leadership in the 21st century entail? The definition of
instructional leadership varies greatly between scholars and researchers. Sim (2011)
conceptualised instructional leadership as leadership that is directed at teaching and learning
processes that generate interactions regarding the curriculum between teachers and learners,
whilst Mestry (2013) referred to instructional leadership as the actions that principals take or
delegate to promote quality instruction in their schools. Calik et al. (2012) defined instructional
leadership as the behaviour displayed by principals, which directly or indirectly affects teaching
and learning. Jenkins (2009) elaborated school efficacy by indicating that principals who play an
instructional leadership role are effective in the 21st century.

Our study emphasises the crucial dual role played by school heads (Syharath 2012):
firstly, as teachers and, secondly, as middle managers; they manage and lead other teachers who
work in a particular department under their management. Additionally, this investigation
describes middle managers as persons who manage the performance of learners and the
knowledge and skills of teachers and are subject specialists heading departments, leading
curriculum matters and being responsible for leading teachers within the department that they
oversee (Mampane 2017). The findings of this study are in line with Hoadley et al. (2009) who
found that principals shift instructional leadership responsibilities to the hands of middle
managers and, to a large extent, abdicate their responsibilities to this core role as Naidoo and
Petersen (2015) explain. Although principals receive training on instructional leadership, they do
not to an extent clearly understand, articulate or execute their roles as instructional leaders.

We allude to instructional leadership being defined as all the activities and processes that
principals execute to support teachers’ enrichment of curriculum delivery. According to Naidoo
and Petersen (2015), this is the core business of schools.

Principal’s Instructional Leadership Role

Since the start of instructional leadership concept and principals were the main and the
only focus of scholars. All the studies have discussed how instructional principals play an
important role in enhancing the quality of schools’ educational outcomes starting from choosing
and hiring the most qualified staff and following that with the continuous professional support,
supervision, evaluation and implementing retention programs and teachers’ induction (Fancera
&Bliss, 2011 and Ham &Kim, 2015). Furthermore, Calik et al (2012) affirmed the instructional
role of principals in affecting learning and teaching in classrooms directly and indirectly by
assuring the best environment for learning, increasing students’ achievement and increasing the
quality of education. It is the core responsibility of instructional leaders to focus on teaching and
learning through promoting school climate; managing the instructional program and setting
clear school vision and goals (Hoy &Miskel, 2008) as cited in (Manaseh, 2016).As instructional
leaders, principals carry on a great mission in creating an effective school culture, encouraging
change efforts, and conducting new applications and methods to serve accountable learning
atmosphere (Dear & Peterson, 1998 in Sahin, 2011).

Instructional Leadership and Excellence in Schools

Policymakers and policy practitioners believe that instructional leadership is a key factor
in making effective schools (Hallinger, 2011) because the concept of instructional leadership
(Hallinger, 2003; Hallinger, Taraseina, & Miller, 1994) is based on effective school research,
implementation of change and school improvement conducted in various countries by Edmonds
(1979), Leithwood et al. (1989), Heck et al. (1990) and Rutter et al. (1979). In this regard, the
practice was also emphasized by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in the school leaders to ensure
excellence in schools. The Malaysian Quality Standards introduced by the Inspectorate and
Quality Assurance stipulates that principals in Malaysian schools serve as instructional leaders,
principals leading the implementation of the curriculum and creating a learning environment
that encourages the adoption learning culture among students (2010). In the Malaysian
Education Quality Standards wave 2 (KPM, 2017), the role of principals as instructional leaders
is still emphasized in spearheading instructional activities at schools in ensuring the success of
all the three waves in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 21st -century 2013-2025. Hoy and Hoy
(2003) reinforce the importance of instructional leadership by stating that the main function of
the school is to be related to the teaching and learning process, while the other is the second any
aspect. As such, being instructional leaders, principals need to prioritize action to improve the
quality of teaching and learning which is the main thrust of the school.

The quality teaching has a significant relationship with the level of instructional
leadership practices practiced by school leaders. Most studies studying the relationship between
instructional leadership and the quality of teacher teaching found significant relationship
between the two (Ahmad Fauzi Ahmad, 2014; Mohd Yusri, 2012; Zahara and Suria, 2011; Che
Bahaman, 2010; Roshilah, 2010; , 2009; Sazali, Rusmini, Abang Hut and Zamri, 2007). This is
also evidenced by the findings of Mat Rahimi and Mohd Yusri (2015) findings that the principal
instructional leadership of principals contributes significantly to the teaching competence of
teachers. Teachers are the main implementing agencies of teaching and learning in the
classroom. The influence of instructional leaders on improving the quality of teaching of teachers
can affect the learning of students. In addition, based on the research synthesis conducted by
Hallinger (2021) on the leadership models studied he found that instructional leadership also
had a great impact on student learning. The findings of Abdul Ghani and Anandan (2012),
Zahara & Suria (2011) and Quah (2011) also show that instructional leadership practices
contribute to the quality of student learning. Instructional leadership has a stronger influence on
student learning than transformational leadership (Abdul Ghani and Anandan, 2012). In line
with this importance, instructional leadership practices play a major role in achieving the main
goal of the school in improving student success.

The Role of Instructional Leadership in School Head Intervention

Lately, most organizations need to perform changes including in the field of education
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Khalid & Norhafezah, 2011; Santhidran et al., 2013). Education
changes are aimed at improving the quality of existing education in order to provide quality
human capital in the future (MEB, 2013). In this regard, the school should be wholly involved in
ensuring the education changes implemented achieve its aim in terms of attitude, thoughts,
values and practices for these changes have an impact on the situation of teaching and learning,
the situation classroom environment in addition to the role of teachers and students (Tan, 2010).
However, the previous researchers found that the changes in an organization is hard to be
implemented (Hallinger, 2009; Fullan, 2007; Schein, 1996). Thus, school leaders need to serve as
a effective spearheader`s to move the teachers to achieve the desired aim. Ability of the
leadership can affect any changes and innovation in the organization (Tai, 2013; Jamelaa, 2012;
Izani, 2012; Mohammed Sani & Izham, 2012; Leithwood & Strauss, 2009; Hoy and Miskel, 2008;
Fullan, 2007). Most of previous researchers found that leadership is often associated with
changes is instructional leadership. School leaders who practice leadership instructional are
found to have a positive relationship with the implementation of changes in education in
Malaysia (Nor Azni, 2015; Shafinaz, 2014; Rahimi, 2014; Yusri, 2012; Jameela, 2012; Rohilah,
2010; Azhan, 2009). Therefore, this leadership practice is continually emphasized in perform any
education changes till nowadays.

As transformational, the leaders should create a willingness to change in school. Thus, the
principal, as chief must first be ready to accept changes. Willingness to change is the first
change phase based on Model Changes Kurt Lewin (1951) which should be addressed to ensure
resistance to change is minimized. Organization will fail in their attempts to manage the changes
effectively if the members of organization are not ready to change even in the first stage of
changes (Armenakis et al., 1999). Hallinger (2003) concluded that when teachers consider that
the practice of instructional leadership is an appropriate practiced in implementing changes,
they will carry out changes and in fact will become more committed to perform such changes as
described by Sheppard (1996). In this regard, the principals that practice instructional
leadership should be a role model to teachers in implementing changes by increasing their
knowledge and skills in order to be a reference to the teachers (Leithwood & Day, 2008). The role
of the instructional leadership as a reference can help teachers who are faced with confusion and
problems in the implementation of changes in school.

The practice of instructional leadership by principals is much needed to influence

teachers` behaviour in improving the quality of teaching and learning as well as implementing
effective academic management so the teachers can teach effectively (Alimuddin, 2010). Simin et
al., (2015) who run the study of instructional leadership among principals in vocational and
technic schools in Kuala Lumpur found out that the principals practicing instructional
leadership are one of the factors that influences the behavior of teachers. However, it is not easy
to urge the teachers to move away from their status quo. Thus, the instructional leader should
creating school environment conducive as well as providing a significant impact in guaranting
students excellence (Alimuddin, 2010). Previous findings found that principals practicing
instructional leadership can create a safe and conducive learning environment through the
collaboration between teachers, students and community as provide opportunities for students
to learn, promoting cooperation with teachers, students and local communities (Jameela, 2012).
While Shafinaz (2017) and Yusri (2012) found that the efficacy of teachers can also be increased
with practice of instructional leadership to manage education changes. With high efficacy in
education changes, teachers will be more prepared to accept changes. When the teachers`
efficacy is successfully influenced by instructional leadership, the commitment of teachers also
can be improved. Azni (2015) found that there a positive relationship between instructional
leadership and teachers` commitment to implement the school-based assessment. As such, the
importance of instructional leadership cannot be denied because this practice shows a positive
relationship with teachers attitude. Principals and teachers as change agents in school should
implement education changes that contribute to develop the potential and performance of the
student optimally.

Instructional Leadership and Teaching And Learning

A considerable body of literature in the domains of school effectiveness and instructional

leadership has reiterated the power of the influence of principals on the instructional practices of
teachers. The principals‘ instructional leadership behaviours were seen to have a significant
influence on how teachers performed in their classes (Lahui-Ako, 2000; LarsonKnight, 2000;
Blasé & Blasé, 2000).

Teaching and learning are the core business of schools and the main focus of this study is
to establish the extent to which principals (instructional leaders) impact on these activities to
improve learner achievement. According to Hoadley, Christie, Jacklin and Ward (2007),
knowledge of how principals manage teaching and learning in schools in South Africa is limited.
They further contend that while there is growing consensus in South African research that
school principals play a crucial role in creating conditions for improved instruction, what is less
understood is how principals may contribute to creating these conditions.

Ojo and Olaniyan (2008) view curriculum development as one of the major responsibilities
of principals. They indicate that a curriculum is NOT a record of ―what has happened‖, but a
―plan of what will happen‖. It specifies the learning experiences or opportunities designed for the
learner. On the basis of this assertion, these authors argue that whoever owns/manages the
school influences the implementation of the curriculum because he/she designs it in such a way
that will satisfy some identified needs or purposes.
III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This Basic Research Proposal aimed at addressing the following questions:

1. What are the School Head Interventions on Instructional Leadership of Elementary School in the
Municipality of Pikit?

2.What is the level of School Head Intervention on Instructional Leadership of Elementary School in
the Municipality of Pikit?

3. Is there significant relationship between school head intervention and instructional leadership?

IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The study will be conducted in elementary schools of the Municipality of Pikit. The respondents will
be the selected five (5) teachers in each elementary school. This study covers only the School Head
Intervention on Instructional Leadership in elementary schools of the Municipality of Pikit.

V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

a. Sampling: This basic research will be employing descriptive method. The intent of this study was to
explore school head intervention on instructional leadership in elementary schools of the Municpality of
Pikit. This study employed a cross-sectional survey methodology to examine school head intervention and
instructional leadership. By inviting five (5) teachers in each elementary schools of Pikit to respond to a
survey of their school head intervention on instructional leadership, this study intended to gather data from
one group at one point in time. The researcher utilized descriptive statistics (mean, variance, and range) and
inferential statistics (ordinary least squares regression, t-test) to examine the level to which school head
intervention on instructional leadership of five (5) teachers in each elementary schools of Pikit.

b. Data Collection: A questionnaire will be utilized to determine the level of school head intervention on
instructional leadership in elementary schools of the Municpality of Pikit. The questionnaire will be
administered before and after the implementation of School Head Intervention.

c. Ethical Issues: The researcher sought the permission from the authorities concerned before the conduct of
the study. This process has secured the right to conduct a study in order to avoid further problem / issues as
the study is being conducted. In order to protect the identity and promote a sense of high mutual respect to
the respondents, the researcher has dealt the data gathered with utmost confidentiality.
d. Plan for Data Analysis

Data Collection Questions Data Sources

Student Achievement
 Teacher Interviews
1. What are the data from related
 Teacher Surveys
standardized tests?
2. What does longitudinal data indicate in
regard to the student achievement need being
a recurring issue?
3.What do the data indicate about
effectiveness of previous interventions?
4. What are the teacher perceptions of causes
for the attainment and deficits of skills?
Instructional Quality  Curriculum documents
1. Is the instruction aligned with the  Lesson Plans
curriculum and is the curriculum aligned with  Teacher Surveys
the assessment?
2. Are daily objectives clearly stated? Are they
attainable and measurable?
3. What evidence do we have that teacher are
familiar with and use the state/county
grading rubrics?
School Capacity
 Curriculum documents
1. Have teachers been trained in their new
curricula?
 Lesson Plans
2. Are teachers certified in their teaching
assignments?  Teacher Surveys
3. Does instruction in all subjects include a
 Attendance Records
component for content vocabulary skills?
4. What evidence is there that all teachers are
committed to the process of vocabulary
development in their specific content areas?
5. What staff development has been directed
to reading and vocabulary development?
Systemic Policies, Procedures and
Programs
 Meeting Notes

1. What are our grouping practices?

 Teacher Surveys
2. What effect do grouping practices have on
equal access to rigorous curriculum?
VI. TIMETABLE / GHANT CHART
Person/s Resources
Activities Time Involved Requirements Means of
Frame Source of Verification
Fund

Pre-Implementation
1. Conceptualization, consultation February Researcher Php50 for Basic Research
and Planning meeting with the 14 2022 and Printing and Proposal
Teachers and other individuals Teacher Php300 for
with technical-know-how to the snacks
subject matter (Researcher’s
fund)
2. Preparation, finalization and February Researcher Send it in Waiting for
submission of Action 17 2022 Gmail Approval
Research Proposal
3. Communicating the approved March Researcher Attendance
action research proposal to the 2022 and Sheet
respondents. Teacher Php300 for
snacks
(Researcher’s
fund)

Implementation Plan
1. Identify the School Head March Researcher Survey Instruments
Intervention on Instructional 2022 and Questionnaire
Leadership in elementary schools Teacher
of the Municipality of Pikit.
1. Gather the data March Researcher Survey Collated and
2022 Questionnaire Tabulated
Results

Post Implementation
1. Preparation and submission of April 2022 Researcher Send it to Action
Basic Research Write-up gmail Research
Write-up
a. Evaluate the April 2022 Researcher Bond Paper Documentation
project
and Folder and
b. Gather recommendation and
feedback Teacher copy of the
c. Submission of action research
materials
write up
d. Reimplement if found effective
VII. Cost Estimates

This section contains the total cost of the research project, the expenses estimated as
follows:

Task No. Task Date of Resources/Materials Resources Estimated

Implementation Involved Cost

Total

VIII. Plans for Dissemination and Utilization

The research results will be cascaded to the internal and external stakeholders of the
school during the parents-teachers meeting; school management committee meeting; district,
division, and regional research conferences; and school governing council conference. These
unspoiled avenues will be utilized to share reflections about the current research results and
recommend future actions beneficial to the teachers. This present study also ensures that the
research findings will be used for decision making and policy formulation on instructional
leadership and human resource development management in support to the enhanced basic
education curriculum (EBEP). The findings of this study will also be utilized and integrated in
the school improvement plan (SIP) of the elementary schools in the Municipality of Pikit that
effect changes on instructional supervisory practices of the school head. Nevertheless, head
teachers, principals, and supervisors will be topped and encouraged to adopt the innovative
clinical supervisory handbook and tools to effectively deliver instructional visits or technical
assistance to the teachers in their respective schools.
IX. REFERENCES

Armenakis, A., Harris, S., & Feild, H. (1999). A Model For Institutionalizing Interventions

Change. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 97-128.

Barrett, C. & Breyer, R., 2014, ‘The influence of effective leadership on teaching and learning’,

Journal of Research Initiatives 1(2), 1–9.

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research.

Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of

principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

Izani Ibrahim. (2014). Tahap Kecerdasan Emosi Pemimpin dan Kepimpinan Servant serta

Pengaruhnya Terhadap Pengurusan Perubahan di Sekolah. Unpublish PhD thesis.

Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Jamelaa Bibi, A. (2012). Amalan kepimpinan instruksional dan sikap terhadap perubahan dalam

kalangan pemimpin sekolah Sekolah Menengah di Negeri Pahang. Unpublish PhD thesis.

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Kin. T. M. (2013). Modelling of principals´change leadership competencies and its relationship

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Li, L., Hallinger, P. & Ko, J., 2016, ‘Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher

learning in Hong Kong’, International Journal of Educational Management 30(1), 76–

100. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2014-0035

Mendels, P., 2012, ‘The effective principal’, Journal of Staff Development 33(1), 54–58

Pengajaran Guru. E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Sosial Science

Research. ICSSR.

McEwan, E. K. (2002). Seven Steps to Effective Instructional Leadership. Thousand Oaks,

California: Corwin Press

Mohd Yusri, I. (2012). Model Kepimpinan Pengajaran Pemimpin sekolah, Efikasi dan Kompetensi

Pengajaran. Unpublish PhD thesis, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu.

Nor Azni, A. A. (2015) Hubungan Antara Kepimpinan Instruksional Pemimpin sekolah dengan

Komitmen untuk Perubahan Guru sebagai Mediator dalam Melaksanakan Pentaksiran

Berasaskan Sekolah. Unpublish PhD thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Sim, Q. C. (2011). Instructional Leadership among Principal of Secondary Schools in Malaysia.

International Research Journals. Vol. 2 (12) pp. 1784-1800

with teachers´change belief and teachers´attitudes toward change. Unpublish PhD

thesis, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

Tian. T. H. (2010). Peranan Pemimpin sekolah Sebagai Fasilitator Perubahan Dalam Mengurus

Integrasi ICT Sebagai Satu Inovasi Pendidikan. Unpublish PhD thesis, Universiti Sains

Malaysia.

The Wallace Foundation, 2013, The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching

and learning, viewed 22 November 2019, from www. wallacefoundation.org.

Wan Roslina, W. I. (2011). Korelasi Amalan Kepemimpinan Pengajaran Pemimpin Pertengahan

dengan Iklim Sekolah, Sikap Kerja Guru dan Komitmen Organisasi di Sekolah Menengah

Kebangsaan. Unpublish PhD thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Yusof, M. R. (2015). Sumbangan Kepimpinan Instruksional Maya Terhadap Kompetensi

Zahara, A. & Suria, B. (2011). Instructional leadership enhanced creativity in smart classroom

activities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 15(2011), 1566-1572.