School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Instructional leadership in Malaysia: a review of

the contemporary literature

Alma Harris, Michelle Jones, Donnie Adams & Kenny Cheah

To cite this article: Alma Harris, Michelle Jones, Donnie Adams & Kenny Cheah (2018):
Instructional leadership in Malaysia: a review of the contemporary literature, School Leadership &
Management, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2018.1453794

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1453794

Published online: 09 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.1453794

Instructional leadership in Malaysia: a review of the

contemporary literature*
Alma Harrisa, Michelle Jonesa, Donnie Adamsb and Kenny Cheahb
a
Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, England; bFaculty of Education, University of
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article provides a review of the contemporary instructional Received 2 December 2017
leadership research base in Malaysia. The core aim of this review Accepted 26 February 2018
is to assess the recent knowledge base on instructional
KEYWORDS
leadership in Malaysia and to evaluate its current contribution Instructional leadership;
to the existing international literature. The article explores a principal leadership;
range of published material that has focused explicitly on principalship; school
instructional leadership and instructional leadership practices leadership; Malaysia
in Malaysia, including that written in Bahasa Malaysia. The
article outlines the findings from the review and highlights
certain strengths and limitations. The article concludes by
identifying areas for further enquiry and investigation.

Introduction
Leadership and leadership development continue to be prioritised by policy
makers in many education systems as a means of improving educational out-
comes (Harris and Jones 2015a; Walker 2015). Attention has been paid, across
different countries, to the form or type of leadership associated with organis-
ational improvement and transformation (Hallinger and Lee 2014; Robinson,
Lloyd, and Rowe 2008). Principals’ instructional leadership has been shown to
be one of the most salient determinants in the improvement of school perform-
ance, based upon a well-documented, extensive and international empirical lit-
erature (Day, Gu, and Sammons 2016; Hallinger 2005; Leithwood et al. 2006;
Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008). Consequently, instructional leadership
remains a leadership model of continued interest to researchers within the edu-
cational leadership field.
Within Asia, the evidence base on instructional leadership is expanding but in
certain countries the research base on instructional leadership has yet to fully
develop (Hallinger et al. 2018). This review of the literature aims to take a con-
temporary look at the evidence base concerning instructional leadership in
Malaysia. The broad goals were to identify, record and synthesise findings

CONTACT Alma Harris a.harris@bath.ac.uk

*The Malaysian co-authors were responsible for the review of the Malaysian literature (in English and Bahasa Malay-
sia) on which this article is based.
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. HARRIS ET AL.

from the extant literature. The questions that guided this literature review were
as follows.

(1) What dimensions of instructional leadership receive more and less emphasis
among principals and other educators in Malaysia?
(2) What are the current gaps in the knowledge base and the implications,
therein, for further empirical enquiry?

The review employed a systematic approach to identify, evaluate, and synthesise

findings from Malaysian studies of instructional leadership (Gough 2007; Hallin-
ger 2013). The value of this review resides in three areas. Firstly, the review seeks
to contribute to the evidence base on instructional leadership within Asia (e.g.
Hallinger et al. 2018). The value of this review resides in three areas. Firstly,
the review seeks to contribute to the evidence base on instructional leadership
within Asia (e.g. Hallinger et al. 2018; Hallinger and Lee 2014; Ng et al. 2015; Pan,
Nyeu, and Chen 2015; Qian et al. 2017). This is, in part, a response to Hallinger
and Bryant’s (2016) call for more reviews of ’national literatures’ on principal lea-
dership in Asian countries. Secondly, the review aims to highlight the existing
contemporary evidence about instructional leadership in Malaysia, as well as
highlighting any gaps in the local knowledge base (Harris and Jones 2017; Hal-
linger and Wang 2015; Hallinger et al. 2018). Finally, this review of the literature
points to ways of refining and strengthening future research on instructional lea-
dership not only in Malaysia, but also in other similar societies.

Theoretical perspective on instructional leadership

Evolution of conceptualizations and research on instructional leadership
Within the related fields of educational leadership, school improvement and
school effectiveness, instructional leadership has established a strong presence
in research and practice (Gurr, Drysdale, and Mulford 2007; Hallinger and
Wang 2015; Rigby 2014; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008; Sebastian and Allens-
worth 2012; Southworth 2002). This article begins with an overview of various
perspectives on instructional leadership and a consideration of different defi-
nitions and models.
Since the 1970s, researchers have asserted that instructionally effective
schools, as well as schools that demonstrate sustained improvement, have
leaders who place their prime focus on learning and teaching processes
(Chapman et al. 2015; Edmonds 1979; Erickson 1979; Hallinger 2010; Hallinger
and Heck 1996). It should however, be emphasised that, historically, neither
scholarship nor practice in educational administration gave credence to this
role. Erickson (1979) noted this fact in his review of research conducted on edu-
cational administration in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 3

Three years ago I opined that the most promising relevant work, largely ignored by
scholars identified with “educational administration” was the work on “school
effects.” Charters bemoaned: “Here [in the school effects literature] is green sward.
Here ideas are growing fast, in all directions. Here are explanations provocative and
practice-relevant.” In general, I consider this work promising because, quite in contrast
to most traditional studies of school organization, (a) it draws fertile insights from
research in classrooms; (b) it seems far more seminal, catalyzing inquiry that constantly
breaks out in new directions; (c) it departs from the “black box” tradition that has moved
us substantially nowhere; (d) it features provocative practical implications and explana-
tory appeal; and, (e) its conceptualizations, rather than being so abstract as to defy
empirical challenge, are well grounded in the observable world. (p. 10)

It is suggested that, in 1979, Erickson’s observations would have applied with

even greater force with respect to scholarship and practice in educational admin-
istration in other parts of the world. During that era, in most parts of the world,
the role of the school administrator consisted primarily of administration and
management activities. Indeed, few nations even had an equivalent term for
‘instructional leadership’. Omission of the instructional leadership role in policy
and professional discourse was generally mirrored in its absence in role descrip-
tions, job qualifications, selection procedures, and principal preparation and
training programmes.
Early conceptual papers on instructional leadership (Bossert et al. 1982;
Bridges 1967; Hallinger and Murphy 1985) sought to provide definitions of this
elusive construct. This conceptual literature provided a preliminary basis for sub-
sequent studies that began to generate rich and compelling empirical evidence
concerning the nature and effects of this model of school leadership (Bamberg
and Andrews 1990; Dwyer 1986; Dwyer et al. 1983; Hallinger, Bickman, and Davis
1996; Hallinger and Murphy 1985; Heck, Larson, and Marcoulides 1990). Several
decades hence, a sustained programme of global research has generated an
increasingly substantial knowledge base that documents the nature and
effects of instructional leadership (Bush 2013; Goldring et al. 2009; Hallinger
2011; Hallinger and Wang 2015; Leithwood, Patten, and Jantzi 2010; Lindberg
and Vanyushyn 2013; Rigby 2014; Walker and Hallinger 2015).
Generally, within the research literature, there is considerable agreement on
the broad nature of instructional leadership as well as a clear understanding
about its positive impact on key school and student learning conditions (Gurr,
Drysdale, and Mulford 2007; Hallinger and Wang 2015; Leithwood et al. 2006;
Louis, Dretzke, and Wahlstrom 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008; South-
worth 2002). In general, instructional leadership is defined as strategies and
actions carried out by the principal and other school leaders that support and
strengthen and bring coherence to teaching and learning within schools (Hallin-
ger and Wang 2015). Although early studies described instructional leaders as
‘strong, directive leaders’ who accepted responsibility for learning outcomes
(Bamberg and Andrews 1990; Bossert et al. 1982; Edmonds 1979; Hallinger
and Murphy 1985), subsequent research has documented multiple sources
4 A. HARRIS ET AL.

and distributed approaches to enacting this role (Hallinger 2005; Hallinger and
Wang 2015; Harris 2013; Rigby 2014).
The most notable models of instructional leadership appear in the largely
North American based literature (Bossert et al. 1982; Hallinger and Murphy
1985; Leithwood and Montgomery 1982; Neumerski 2013; Rigby 2014). For
example, the model proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) has been the
most frequently used model in empirical research (Hallinger and Heck 1996; Hal-
linger and Wang 2015; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008). This model, proposes
three dimensions of the instructional leadership role: Defines the School
Mission, Manages the Instructional Program, and Develops a Positive School Learn-
ing Climate (Hallinger 2011; Hallinger and Murphy 1985; Hallinger and Wang
2015). Research using this model has guided both qualitative and quantitative
research. Quantitative research based on this model has been conducted in
over 35 countries using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale
(Hallinger and Murphy 1985; Hallinger and Wang 2015).

Instructional leadership research in Asia

As noted earlier, instructional leadership in Asia only gained global currency
since the turn of the millennium (Hallinger and Wang 2015). Thus, empirical evi-
dence on the nature and enactment of instructional leadership in different
countries in Asia remains highly variable (Hallinger and Bryant 2013a, 2013b;
Hallinger and Chen 2015). The evidence base on school leadership and leader-
ship practices, including instructional leadership, in Asia is still emerging in
comparison to the USA, UK and Europe (Hallinger and Chen 2015; Hallinger
and Hallinger 2015; Walker and Wong 2005; Hallinger 2011; Kwan and Walker
2008; Walker and Hallinger 2015). Consequently, it has been argued that
more empirical studies are needed to strengthen the leadership research
base in Asia (Jamelaa and Jainabee 2011; Hallinger and Bryant 2013a, 2013b;
Walker and Hallinger 2015).
Moreover, advancing this literature in Asia has been complicated by the fact
that much of the research into educational leadership has been conducted as
part of a masters or doctoral thesis, often written in the local language. For
example, in Malaysia, numerous studies about instructional leadership have
been written and published in the national language of Bahasa Malaysia. In
addition, the Asian knowledge base tends to be more uneven than in the
West because of a proliferation of post-graduate research that is often inaccess-
ible to international scholars (Hallinger and Bryant 2013a, 2013b; Harris and
Jones 2015a; Walker and Hallinger 2015).
Given the paucity of empirical knowledge about instructional leadership and
school leadership practices, more generally, in Asia (Hallinger and Chen 2015), a
substantial research programme is currently underway in seven East Asian
countries: Vietnam, Mainland China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 5

and Thailand (Hallinger and Walker 2017; Walker and Hallinger 2015). This
research programme was launched with the publication of ‘national’ reviews
of research that encompassed sources written in both English and local
languages (e.g. Hallinger and Truong 2014; Ng et al. 2015; Pan, Nyeu, and
Chen 2015; Walker and Hallinger 2015).
In addition, a further piece of comparative work focusing on leadership prep-
aration and development approaches in seven countries, including Malaysia, Sin-
gapore, Hong Kong, and Indonesia was completed in 2017. This major research
project resulted in a contemporary analysis of the way leadership is understood
and enacted in very different cultural settings (Harris and Jones 2015a, 2015b).
Both studies share a prime aim of engaging with, and to reviewing, the existing
empirical evidence, including the ‘indigenous literature’ (Bajunid 1996) on school
leadership in Asian countries to inform and to build the knowledge base.
The primary aim of this article is to add to this emerging body of evidence, in the
form of national reviews of research on instructional leadership, by synthesising the
contemporary literature on instructional leadership in Malaysia. It is initially impor-
tant to note that instructional leadership only emerged as a potential focus for
policy and practice in Malaysia in late 1990s. Nonetheless, during the past 20
years, it has assumed an increasingly important place in the contemporary policy
discourse in Malaysia (Harris and Jones 2017). The Malaysian Education Blueprint
(2012) states clearly1 that Malaysian principals are expected to be ‘instructional
leaders’. It further notes that principals in every school will be ‘high performing
leaders … accompanied by assistant principals, subject heads, and department
heads being developed to act as instructional leaders in their own right’ (Malaysian
Education Blueprint 2012; Executive Summary; E-17).
Finally, the Malaysia Education Blueprint underlines that ‘all school leaders
need to be prepared to fully utilise the decision-making flexibilities accorded
to them for carrying out their role in instructional leadership, school improve-
ment planning, curriculum and co-curricular planning, and administrative leader-
ship’ (Malaysian Education Blueprint 2012; Executive Summary; E18).
This recent policy focus on instructional leadership in Malaysia raises ques-
tions about the nature and extent of the existing evidence base within this
context. Although evidence has accumulated on the nature and effects of
instructional leadership in the global knowledge base apart from a recent
review of the literature that focused explicitly on the use of PIRMS in Malaysia
(Hallinger et al. 2018) any systematic assessment of the contemporary evidence
about instructional leadership in Malaysia has not been forthcoming.

Method
The purpose of this review of the literature is to ascertain the extent, depth, and
quality of the contemporary knowledge base on instructional leadership in
Malaysia. The review employed a systematic approach to examining this
6 A. HARRIS ET AL.

knowledge base on instructional leadership in Malaysia, but it does not claim to

be a systematic review (Gough 2007). The timeframe for this initial search was
2007 to 2017. This timeframe was chosen, primarily to capture the most
recent publications on the topic as interest in instructional leadership has
risen significantly within Malaysia, over the past decade.
The review process involved several stages. Initially, a broad search was
undertaken on the topic of instructional leadership in Malaysia by searching
key databases including: Google Scholar; ERIC; Scopus; Science Direct;
Emerald; A+ Education; EBSCO host Research Databases; ProQuest Databases;
Malaysian Citation Index (MyCite); and Local Malaysian Universities Repositories.
The keywords that guided the search were ‘school leadership’ AND Malaysia;
‘instructional leadership’ AND Malaysia; ‘principal leadership’ AND Malaysia;
‘instructional leadership practice’ AND Malaysia; ‘instructional leadership
effects’ AND Malaysia; ‘Kepimpinan Instruksional’ AND Malaysia; ‘Kepimpinan
Pengajaran’ AND Malaysia; and ‘Pemimpin Instruksional’ AND Malaysia.
At the outset of the review, exclusion and inclusion criteria were clearly estab-
lished so that only material that fell within certain boundaries was considered for
further scrutiny and analysis. Newspaper articles, commentaries, blogs, pro-
fessional magazines, and other popular material, including web-site sources,
were excluded. Refereed articles in journals, including ISI Cited, SCOPUS and
Non-ISI/SCOPUS Indexed were included, as long as they were empirical pieces
or empirically based narratives located in well-established, reputable journals.
Articles that were primarly discursive or theoretically orientated pieces were
excluded. Chapters in edited books and books were considered within the
scope of review but only if they had some empirical substance and focused pri-
marily on instructional leadership. Published material that did not focus centrally
on instructional leadership was excluded.
As noted earlier, a considerable body of research on instructional leadership is
contained in master’s and PhD studies in Malaysia. A recent examination of
master’s and PhD theses, in English and Bahasa, about instructional leadership
in Malaysia has already been completed (Hallinger et al. 2018). This analysis
pointed to significant weaknesses in the methodological approaches adopted
within these studies.
As Hallinger and Bridges (2007) noted:
[Our] results suggest a need for more explicit, strengthened methodological training for
graduate students. The considerable investment of time students commit to graduate
research implies a concomitant demand for universities to offer programs that enable
them to conduct ‘successful studies’. In our view, it is difficult to justify repetition of a
model of graduate research that holds small promise of generating usable knowledge.
(p. 21)

In the current review, this literature was not include or revisited again. The find-
ings, however, receive some commentary in the concluding section of this article.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 7

At the start of the review process, all identified published work accruing
from the search process were scanned. An initial filtering stage removed
opinion pieces, media material and other on-line commentaries. Only
pieces that met the inclusion criteria and were directly relevant to instruc-
tional leadership in Malaysia were stored in a shared Google drive. A spread-
sheet was subsequently prepared to record all relevant details including
whether the published works were (a) based on sound scholarly enquiry;
(b) appeared in reputable non-predatory sources; and (c) focused centrally
on instructional leadership. All articles that appeared in predatory journals
were excluded. The second stage in the review process involved a thorough
reading of the stored literature. Details concerning the author, date, topical
focus, methodology and findings of each piece were systematically recorded
in the spreadsheet.
Where the focus of the piece was not centrally focused upon instructional lea-
dership but rather only addressed certain aspects of instructional leadership in
Malaysia, these pieces were retained for future consideration. The review
process identified 9 conference papers, seminar papers and commentaries in
Bahasa Malaysia (Appendix 1) that could not be found in any published form.
Some of these were unpublished conference papers, others were internal
seminar papers but, in all cases, full copies could not be located within the
public domain therefore they were excluded from the review.
After several rounds of reading and filtering, 6 articles written in English and
11 in Bahasa Malaysia were shortlisted for the review (Appendix 2). All the short-
listed texts were empirical enquiries or empirically based narratives published as
articles or conference proceedings. As noted earlier, theses or dissertations that
focused on instructional leadership were excluded in this review process but
feature as part of the discussion later in the article.

Research synthesis
Contexts for instructional leadership
One immediate observation from looking at the selected pieces was the sheer
variety and the range of sites that have been the focus of instructional leader-
ship reserach in Malaysia. The review found that the sites for the studies
varied considerably in terms of the type of educational provision they
covered and the types of sites selected. For example, instructional leadership
studies had taken place in MARA Junior Colleges (Mustafa et al. 2015); second-
ary schools (Azeez, Ibrahim, and Mustapa 2015) primary schools (Sazali et al.
2007) special model schools and daily schools (Jamelaa and Jainabee 2012),
boarding schools and Islamic Religious Schools (Ghani 2012), polytechnics
(Nashira and Mustaphab 2013), vocational/technical schools (Ghavifekr et al.
2015).
8 A. HARRIS ET AL.

Findings from these studies suggest that there are significant differences in
instructional leadership practices across these different contexts (e.g. between
Boarding Schools, Special Model Schools and Mainstream Schools as compared
to Religious schools and Technical/Vocational Schools). In particular, Ghani
(2012) and Ghavifekr et al. (2015) point towards context as an important factor
in explaining the diverse instructional leadership practices seen in different
types of schools in Malaysia.
Not only do the 17 studies, in this review, vary considerably in terms of the
type of institution but also they span very different contexts and regions in
Malaysia (e.g. Abdullah and Laji 2014; Jamelaa and Jainabee 2011). With such
broad variation in the location and type of institution, in which instructional lea-
dership was studied, it is questionable how far these 17 studies reflect a cogent
knowledge base.

Research methods

In terms of the types of research methodologies employed, the following table

summarises the range of empirical approaches across the selected literature on
instructional leadership. Non-empirical sources were excluded based on quality
assessments by the reviewers. Six studies adopted a purely quantitative
approach (Abdullah and Laji 2014; Azeez, Ibrahim, and Mustapa 2015; Ghani
2012; Ghavifekr et al. 2015; Ibrahim and Amin 2014; Sazali et al. 2007) with
two studies used the PIRMS instrument (Ibrahim and Amin 2014; Sazali et al.
2007). Two mixed methods studies also used the PIRMS as an additional
source of data (Jamelaa and Jainabee 2011; Mustafa et al. 2015).
Five studies adopted a purely qualitative approach (Jamelaa and Jainabee
2012; Jamilah and Yusof 2011; Mariani et al. 2016; Salleh et al. 2007; Sharma
2012). The remaining four articles tended to be largely conceptual based
pieces or narratives based on the literature or existing empirical evidence (Aziz
et al. 2014; Mohamad, Salleh, and Hashim 2009; Nashira and Mustaphab 2013;
Yusof et al. 2013).
Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
Quantitative X X X X XP XP 6
Qualitative X X X X X 5
Mixed XP XP 2
Conceptual /empirically based narrative X X X X 4
Note 1 The numbers relate to the list in Appendix 2.
Note 2 XP means that PIRMS was used either exclusively or as part of a mixed methods study.

The quantitative studies focused mainly on exploring the relationships

between instructional leadership and certain variables. For example, the study
by Abdullah and Laji (2014) aimed to test the relationship between instructional
leadership and attitudes to the teaching of the Malay language. The findings
point towards a strong relationship between these two constructs. The article
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 9

by Ghani (2012) explored differences in the operation of school excellence prac-

tices in high achieving schools in Malaysia i.e. boarding schools and religious
schools. This study found that a significant difference exists between the board-
ing schools and the religious schools in practicing instructional leadership insofar
that it is claimed that there is a higher incidence of instructional leadership prac-
tice in boarding schools.
Yusof et al. (2013) explored the factors associated with teachers’ ability and
efficacy in implementing environmental education. 300 teachers in 30 secondary
schools from Perlis (northern region) Selangor (middle region) Pahang (Eastern
region) Malacca (Southern Region) and Sarawak (East Malaysia) participated in
the study. The findings indicated a moderate relationship between instructional
leadership and teachers’ ability and efficacy in implementing environmental
education.
In their analysis of the relationship between principal’s instructional leadership
practices and teachers’ capacity building, Azeez, Ibrahim, and Mustapa (2015) state
that they found a significant relationship. Their research concludes that the prin-
cipals’ instructional leadership enhanced teachers’ efficacy, which in turn contrib-
uted to capacity building. Research by Mariani et al. (2016). Focused on the
relationship between instructional leadership and a positive school learning
climate. Their findings indicate that the role of the principal in promoting teachers’
professional development was a major factor in securing a better learning climate.
Salleh’s (2011) comparative, case study explored principals’ instructional lea-
derhip practice in two successful schools and two less successful schools. Find-
ings indicated that in the most successful schools the principal enacted
instructional leadership practices and the converse was true for the less success-
ful schools. In their study, Aziz et al. (2014) explored how principals enhance their
roles as instructional leaders and concluded that creating a positive school
climate, where the principal plays an active role in improving the quality of
teaching and learning, was centrally important.
In their research, Mohamad et al. (2009) focused on the role of the instruc-
tional leader as described by the Ministry of Education. This included five impor-
tant components: (i) Managing the curriculum including understanding of the
philosophy, educational goals, preparation of curriculum materials, curriculum
supervision, detection and management of information. (ii) managing school
culture; (iii) managing staff; (iv) managing curriculum; (v) relations with the
public. The research concluded that principals were aware of the Ministry’s defi-
nition of instructional leadership and were good at managing the instructional
programme. This finding resonates with a more recent study of principals’ lea-
dership practice in Malaysia (Harris and Jones 2017; Jamelaa and Jainabee, 2012).
The qualitative articles (Jamelaa and Jainabee, 2012; Jamilah and Yusof, 2011;
Mariani et al. 2016; Salleh et al. 2007; Sharma 2012) all considered the relation-
ship between instructional leadership and school performance. Jamelaa and Jai-
nabee (2012) and Jamilah and Yusof (2011) focused on high performing
10 A. HARRIS ET AL.

secondary schools in Pahang. Mariani et al. (2016) explored professional prac-

tices of six high performing headmasters. Salleh et al. (2007) explored successful
schols in rural setting in order to ascertain levels of successful leadership. Sharma
(2012) explored instructional leadership across differentially performing edu-
cation systems.

Interpretations of instructional leadership

This review found that there are different definitions and interpretations of
instructional leadership operating within the Malaysian educational context.
Most recently, an empirical study suggested that principals in Malaysia under-
stand instructional leadership in various ways and generally, there is some mis-
understanding when using the term (Harris and Jones 2017). The following table
summarises the different definitions of instructional leadership used in the
various studies in the literature review.
Definitions of IL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
Malaysian Policy Malaysian Blueprint MOE X X 2
Hallinger and Murphy 1985 xxXxxxx X X X X X 12
A broad set of professional practices, behaviours and influences X X X 3

Two studies drew explicitly upon definitions of instructional leadership con-

tained in the Malaysian Education Blueprint to inform their investigations and
discussion (Abdullah and Laji 2014; Mohamad et al. 2009). Twelve of the
studies broadly used the definition of instructional leadership outlined by Hallin-
ger and Murphy (1985) or various interpretations of it, to inform their work
(Azeez, Ibrahim, and Mustapa 2015; Aziz et al. 2014; Ghani 2012; Gharvifekr
et al. 2015; Ibrahim and Amin 2014; Jamelaa and Jainabee 2011, 2012; Mustafa
et al. 2015; Nashira and Mustaphab 2013; Salleh 2011; Sazali et al. 2007;
Sharma 2012).
Three studies defined instructional leadership as a broad set of professional
practices, behaviours and influences that included concepts like ‘self-efficacy,
developing professional relationships and shaping teaching and learning’
(Jamilah and Yusof 2011; Mariani et al. 2016; Mustafa et al. 2015). Some of
these interpretations were drawn directly from the policy directives from the Min-
istry of Education. Overall, the most consistent definition of instructional leader-
ship in the studied examined was that derived from Hallinger and Murphy (1985).
It is interesting to note, therefore, that only four studies used the PIRMS instru-
ment, associated with that definition, to collect their empirical data (Ibrahim
and Amin 2014; Jamelaa and Jainabee 2011; Mustafa et al. 2015; Sazali et al.
2007). In contrast, post-graduate dissertations and theses, comprise almost 25
percent of the worldwide corpus of 500+ PIMRS studies. The 92 graduate
studies identified by (Hallinger et al. 2018) comprise 73 percent of the Malaysian
PIMRS corpus of studies undertaken.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 11

It is puzzling, therefore, why more of the research work, on instructional lea-

dership in Malaysia, has not found its way into reputable, high quality academic
journals. As Hallinger et al. (2018, 9) note:

Just 13 studies within the entire corpus were published as journal articles and only three
of these passed blind review in international refereed journals. We suggest that the
scarcity of published findings from these master’s and doctoral studies in either
Bahasa Malaya or English can be attributed to the prevalence of lower-order conceptual
models (Models 1, 2, and 3), small samples of schools/principals, and use of relatively
weak statistical tests (Levels 1 and 2).

Even though the Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) definition of instructional leader-
ship was drawn upon to frame the discussion in the majority of the pieces
selected in this review, there was an absence of valid data in some articles
(e.g. Nashira and Mustaphab 2013) and a lack of methodological reliability in
others (e.g. Sharma 2012) thus inevitably calling into question the conclusions
from this particular body of work. Overall, the review found a high degree of
variability in the quality of methodological approaches and analyses undertaken.
Two conclusions can therefore be reached from reviewing the literature
selected: firstly, that the knowledge base on instructional leadership in Malaysia
is still emerging. Secondly, future scholarly studies, including master’s and Doc-
toral work, would benefit from a stronger methodological design to systemati-
cally build a robust and reliable literature on instructional leadership in Malaysia.

Instructional Leadership, Personal Factors and Organisational

Performance

In terms of the existing contribution to the international knowledge base, the lit-
erature on instructional leadership from Malaysia has some strengths. It offers
some insights into the relationship between instructional leadership and
certain personal factors. It also sheds some light on the relationship between
instructional leadership and organisational performance. For example, in terms
of personal factors, Jamelaa and Jainabee (2011) highlighted that principals prac-
tised a high level of instructional leadership in four domains: (a) define and
establish school goals; (b) manage instructional programmes; (c) promote learn-
ing environment; and (d) create friendly and cooperative school environment.
They point out that these personal factors had a positive impact on teachers’
motivation and self-efficacy.
Ghavifekr et al. (2015) concluded that principals in Technical/Vocational
Schools in Kuala Lumpur demonstrated the following personal dimensions
when practising instructional leadership; (a) professional leadership; (b) shared
mission and clear goals; (c) continuous monitoring of teachers’ progress; and
(d) professional growth of the teachers. In their work, Jamelaa and Jainabee
(2012), highlight significant differences between principals’ instructional
12 A. HARRIS ET AL.

leadership practice in boarding schools, special model schools, mainstream

schools and religious and technical schools in the State of Pahang. They con-
clude that the way in which instructional leadership was enacted varied not
only from principal to principal but also from school context to school context.
A strong theme emerging from the selected literature on instructional leader-
ship in Malaysia is the relationship between instructional leadership and organ-
isational outcomes. In their work, Mustafa et al. (2015) explored instructional
practices in three junior colleges in Pahang. They conclude that there is a signifi-
cant relationship between instructional leadership and levels of teachers’ com-
mitment, thus implying a positive relationship with organisational growth and
improvement. Ghavifekr et al. (2015) explored the factors affecting the instruc-
tional leadership practices of principals in vocational and technical settings.
Their findings highlight four domains of instructional leadership practiced by
vocational and technical college principals: (a) professional leadership, (b)
shared mission and clear goals, (c) continuous monitoring of teachers’ progress,
and (d) professional growth of the teachers. Again, they point to the positive
relationship between instructional leadership and organisational performance.
Abdullah and Laji (2014) investigated the relationship between teacher instruc-
tional leadership and the attitude of Malay Language teachers. The study indi-
cated a positive relationship but also highlighted some of the limitations of fully
understanding instructional leadership in action. According to Azeez, Ibrahim,
and Mustapa (2015), there is a strong positive relationship between instructional
leadership (under the domain of managing instructional programme and promote
learning environment) with building the capacity for change Mariani et al. (2016)
highlight that effective instructional leaders build a positive climate for teachers
and protect their instructional time. It is posited that the positive impact on organ-
isational change and growth is secured through systematic monitoring. This
concurs with findings from Southworth (2002) which suggested that, in certain
contexts, instructional leadership practices tend to have a strong focus on moni-
toring and pay much less attention to mentoring and modelling.
The positive effects of instructional leadership on organisational performance,
suggested by this contemporary review of the literature, are reinforced by Park
and Ham (2014). This study examined data from the OECD’s ‘Teaching and Learn-
ing International Survey (TALIS) in 2008. It is proposed that teachers in Malaysia
are more likely to establish collegial relationships with each other where there
are high levels of principals’ instructional leadership. This finding resonates
with evidence about the impact of principals’ instructional leadership upon
teacher collegiality and collaboration (Bryk and Schneider 2002).
There is also an inherent implication and, in some cases, a normative assump-
tion, across many of the reviewed pieces, that principals should aspire to be
instructional leaders. Although many of the studies purport to show a positive
relationship between instructional leadership and organisational effectiveness
and improvement, the actual daily practices of instructional leadership and the
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 13

associated behaviours are not fully described, illustrated, or articulated. There-

fore, exactly how instructional leadership impacts upon organisational growth
remains an important area for future empirical enquiry in Malaysia.

Observations, issues, and future empirical enquiry

There are several observations that arise from this review of the contemporary
literature. Firstly, the literature on instructional leadership in Malaysia remains
wide-ranging in scope and variable in quality, making it difficult to make mean-
ingful or substantive connections across the studies. Secondly, in the quantitat-
ive studies, the selected variables fluctuate from study to study thus delimiting
any possibility of generalisation. Hallinger et al. (2018) note that there are issues
about the quantitative approaches taken when exploring the relationship
between instructional leadership and other variables. Thirdly, this review has
highlighted the wide-ranging contexts in which the research on instructional lea-
dership has been conducted in Malaysia. Given the limited number of quality
empirical studies, it is posited that a robust knowledge base on instructional lea-
dership in Malaysia is still yet to be established.
The review found very few qualitative studies of instructional leadership, and
those that existed, tended toward broad description, rather than deep analysis.
More robust descriptions of instructional leadership practices are still required to
illuminate exactly how this approach to leading schools is enacted in Malaysia
(Harris and Jones 2017).
The central conclusion from this review of the literature is that a strong,
reliable, empirical knowledge base about instructional leadership in Malaysia is
still yet to be established. As Hallinger et al. (2018) note
graduate scholarship, which was the source of most of the Malaysian PIMRS studies,
should either aim either at a higher standard or choose a different standard. Our
results suggest a need for more explicit, strengthened methodological training for
Malaysian graduate students. The considerable investment of time students commit
to their graduate research implies a concomitant demand for universities to offer pro-
grammes that enable them to conduct “successful studies.

Generally, the international literature focused on instructional leadership encom-

passes sophisticated quantitative approaches, mixed methods studies, and in-
depth qualitative analysis (Feldhoff, Radisch, and Bischof 2016; Hallinger and
Wang 2015; Hallinger et al. 2018). However, as Hallinger et al. (2018) note,
much the existing empirical work on instructional leadership, in Malaysia, reflects
a methodological narrowness and a reliance on simple, statistical analysis. The
ongoing challenge for researchers in this region, therefore, is to significantly
strengthen the existing knowledge base by building a more reliable and valid
empirical platform.
In addition, more in-depth accounts of the nature and enactment of instruc-
tional leadership practice in Malaysian schools would be helpful, particularly
14 A. HARRIS ET AL.

studies that systematically explore the effects or impact of that instructional lea-
dership approach. For example, more case-study approaches, mixed methods
studies, and deeper qualitative investigation would illuminate much more
about the nature and enactment of instructional leadership practice in Malaysian
educational settings.
Finally, future research about instructional leadership in Malaysia should
broaden its scope beyond a rudimentary exploration of simple relationships
between instructional leadership and one or more variables. While such studies
can be a useful starting point, the evidence base would benefit from more meth-
odologically complex research studies that offer richer empirical accounts of
instructional leadership in practice. Such steps would strengthen the existing
knowledge base considerably and ensure that future studies of instructional lea-
dership in Malaysia could add to the international knowledge base.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Professor Phil Hallinger for his comments
on earlier drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abdullah, M. K., and H. Laji. 2014. “Kepimpinan Pengajaran dan Sikap Guru Bahasa Melayu.”
Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu; Malay Language Education (MyLEJ) 4 (1): 48–58.
Azeez, M. I. K., M. S. Ibrahim, and R. Mustapa. 2015. “Kompetensi Kepemimpinan Instruksional
Di Kalangan Pengetua Sekolah: Satu Kajian Empirikal Di Negeri Selangor.” Jurnal Kepimpinan
Pendidikan 2 (3): 1.
Aziz, N. A. A., S. F. Foo, S. Asimiran, and A. Hassan. 2014. Kepimpinan Instruksional Pengetua
Dalam Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah (Pbs). Proceeding of the Global
Summit on Education GSE 2014.
Bajunid, I. A. 1996. “Preliminary Explorations of Indigenous Perspectives of Educational
Management: The Evolving Malaysian Experience.” Journal of Educational Administration
34 (5): 50–73.
Bamberg, J. D., and R. L. Andrews. 1990. Instructional Leadership, School Goals, and Student
Achievement. Paper Presented at American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Bossert, S., D. Dwyer, B. Rowan, and G. V. Lee. 1982. “The Instructional Management Role of the
Principal.” Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (3): 34–64.
Bridges, E. M. 1967. “Instructional Leadership: A Concept Re-Examined.” Journal of Educational
Administration 5 (2): 136–147.
Bryk, A., and B. Schneider. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bush, T. 2013. “Instructional Leadership and Leadership for Learning: Global and South African
Perspectives.” Education as Change 17 (sup1): S5–S20.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 15

Chapman, C., D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons, and C. Teddlie, eds. 2015. The Routledge
International Handbook of Educational Effectiveness and Improvement: Research, Policy,
and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Day, C., Q. Gu, and P. Sammons. 2016. “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: How
Successful School Leaders use Transformational and Instructional Strategies to Make a
Difference.” Educational Administration Quarterly 52 (2): 221–258.
Dwyer, D. 1986. “Understanding the Principal’s Contribution to Instruction1.” Peabody Journal
of Education 63 (1): 3–18.
Dwyer, D., G. Lee, B. Rowan, and S. Bossert. 1983. Five Principals in Action: Perspectives on
Instructional Management. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development.
Edmonds, R. 1979. “Effective Schools for the Urban Poor.” Educational Leadership 37 (1): 15–24.
Erickson, D. A. 1979. “Research on Educational Administration: the State-of-the-art.”
Educational Researcher 8 (3): 9–14.
Feldhoff, T., F. Radisch, and L. M. Bischof. 2016. “Designs and Methods in School Improvement
Research: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Educational Administration 54 (2): 209–240.
Ghani, M. F. A. 2012. “Amalan Kecemerlangan Sekolah Dalam Kalangan Dua Jenis Sekolah
Berprestasi Tinggi di Malaysia.” ATIKAN 2 (2).
Ghavifekr, S., M. S. Ibrahim, K. Chellapan, K. Sukumaran, and A. Subramaniam. 2015.
“Instructional Leadership Practices of Principal in Vocational and Technical College:
Teachers’ Perception.” Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management 3 (1).
Goldring, E., A. Porter, J. Murphy, S. N. Elliott, and X. Cravens. 2009. “Assessing Learning-
Centered Leadership: Connections to Research, Professional Standards, and Current
Practices.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 8 (1): 1–36.
Gough, D. 2007. “Weight of Evidence: A Framework for the Appraisal of the Quality and
Relevance of Evidence.” Research Papers in Education 22 (2): 213–228.
Gurr, D., L. Drysdale, and B. Mulford. 2007. “Instructional Leadership in Three Australian
Schools.” International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for
Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) 35 (3).
Hallinger, P. 2005. “Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy That
Refuses to Fade Away.” Leadership and Policy in Schools 4: 221–239.
Hallinger, P. 2010. “Making Education Reform Happen: is There An ‘Asian’ Way.” School
Leadership and Management 30 (5): 401–418.
Hallinger, P. 2011. “Leadership for Learning: Lessons from 40 Years of Empirical Research.”
Journal of Educational Administration 49 (2): 125–142.
Hallinger, P. 2013. “A Conceptual Framework for Systematic Reviews of Research in
Educational Leadership and Management.” Journal of Educational Administration 51 (2):
126–149.
Hallinger, P., D. Adams, A. Harris, and M. Suzette Jones. 2018. “Review of Conceptual Models
and Methodologies in Research on Principal Instructional Leadership in Malaysia: A Case
of Knowledge Construction in a Developing Society.” Journal of Educational
Administration 56 (1): 104–126.
Hallinger, P., L. Bickman, and K. Davis. 1996. “School Context, Principal Leadership, and Student
Reading Achievement.” Elementary School Journal 96 (5): 527–549.
Hallinger, P., and E. Bridges. 2007. Problem-Based Management Education: Developing
“Managers for Action.” Dordrecht: Springer.
Hallinger, P., and D. A. Bryant. 2013a. “Mapping the Terrain of Educational Leadership and
Management in East Asia.” Journal of Educational Administration 51 (5): 618–637.
16 A. HARRIS ET AL.

Hallinger, P., and D. A. Bryant. 2013b. “Accelerating Knowledge Production on

Educationalleadership and Management in East Asia: A Strategic Analysis.” School
Leadership and Management 33 (3): 202–223.
Hallinger, P., and D. A. Bryant. 2016. “Exploring Features of Highly Productive Research
Contexts in Asia: A Comparison of Knowledge Production in Educational Leadership in
Israel and Hong Kong.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (1): 165–184.
Hallinger, P., and J. Chen. 2015. “Review of Research on Educational Leaderhip and
Management in Asia: A Comparative Analysis of Research Topics and Methods, 1995–
2012.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 43 (1): 5–27.
Hallinger, A., and M. Hallinger. 2015. “Transforming Education Systems: Comparative and
Critical Perspectives on School Leadership.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 35 (3): 311–
318. http://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1056590.
Hallinger, P., and R. H. Heck. 1996. “Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School Effectiveness: A
Review of Empirical Research, 1980–1995.” Educational Administration Quarterly 32 (1): 5–44.
Hallinger, P., and M. S. Lee. 2014. “Mapping Instructional Leadership in Thailand: Has Education
Reform Impacted Principal Practice?” Educational Management, Administration and
Leadership 42 (1): 6–29.
Hallinger, P., and J. Murphy. 1985. “Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of
Principals.” The Elementary School Journal 86 (2): 217–247.
Hallinger, P., and T. D. Truong. 2014. “Exploring the Contours of Context and Effective School
Leadership in Vietnam.” Leading and Managing 20 (2): 43–58.
Hallinger, P., and A. Walker. 2017. “Leading Learning in Asia: Emerging Empirical Insights From
Five Societies.” Journal of Educational Administration 55 (2): 130–146.
Hallinger, P., and W. C. Wang. 2015. Assessing Instructional Leadership with the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale. New York: Springer Science Press.
Harris, A. 2013. Distributed School Leadership: Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders. London:
Routledge.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2015a. “International Comparisons: Critique, Culture and Context.” In
Leading Futures: Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership, edited by A. Harris and M.
Jones. London: Sage.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2015b. “Leading Professional Learning to Improve Schools in
Challenging Circumstances.” In Leading Futures: Global Perspectives on Educational
Leadership, edited by A. Harris and M. Jones. London: Sage.
Harris, A., and M. Jones. 2017. “Leading Educational Change and Improvement at Scale: Some
Inconvenient Truths About Educational Reform.” International Journal of Leadership in
Education 20 (5): 1–10. doi:10.1080/13603124.2016.1274786.
Heck, R. H., T. Larson, and G. A. Marcoulides. 1990. “Principal Instructional Leadership
Andschool Achievement: Validation of a Causal Model.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 26 (2): 94–125.
Ibrahim, M. Y., and A. Amin. 2014. “Model Kepemimpinan Pengajaran Pengetua Dan
Kompetensi Pengajaran Guru.” Jurnal Kurikulum dan Pengajaran Asia Pasifik 2 (1).
Jamelaa, B. A., and M. K. Jainabee. 2011. “Instructional Leadership and Attitude Towards
Organizational Change among Secondary Schools Principal in Pahang, Malaysia.”
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 3304–3309.
Jamelaa, B. A., and M. K. Jainabee. 2012. “An Overview in Qualitative Study : Practices As
Instructional Leaders among Secondary Schools Principals in The State of Pahang,
Malaysia.” In The Asian Conference on Education.
Jamilah, B. A., and B. Yusof. 2011. “Amalan Kepimpinan Sekolah Berprestasi Tinggi (SBT) Di
Malaysia.” Journal of Edupres 1: 323–335.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 17

Kwan, P., and A. Walker. 2008. “Vice-principalship in Hong Kong: Aspirations, Competencies,
and Satisfaction.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 19 (1): 73–97.
Leithwood, K., C. Day, P. Sammons, A. Hallinger, and D. Hopkins. 2006. Seven Strong Claims
About Successful School Leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College of School Leadership.
Leithwood, K. A., and D. J. Montgomery. 1982. “The Role of the Elementary School Principal in
Program Improvement.” Review of Educational Research 52 (3): 309–339.
Leithwood, K., S. Patten, and D. Jantzi. 2010. “Testing a Conception of how School Leadership
Influences Student Learning.” Educational Administration Quarterly 46 (5): 671–706.
Lindberg, E., and V. Vanyushyn. 2013. “School-based Management with or Without
Instructional Leadership: Experience From Sweden.” Journal of Education and Learning 2
(3): 39.
Louis, K. S., B. Dretzke, and K. Wahlstrom. 2010. “How Does Leadership Affect Student
Achievement? Results From a National US Survey.” School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 21 (3): 315–336.
Mariani, M. N., A. R. Mohd Nazri, M. N. Norazana, M. T. Nor’ain, and A. R. Zabidi. 2016. “Amalan
Kepimpinan Pengajaran Untuk Penambahbaikan Sekolah: Retrospeksi Guru Besar Sekolah
Berprestasi Tinggi.” Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan 3 (3): 44–53.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. 2012. Malaysian Education Blueprint: 2013–2025.
Mohamad, B., M. J. Salleh, and C. N. Hashim. 2009. Kepimpinan Pendidikan Berkesan. Prosiding
“Seminar Kepengetuaan Kebangsaan Ke-V1”– Halatuju Kepemimpinan Sekolah Untuk
Penambahbaikan Yang Mapan – 10–12 Mac 2009. Institut Kepengetuaan, Kampus Kota,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
Mustafa, N., M. Radzi, H. Jaafar, W. A. Rohana, and M. Nawawi. 2015. “Principals’ Instructional
Leadership and Teachers’ Commitment in Three Mara Junior Science Colleges (Mjsc) in
Pahang, Malaysia.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191: 1848–1853.
Nashira, I. M., and R. Mustaphab. 2013. “Instructional Leadershp for Malaysian Polytechnics
System.” In 2nd International Seminar on Quality and Affordable Education (ISQAE 2013),
337–341.
Neumerski, C. M. 2013. “Rethinking Instructional Leadership, a Review: What do we Know
About Principal, Teacher, and Coach Instructional Leadership, and Where Should we go
from Here?” Educational Administration Quarterly 49 (2): 310–347.
Ng, F. S. D., T. D. Nguyen, K. S. B. Wong, and K. W. W. Choy. 2015. “Instructional Leadership
Practices in Singapore.” School Leadership & Management 35 (4): 388–407.
Pan, H. L. W., F. Y. Nyeu, and J. S. Chen. 2015. “Principal Instructional Leadership in Taiwan:
Lessons from two Decades of Research.” Journal of Educational Administration 53 (4):
492–511.
Park, J. H., and S. H. Ham. 2014. “Whose Perception of Principal Instructional Leadership?
Principal-Teacher Perceptual (dis) Agreement and its Influence on Teacher Collaboration.”
Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (3): 450–469.
Qian, H., H. Qian, A. Walker, A. Walker, X. Li, and X. Li. 2017. “The West Wind vs the East Wind:
Instructional Leadership Model in China.” Journal of Educational Administration 55 (2): 186–
206.
Rigby, J. G. 2014. “Three Logics of Instructional Leadership.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 50 (4): 610–644.
Robinson, V. M., C. A. Lloyd, and K. J. Rowe. 2008. “The Impact of Leadership on Student
Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types.” Educational
Administration Quarterly 44 (5): 635–674.
Salleh, N. A. 2011. Kepimpinan Pengajaran dan Perkongsian Wawasan: Satu Kajian Kes di
Sekolah-sekolah Kebangsaan Luar Bandar. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan
Kepimpinan Pendidikan Ke 16. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Laman Web: http://
18 A. HARRIS ET AL.

jabatanbahasastar.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/kepimpinan-pengajaran-danperkongsian-
wawasan-satu.pdf
Sazali, Y., K. A. Rusmini, A. Hut, A. Engkeh, and A. B. Zamri. 2007. “Perkaitan Antara Kepimpinan
Instruksional Terhadap Sekolah Berkesan.” Jurnal Pengurusan Dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan
17 (2): 105–120.
Sebastian, J., and E. Allensworth. 2012. “The Influence of Principal Leadership on Classroom
Instruction and Student Learning.” Educational Administration Quarterly 48 (4): 626–663.
Sharma, S. 2012. “Instructional Leadership Model Through Asian Principals’ Perspectives.”
International conference on education and management innovation İPEDR (Vol. 30).
Southworth, G. 2002. “Instructional Leadership in Schools: Reflections and Empirical Evidence.”
School Leadership & Management 22 (1): 73–91.
Walker, A. D. 2015. “Clones, Drones and Dragons: Ongoing Uncertainties Around School
Leader Development.” School Leadership & Management 35 (3): 300–320.
Walker, A. D., and P. Hallinger. 2015. “A Synthesis of Reviews of Research on Principal
Leadership in East Asia.” Journal of Educational Administration 53 (4): 554–570.
Walker, A., and C. K. Wong, eds. 2005. East Asian Welfare Regimes in Transition: From
Confucianism to Globalisation. Bristol: Policy Press.
Yusof, M. M., A. Muda, A. A. Makmom, A. S. Bahaman, R. Basri, and N. A. Rashid. 2013. “Faktor-
faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Efikasi Kendiri Guru Sekolah Menegah di Malaysia Dalam
Perlaksanaan Pendidikan Alam Sekitar di Malaysia.” Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and
Education 28: 131–153.

Appendices
Appendix 1

Aniza, B., Akmaliah, Z., & Pihie, L. (2014). Amalan Kepimpinan Pengajaran dan Transformasi
Pengetua dan Hubungannya dengan Prestasi Sekolah. Jurnal Pengurusan Dan Kepimpinan
Pendidikan, 28(2): 107–121.
Faridah, O. (2015). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Instruksional Pengetua Ke Atas Efikasi Guru. Paper
presented at 4th RCELAM 2015: Globalisation and the 2nd Machine Age, 16–19 November,
Institute Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands.
Ibrahim, M. Y., & Aziz, W. A. (2011). Amalan Kepemimpinan Pengajaran Pengetua Terengganu.
Dalam Kertas Kerja Persidangan Majlis Pengetua Sekolah-sekolah Malaysia Terengganu,
Awana Kijal Golf & Hotel, Kijal Kemaman.
Mat Rahimi, Y. & Mohd Yusri, I. (2015). Model Konsep Kepimpinan Instruksional Maya, Pola
Komunikasi dan Kompetensi Pengajaran Guru. Seminar Pengurusan dan Kepimpinan Pendidi-
kan ke-21. Genting Highlands.
Mohd Munaim, M. (2013). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Instruksional Guru Besar Ke Atas Efikasi Guru.
Jurnal Penyelidikan Pendidikan, 14:232–251.
Mohd Suhaimi Mohamed Ali, Sharifah Md Nor & Zaidatol Akmaliah Lope Pihie. (2007). Amalan
Kepimpinan Pengajaran Pengetua Sekolah Menengah Luar Bandar. Kertas Kerja Seminar
Nasional Bidang dan Kepimpinan Pendidikan Ke-14. Institut Aminuddin Baki, Genting
Highlands.
Muhammad, L. (2007). Pelaksanaan Kepemimpinan Pengajaran di Kalangan Pengetua
Sekolah. Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Institut Perguruan Batu Lintang Tahun 2007.
 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 19

Ng, A. Y. M. (2010). Kepimpinan Instruksional dan Kepimpinan Transformasional Pengetua-

pengetua Negeri Perak. Unpublished Conference. SMK Methodist (ACS), Sitiawan, Perak,
Malaysia.
Norashikin, A. B., Ramli, B. & Nurnazahiah, A. (2013). Kepimpinan Pengajaran Pengetua dan
Kepimpinan Guru. Seminar Pasca Siswazah dalam Pendidikan, UPM.

Appendix 2

1. Abdullah, M. K., and Laji, H. (2014). Kepimpinan pengajaran dan sikap guru bahasa
Melayu. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa melayu; Malay Language Education (MyLEJ), 4(1), 48–58.
2. Azeez, M. I. K., Ibrahim, M. S., & Mustapa, R. (2015). Kompetensi Kepemimpinan Instruk-
sional Di Kalangan Pengetua Sekolah: Satu Kajian Empirikal Di Negeri Selangor. Jurnal
Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 2(3).
3. Aziz, N. A. A., Foo, S. F., Asimiran, S. & Hassan, A. (2014). Kepimpinan Instruksional Penge-
tua Dalam Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah (Pbs). Proceeding of the Global
Summit on Education GSE 2014
4. Ghani, M. F. A. (2012). Amalan Kecemerlangan Sekolah dalam Kalangan Dua Jenis Sekolah
Berprestasi Tinggi di Malaysia. ATIKAN, 2(2).
5. Ghavifekr, S., Ibrahim, M. S., Chellapan, K., Sukumaran, K., and Subramaniam, A. (2015).
Instructional Leadership Practices of Principal in Vocational and Technical College: Tea-
chers’ Perception. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 3(1).
6. Ibrahim, M. Y., and Amin, A. (2014). Model Kepemimpinan Pengajaran Pengetua Dan
Kompetensi Pengajaran Guru. Jurnal Kurikulum dan Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 2(1).
7. Jamelaa, B.A., and Jainabee, M.K. (2011). “Instructional leadership and attitude towards
organizational change among secondary schools principal in Pahang, Malaysia.” Proce-
dia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 15: 3304–3309.
8. Jamelaa, B. A., and Jainabee, M.K. (2012). An Overview in Qualitative Study : Practices As
Instructional Leaders among Secondary Schools Principals in The State of Pahang, Malay-
sia. In The Asian Conference on Education.
9. Jamilah, B.A., and Yusof, B. (2011). Amalan Kepimpinan Sekolah Berprestasi Tinggi (SBT)
Di Malaysia. Journal of Edupres, 1, 323–335
10. Mariani, M. N., Mohd Nazri, A. R., Norazana, M. N., Nor’ain, M. T., & Zabidi, A. R. (2016).
Amalan Kepimpinan Pengajaran Untuk Penambahbaikan Sekolah: Retrospeksi Guru
Besar Sekolah Berprestasi Tinggi. Jurnal Kepimpinan Pendidikan, 3(3):44–53.
11. Mohamad, B., Salleh, M. J. & Hashim, C N. (2009). Kepimpinan Pendidikan Berkesan. Pro-
siding “Seminar Kepengetuaan Kebangsaan Ke-V1” – Halatuju Kepemimpinan Sekolah
Untuk Penambahbaikan Yang Mapan – 10–12 Mac 2009. Institut Kepengetuaan,
Kampus Kota, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
12. Mustafa, N., Radzi, M., Jaafar, H., Rohana, W. A., and Nawawi, M. (2015). Principals’ Instruc-
tional Leadership and Teachers’ Commitment in Three Mara Junior Science Colleges
(Mjsc) in Pahang, Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1848–1853
13. Nashira, I. M., and Mustaphab, R. (2013). Instructional Leadershp for Malaysian Polytech-
nics System. In 2nd International Seminar on Quality and Affordable Education (ISQAE
2013). p337–341
20 A. HARRIS ET AL.

14. Salleh, N. A. (2011). Kepimpinan Pengajaran dan Perkongsian Wawasan: Satu Kajian Kes
di Sekolah-sekolah Kebangsaan Luar Bandar. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pengurusan dan
Kepimpinan Pendidikan Ke 16. Institut Aminuddin Baki. Laman Web: http://
jabatanbahasastar.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/kepimpinan-pengajaran-danperkongsian-
wawasan-satu.pdf
15. Sazali, Y., Rusmini, K. A., Hut, A., Engkeh, A., and Zamri, A. B. (2007). Perkaitan antara
Kepimpinan Instruksional terhadap sekolah berkesan. Jurnal Pengurusan Dan Kepimpinan
Pendidikan, 17(2), 105–120
16. Sharma, S. (2012). Instructional leadership model through Asian principals’ perspectives.
International Conference on Education and Management Innovation İPEDR (Vol. 30).
17. Yusof, M. M., Muda, A., Makmom, A. A., Bahaman, A. S., Basri, R., and Rashid, N. A. (2013).
Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Efikasi Kendiri Guru Sekolah Menegah di Malaysia
dalam Perlaksanaan Pendidikan Alam Sekitar di Malaysia. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators
and Education, 28(131–153