Hallinger 2017 Review of Conceptual Models and Methodologies in Research on Principal Instructional Leadership in Malaysia

Journal of Educational Administration
Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal

instructional leadership in Malaysia: A case of knowledge construction in a
developing society
Philip Hallinger, Donnie Adams, Alma Harris, Michelle Suzette Jones,
Article information:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 23:13 27 November 2017 (PT)
To cite this document:

Philip Hallinger, Donnie Adams, Alma Harris, Michelle Suzette Jones, (2017) "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, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0025
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0025
Downloaded on: 27 November 2017, At: 23:13 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 99 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:277069 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Principal
Review of conceptual models and instructional
methodologies in research on leadership
principal instructional leadership

in Malaysia
A case of knowledge construction in a Received 8 March 2017
Revised 30 May 2017
developing society Accepted 4 June 2017
Philip Hallinger
Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership,
Mahidol University College of Management, Bangkok, Thailand and
Department of Educational Leadership and Management,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Donnie Adams
University of Malaya Institute of Educational Leadership,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Alma Harris and Michelle Suzette Jones
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy,
University of Bath, Bath, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Over the past several decades, instructional leadership has gradually gained increasing currency
as a key role of school principals throughout much of the world. This is also the case in Malaysia where
educational research, policy and practice have brought the instructional leadership role of the principal front
and center. The purpose of this paper is to assess the conceptual models, research methods, and foci of
scholars in the study of principal instructional leadership in Malaysia over the past 30 years.
Design/methodology/approach – Systematic methods were used to identify all studies conducted in
Malaysia that had used the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) (Hallinger, 1982/1990/
2015) as the data collection instrument. This search yielded a database of 120 studies completed between 1989
and 2016 written in both English and Bahasa Malay. Common data were extracted from the 120 research
reports, coded and entered into a MS Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Quantitative methods were employed to
analyze modal trends and synthesize patterns in the data across the studies.
Findings – The search identified 120 PIMRS studies, 90 percent of which had been conducted
since 2005. This represented a surprisingly large corpus of studies. Over 75 percent of the Malaysian studies
of principal instructional leadership had been conducted as graduate (master and doctoral) theses, relatively
few of which had achieved publication in journals. The authors’ analysis found that most studies had used
lower order (i.e. bivariate, direct effects) conceptual models and relied heavily on descriptive and simple
correlational statistical tests. The lack of consistent results within the database of studies was attributed
largely to limitations in research design and quality.
Research limitations/implications – The 120 PIMRS studies conducted in Malaysia comprise a surprisingly
large corpus of research on principal instructional leadership. Indeed, the Malaysian corpus is second only to the
USA in terms of the number of PIMRS studies of principal instructional leadership. Nonetheless, limitations in
the research models and methods employed in these studies suggest a need for stronger methodological training
before Malaysian scholars can achieve the goal of contributing useful knowledge to the local and global
knowledge base. Specific recommendations are offered for strengthening the quality of research.
Journal of Educational
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or Administration
publication of this paper. The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of the Research Grant © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-8234
Council (RGC) of Hong Kong for its support through the General Research Fund (GRF 841512). DOI 10.1108/JEA-03-2017-0025
JEA Social implications – The recent expansion of higher education in Malaysia – like other developing
societies – has yielded progress in the scope of research production. However, numerous challenges remain in
transforming the potential for useful knowledge production from graduate research into reality.
Originality/value – This is the first review of research on principal leadership conducted in Malaysia.
The review follows efforts by scholars to systematically identify the boundaries of knowledge in
educational leadership and management within East Asian societies (e.g. China, Singapore, Vietnam,
Taiwan and Hong Kong). Moreover, this is the first review of research that examines the use of the
PIMRS in a single society.
Keywords Malaysia, Asia, Leadership, Principal, Instructional leadership, PIMRS
Paper type Literature review
Currently many ideas are disseminated by thinkers whose ideas are widely received across national
boundaries. To the extent that such ideas become international currency, they are “universal”
and not culture or context specific […] These ideas constitute the form of interventions or designs
for national, organizational or institutional development. There may be cultural and context
specific differences in the substantive or content changes brought about in the organizations
(Bajunid, 1996, p. 55).
Over two decades ago, Bajunid (1996) challenged the field of educational leadership and
management (EDLM) to focus explicitly on a critical nexus in the relationship between
research and development. This nexus lies in the intellectual space where knowledge about
leadership practice is contextualized to features of the societal and school settings (Clarke
and O’Donoghue, 2016; Hallinger, 2016). More specifically, Bajunid (1996) asserted the
importance of first questioning and then validating the application of “globally”
disseminated EDLM models and findings in the developing societies of Asia, Africa and
Latin America (see also Hallinger, 1995; Oplatka, 2004; Walker and Dimmock, 2002).
He further proposed that the construction of “relevant knowledge” within a particular
society should synthesize knowledge from the global context along with indigenous
practices identified in local contexts (see also Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2016; Hallinger, 2016;
Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Walker and Hallinger, 2015).
This perspective on building a “global EDLM knowledge base” has assumed greater
salience during the ensuing 20 years as the field has penetrated into more and more
developing societies (Hallinger, 2016, 2017; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013; Hallinger and
Walker, 2017; Mertkan et al., 2016; Oplatka, 2004; Oplatka and Arar, 2017). Malaysian
educators, spurred on by efforts of the Institut Aminuddin Baki (National Institute for
Educational Management), became early adopters of global research on principal
instructional leadership (Bajunid, 1996, 2008; Jones et al., 2015). In concert with a national
policy-driven focus on instructional leadership, Malaysian educators studying in graduate
programs demonstrated a growing interest in studying how this leadership model was
practiced in their society (e.g. Abas, 1999; Hamid, 1989; Lee, 1991; Jahet, 1998; Lindong, 1998;
Zamzam and Mansor, 1999; Ponnusamy, 2010; Salleh, 2014).
The current paper reviewed a corpus of 120 empirical studies of principal instructional
leadership conducted in Malaysia between 1989 and 2016. Each of the studies had used the
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) for data collection. The review
addressed the following research questions:
RQ1. What is the scope and nature of the PIMRS knowledge base in Malaysia and how
do these features compare internationally?
RQ2. What are the measurement properties of the PIMRS instrument as used in
Malaysia?
RQ3. What conceptual models have been used to guide Malaysian empirical research
that has used the PIMRS to study principal instructional leadership?
RQ4. What research designs and methods have been used in Malaysian PIMRS studies? Principal
RQ5. What are the most common and overlooked research foci in the PIMRS literature instructional
from Malaysia? leadership
Systematic review methods guided the procedures used to identify studies, extract
information, and synthesize trends (Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013). Our review complements
efforts by other scholars in developing societies who have been engaged in diversifying our
understanding of EDLM processes (Bellibas et al., 2016; Fromm et al., 2016; Hallinger, 2017;
Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Ng et al., 2015; Oplatka and Arar, 2017; Walker and Hallinger,
2015). Findings from this review will assist in charting directions for future EDLM research
in Malaysia and other developing societies.
Conceptual framework
Two conceptual frameworks guided this review. The first was the conceptual model of
principal instructional leadership embodied in the PIMRS instrument (Hallinger and
Wang, 2015). The PIMRS framework conceptualizeds three dimensions of the principal’s
instructional leadership role: Defines a School Mission, Manages the Instructional Program,
Develops a Positive School Learning Climate (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Hallinger and
Wang, 2015). These dimensions are further delineated in terms of 10 “leadership functions”
(see Figure 1).
The PIMRS framework and instrument have been used in 500+ studies of principal
instructional leadership conducted in more than 35 countries (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
Although scholars have published reviews of the broad PIMRS literature (e.g. Hallinger,
2011; Hallinger and Wang, 2015; Hallinger et al., 2016), this is the first review that has
focused explicitly on studies conducted in a single country.
The PIMRS instrument (Hallinger, 1982/1990/2015) was developed to measure the
conceptual framework in Figure 1. The PIMRS consists of a 50 item form designed to
measure the three PIMRS dimensions and 10 functions, and a 22-item Teacher Short Form
Defines a School Manages the Develops a Positive

Mission Instructional School Learning
Program Climate
Protects
Frames the
Coordinates the Instructional Time
School’s Goals
Curriculum
Provides
Incentives for
Communicates the Supervises and
Teachers
School’s Goals Evaluates
Instruction Provides
Incentives for
Learning
Monitors Student
Progress Promotes
Professional
Development
Maintains High Figure 1.

Visibility PIMRS instructional
leadership model
Source: Hallinger and Murphy (1985, p. 221)
JEA that measures the three PIMRS dimensions. The PIMRS uses a five-point Likert scale to
assess the frequency of instructional leadership behaviors performed by the principal
(Hallinger and Wang, 2015). The PIMRS may be administered to principals, teachers, and/
or supervisors. Depending upon the form and goals of the research, data obtained with the
PIMRS instrument can be analyzed at the ;full scale, three dimensions, or ten functions
levels (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
We adopted a second framework that proposed six distinct conceptual models that can
be employed in studies of principal instructional leadership:
(1) Model 1: univariate descriptive leadership studies seek to illustrate the pattern
of instructional leadership enacted by one or more principals on the PIMRS
dimensions/functions, and/or compare teachers’ and principals’ perceptions

of the principals’ instructional leadership (“role set” studies; see Hallinger
and Wang, 2015).
(2) Model 2: antecedent effects on leadership studies examine how one or more variables
shape principal enactment of instructional leadership. Antecedent variables can be
personal characteristics of the principal (e.g. gender, age, years of administrative or
teaching experience) or context characteristics (e.g. school size, school level,
student SES, community type).
(3) Model 3: direct leadership effects studies examine the direct effects of principal
instructional leadership on one or more dependent variables (e.g. teacher attitudes,
student achievement).
(4) Model 4: direct leadership effects with antecedents studies combine Models 2 and 3,
enabling the researcher to determine not only if an antecedent variable(s) shapes the
principal’s instructional leadership, but also whether this effect carries over to other
salient features of the school.
(5) Model 5: mediated leadership effects studies examine whether the effects of principal
instructional leadership on a dependent variable, such as student achievement,
are “mediated” by an intervening variable (e.g. teacher attitudes, school climate).
(6) Model 6: mediated leadership effects with antecedent studies combine the
approaches adopted in Models 2 and 5 (see Figure 2).
The application of these models has been discussed at length elsewhere in the EDLM
literature (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Scheerens et al., 2012;
Witziers et al., 2003). Therefore, at this time we wish to highlight only two points. First,
the models vary in the complexity with which they portray the relationship of leadership
practices with other features of the school and its context. The “lower-order” models
(e.g. Models 1, 2, 3) reduce the complexity of leadership dynamics to such a degree that their
capacity to contribute valid knowledge is quite limited (see Bridges, 1982; Hallinger
and Wang, 2015; Heck and Hallinger, 2005). Indeed, numerous scholars have attributed
progress in school leadership research to the increased prevalence of “higher-order”
conceptual Models 4, 5, and 6 in our empirical research (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Heck,
1996; Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, 2005; Scheerens et al., 2012).
Second, the selection of a conceptual model implies the use of statistical tests with
relevant capabilities for analyzing variable relationships (Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011;
Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Witziers et al., 2003). For example, Model 1 studies rely
primarily on statistical tests that “describe” basic data trends (e.g. means, standard
deviation range). Model 2 studies use simple correlational tests (e.g. t-test, Pearson’s or
Spearman’s correlation) to examine relationships between two variables. Higher order
conceptual models (i.e. Models 4 to 6) are investigated through the use of more powerful
(Pattern of PIMRS scores or
Principal
Model 1 PIMRS
teacher vs principal perceptions) instructional
leadership
Antecedent Variable(s)
Model 2 (personal characteristics and PIMRS
school context variables)
Dependent Variable(s)
Model 3 PIMRS
(teacher, school organization,
school outcomes variables)
Antecedent Variable(s) Dependent Variable(s)

Model 4 (personal characteristics and PIMRS (teacher, school organization,
school context variables) school outcomes variables)
Mediating Variable(s)
Dependent Variable(s)
(teacher, school organization
Model 5 PIMRS variables)
(school performance, student
achievement)
Figure 2.
Conceptual models
for studying
Mediating Dependent
Antecedent Variable(s)
Variable(s)
principal instructional
Variable(s)
Model 6
(personal characteristics PIMRS
(teacher, school (school performance, leadership
and school context
variables) organization) student achievement) with the PIMRS
statistical tests capable of illuminating relationships among multiple factors that shape and
may be influenced by leadership (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Use of this conceptual rubric
can, therefore, provide insight into the capacity of the Malaysian PIMRS studies to
contribute to the domestic and global knowledge base on instructional leadership.
Method
This review followed procedures recommended for systematic reviews of research
(Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013). A systematic review is distinguished from an ad hoc review
by the clear explication of “procedures” used to identify sources, extract and analyze data
obtained from the sources, and report findings (Gough, 2007; Hallinger, 2013). In this section
of the paper we will describe the procedures used in our review of Malaysian PIMRS studies.
Identification of sources
Our goal was to conduct an “exhaustive search” for PIMRS studies conducted in Malaysia.
The corresponding author of this article is the publisher of the PIMRS and began with an
initial list of 34 Malaysian PIMRS studies. Since the total number of studies was not
expected to exceed 50 papers, we developed an “open-ended” rather than a “bounded” set of
search criteria (Hallinger, 2013). This led to the following search criteria:
• Focus: all PIMRS studies of principal instructional leadership from Malaysia.
• Year: any year.
• Language: English or Bahasa Malay.
• Publication type: journal article, conference paper, master thesis, doctoral dissertation.
• Method: quantitative, case study, and mixed methods studies.
JEA Using these criteria, we initiated a series of iterative online searches with Googlescholar™.
We employed a variety of keywords first in English and then in Bahasa Malay. These included
PIMRS + Malaysia; PIMRS + Malaysia; kepimpinan pengajaran + PIMRS + Malaysia.
Each time a potential source was identified, we downloaded the citation and pdf file.
As we reviewed the sources, we also looked in their references lists for other studies that may
have been missed by Googlescholar™. Following the Googlescholar™ search, we visited
several university libraries and searched university databases in Malaysia in order to identify
additional studies.
This eclectic open-ended approach yielded 135 Malaysian PIMRS studies, including
86 studies that had not been on the publisher’s list. After detailed review, we eliminated
15 sources due to duplication or lack of relevance. This resulted in a final “database” of
120 PIMRS studies conducted in Malaysia between 1989 and 2016.
Data extraction
We created a MS Excel spreadsheet in which to store information (i.e. data) extracted from
each source. Each row in the spreadsheet was comprised of data extracted from a single
source (e.g. article, conference paper, thesis). Each column consisted of information
extracted from the sources (e.g. year of publication, conceptual model, statistical tests, etc.).
English-speaking and Malay-speaking researchers read each of the 120 studies. As each
source was read, relevant data were extracted and entered into the spreadsheet.
To facilitate subsequent data analysis, some data were coded prior to entry into the
spreadsheet. After research assistants finished entering all data into the spreadsheet,
the lead author independently checked each item and made revisions as needed.
This spreadsheet represented the “data set” for analysis in the study (see Hallinger, 2013).
Data analysis
Data analyses were quantitative rather than subjective. We relied on descriptive statistics to
synthesize trends across the studies. Our goal was to highlight structural, conceptual and
methodological trends in this literature. Where suitable, we compared our results with
findings reported in other reviews of the PIMRS and broader EDLM literatures.
Results
We begin by presenting findings on the reliability and validity of the PIMRS instrument
used in Malaysia. Then we examine the volume, time frame, and composition of the studies.
Next we analyze the conceptual models and research methods employed in these
studies. Finally, we analyze the topical foci of the Malaysian PIMRS research. Although this
review was not framed as a synthesis of results, we occasionally comment on substantive
findings in cases where clear patterns emerged.
Measurement properties of the PIMRS in Malaysia

All of the Malaysian PIMRS studies collected data using a Bahasa Malay version of the
PIMRS. Three related versions of the PIMRS have been used: a 50-item Principal Form, a
50-item Teacher Form, and a 22-item Teacher Short Form (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
Content validity of the PIMRS Teacher Short Form-Malaysian was confirmed in a single
study (Aziz et al., 2014). Additional validation studies using more advanced methods
(see Hallinger and Wang, 2015) would be useful given the prevalence of the instrument’s
use in Malaysia.
Reliability analyses using Cronbach’s α test of internal consistency were included in
12 studies (e.g. Aziz et al., 2014; Che Mat, 2013; Saidi, 2010; Yusoh, 2003; Sukarmin, 2010;
Zailah, 2007). Two studies reported reliability coefficients between 0.80 and 0.90;
the remainder were all above 0.90. Average reliability across the 12 studies was 0.94. Principal
We conclude that the Malaysian form of the PIMRS is demonstrating reliability at a level instructional
that is comparable with results reported by Hallinger and Wang (2015). leadership
Knowledge production on instructional leadership in Malaysia
We estimate that the Malaysian PIMRS literature comprises almost 25 percent of the
worldwide corpus of 500+ PIMRS studies. Indeed, based on findings reported by Hallinger
and Wang (2015), Malaysia is second only to the USA in the frequency of use of the PIMRS for
research on instructional leadership. This affirms the perceived importance accorded to
instructional leadership in the contemporary role set of Malaysian principals (see Jones et al.,
2015). It also highlights the engagement of Malaysian scholars with this construct, justifies the
scope defined for this review of research, and suggests the potential for gaining new insights
into the practice of instructional from the Malaysian literature.
Analysis of “year of publication” of the studies revealed that the Malaysian PIMRS
literature is largely of recent vintage. Indeed, 92 percent of the studies were conducted between
2005 and 2016 (see Figure 3). This is consistent with Hallinger and Wang’s (2015) contention
that instructional leadership only gained significant traction in the role set of principals outside
the USA since the turn of the millennium (see also Hallinger and Bryant, 2013).
Analysis of the studies by “type of source” offers additional insight into this trend
(see Figure 4). The 92 graduate studies identified by our search comprise 73 percent of the
Malaysian PIMRS corpus. These consist of 10 doctoral dissertations (8 percent) and
82 master theses (68 percent) produced at 14 different universities in Malaysia and two in
England. In contrast, the 16 articles published in refereed journals represent only 13 percent
of the 120 papers (see Figure 4). Moreover, only three of these were published in
“international” refereed journals, none of which are included in SSCI or SCOPUS (Aziz et al.,
2014; Jamelaa and Kassim, 2012; Masitah and Alias, 2015). This composition contrasts
sharply with the non-Malaysian PIMRS corpus which consists primarily of doctoral
dissertations and journal articles (Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
Research designs, conceptual models and methods

This corpus of PIMRS studies was dominated by cross-sectional surveys. In this respect,
the studies mirror EDLM research in general (Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011, 2017). Three
PIMRS studies employed mixed methods (Bunyin, 2015; Mahput, 2014; Muhammad, 2006),
50
45
40 39
Number of Papers
35
30
25 26 25
20
15
13
10
5 6 6
3
0 1 1 0
9
95
01
6
98
99
99
00
00
01
01
01
Figure 3.
9
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
87
90
93
96
99
02
05
08
11
14
Volume of Malaysian
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Time Period
PIMRS studies over
time, 1987-2016
Note: n =120
JEA Bachelor, 1%
Journal, 13%
Conference, 9% Master, 68%
Doctoral, 8%
Figure 4.
Distribution of
Malaysian PIMRS
studies by source type
Note: n =120
and four were designed as case studies ( Johari, 2016; Mohamed, 2015; Muhamad, 2015;
Yaacob, 2009). There were neither longitudinal nor experimental studies in the database.
A study’s conceptual model conveys the author’s assumptions about the relationship
among the variables and shapes subsequent decisions concerning research methods.
Using the rubric presented earlier, we found that 78 percent of the studies were guided by
Models 1, 2 or 3 and 22 percent by Models 4, 5 and 6 (see Figure 5). This predominance of
“lower-order models” implies distinct limitations when seeking to build evidence-based
knowledge on leadership practice, inform policymakers, or contribute to broader
theoretical development (Bridges, 1982; Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, 2005;
60
Percentage of Malaysian PIMRS Studies
50
40
30
20
10
18% 15% 45% 11% 8% 2%

0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Figure 5. Conceptual Model

Distribution of Notes: n =120. Model 1: univariate, descriptive; Model 2: antecedent
conceptual models effect; Model 3: direct leadership effect; Model 4: antecedent with
used in Malaysian
PIMRS studies direct leadership effect; Model 5: mediated leadership effect;
Model 6: mediated leadership effect with antecedent
Scheerens et al., 2012; Witziers et al., 2003). This pattern bears similarities to the early Principal
EDLM literature in the USA (Bridges, 1982) as well as to the broader EDLM literature instructional
reported in Asia (Hallinger and Bryant, 2013), Africa (Hallinger, 2017), and Arab societies leadership
(Oplatka and Arar, 2017).
As elaborated by Heck and Hallinger (2005), the choice of conceptual model interacts
with the selection of statistical methods. We followed previous reviewers of the EDLM
literature by adopting a four-level holistic rubric to organize the statistical tests used in the
Malaysian PIMRS corpus (see Bridges, 1982; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Hallinger, 2011;
Hallinger and Chen, 2015):
• Level 1: simple descriptive (e.g. mean, standard deviation).
• Level 2: bivariate correlational without controls (e.g. t-test, Pearson’s correlation).

• Level 3: bivariate correlational with single control (e.g. one-way analysis of variance).
• Level 4: multiple factor and advanced modeling (e.g. discriminant analysis,
MANOVA, multiple regression, structural equation modeling, factor analysis).
As shown in Figure 6, 50 percent of the studies employed Level 1 and Level 2 statistical
tests. Bridges (1982) pointed out that these statistical tests are limited in “explanatory
research.” For example, we identified a prevalent use of Level 2 statistics (e.g. t-tests,
Pearson’s correlation) in concert with Model 3 studies of direct leadership effects on a
second variable (e.g. student achievement). Yet neither t-tests nor Pearson’s correlation
test control for other sources of variance (e.g. student socio-economic status). Thus,
analysis of the pattern of research designs, conceptual models and statistical tests used
in the Malaysian PIMRS knowledge base suggest limitations in the potential for
contributing to the knowledge base.
Research foci
Next we analyzed trends with respect to the research foci within this body of Malaysian
PIMRS research. We categorized the variables (i.e. antecedent, independent, mediating,
dependent) and then analyzed how they were studied with respect to the conceptual models
and methods discussed above.
Antecedents of leadership. About 27 percent of the studies included antecedents of
instructional leadership. In total, 25 of the 120 studies included personal characteristics
of the principals in their analyses (see Table I). Gender of the principal was the only personal
characteristic studied with any degree of frequency (i.e. 11 studies). While a majority of
Multiple
Simple
Factor/Advanced
Descriptive
Modeling
10%
25%
Bivariate
Bivariate Correlation
Correlation 40%
with Control
25%
Figure 6.
Distribution of
statistical tests
used in Malaysian
PIMRS studies
Note: n=120
JEA Studies Conceptual model
Variables Total Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Antecedent variables
Administrative experience 5 2 3
Principal teaching experience 3 1 2
Principal gender 11 7 4
Principal self-efficacy 1 1
School size 2 1 1
School effectiveness 6 4 2
Other 12
Total 40 0 11 0 15 0 2
Independent variables
PIMRS 101 22 55 12 11 2
Mediating variables
School climate 2 1 1
Teacher attitudes 9 8 2
Other 4 3 1
Total 15 0 0 0 0 12 4
Dependent variables
PIMRS 18 18
School climate 7 6 1
School performance 13 8 3 1 1
Teacher attitude 37 27 5 4 1
Principal attitude 3 1 2
Teaching practices 13 11 2
Other 7
Table I.
Breakdown of Total 98 0 18 53 11 7 2
variables by kind, Notes: Model 1: univariate, descriptive; Model 2: antecedent effect; Model 3: direct leadership effect; Model 4:
frequency and antecedent with direct leadership effect; Model 5: mediated leadership effect; Model 6: mediated leadership
conceptual models effect with antecedent
these studies found positive differences in favor of stronger instructional leadership from
female principals, the correlations tended to be weak (e.g. Abdullah and Kassim, 2011;
Agalita, 2014; Jahet, 1998; Mannan et al., 2016; Nor Rida, 2012; Yusoh, 2003).
School context factors featured in 14 or 12 percent of the studies. Context variables
included school type (national school), school level, school location (urban/rural),
school size and school effectiveness. Consistent with trends reported in other parts of the
world (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011, 2017; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013), 71 percent
of the studies had been conducted in high schools, and only 23 percent in primary schools
(see Figure 7). Primary schools have often been characterized as providing more conducive
environments for principals to enact instructional leadership than secondary schools
(Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Thus, results obtained largely from secondary schools may offer
a distorted picture of instructional leadership practice in Malaysia. Moreover, none of the
studies explicitly sought to analyze differences in patterns of principal instructional leadership
in primary and secondary schools through Models 2, 4 or 6.
In terms of context variables, only school effectiveness was analyzed in more than two studies
(e.g. Genesan, 2008; Ismail, 2009; Ismail, 2011; Jaafar, 2004). Moreover, although we classified
school effectiveness as contextual antecedent, we will reserve our discussion of this variable for
later in the paper when we discuss the relationship of leadership to student outcomes.
Next, we analyzed the antecedent variables in terms of their implied conceptual models
(see Table I). We found that antecedent variables were most frequently studied within Model 2
District 1% Unknown Principal
Multi-level
2% 2% instructional
leadership
Primary
22% Middle
1%
High School
72%
Figure 7.
Distribution of
Malaysian PIMRS
studies by school level
Note: n =120
(11 studies) and Model 4 (15 studies); only two studies were categorized as Model 6 (Genesan,
2008; Ismail, 2011). Models 4 and 6 offer the advantage of being able to determine
not only whether differences in principal instructional leadership are related to antecedent
variables (e.g. gender), but also whether these differences are also associated with effects on
teachers, the school organization and/or school outcomes (Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011;
Hallinger and Heck, 1996).
Instructional leadership. Instructional leadership, as measured by the PIMRS, was the core
variable in this review. It was employed as an independent variable in 102 of the studies and as a
dependent variable in 18 studies (see Table I). Among the studies where the PIMRS was framed
as an independent variable, Model 3 was used most frequently (55), followed by Model 1 (22).
Model 1 studies described patterns of principal instructional leadership on the PIMRS
dimensions and/or functions among a sample of principals using either principal self-report
or teacher ratings (e.g. Johari, 2016; Salleh, 2014; Yaacob, 2009). The most salient finding
from these studies concerned the relative level of engagement of the principals on the three
PIMRS dimensions. Specifically, Malaysian principals in both primary and secondary
schools tended to be rated as most actively engaged in Defining a School Mission, followed
by Developing a Positive School Learning Climate, and finally, Managing the Instructional
Program. We will discuss Model 3 studies later in the section on “leadership effects.”
Two variants within Model 1 are worthy of note. “Role set” studies (Hallinger and Wang,
2015) typically used t-tests to determine if there were differences in the pattern of teacher
and principal ratings of the principals. These studies uniformly reported that principal
self-ratings tended to be higher than ratings obtained from teachers. Although we classified
this as a Model 1 design, it should be noted that this type of analysis was found in Model 1
(e.g. Jamelaa and Kassim, 2012; Lindong, 1998), Model 2 (Agalita, 2014; Hamid, 1989),
Model 3 (e.g. Jamelaa and Janaibee, 2012) and Model 4 studies (e.g. Abdullah, 2012). Findings
from these Malaysian role set studies were consistent with findings reported in the
international literature (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Wang, 2015).
A second variant of Model 1 was comprised of studies that examined how personal
characteristics of “teacher respondents” influenced their ratings of the principals’
instructional leadership (e.g. Daud et al., 2016; Sam, 2004; Walat, 2014). In these studies,
JEA the researchers collected data on the age, experience and/or gender of the teachers and then
analyzed if and how these variables were associated with their ratings of the principal(s)
on the PIMRS. No common patterns emerged from these studies.
Leadership effects on teachers, school organization and student learning. Dependent
variables of interest to the Malaysian scholars have included measures of school organization,
teacher attitudes and practices, and student performance (see Table I). Studies organized within
Models 3, 4, 5 and 6 seek to contribute toward understanding how principal instructional
leadership is associated with other salient features of the school. As noted earlier in Figure 6,
direct effects studies conceptualized as Models 3 or 4 were far more prevalent (56 percent) than
mediated effects studies conceptualized as Models 5 (8 percent) or 6 (2 percent). This scarcity of
higher-order mediated effects studies is a glaring weakness of the Malaysian PIMRS literature
(Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, 2005; Witziers et al., 2003).

Teacher attitudes that Malaysian scholars examined as dependent variables included
teacher commitment (21 studies; e.g. Ail et al., 2015; Genesan, 2008; Jaafar, 2004;
Kasmah, 2010; Rosdi, 2012; Ponnusamy, 2010; Sukarmin, 2010), teacher self-efficacy
(14 studies; e.g. Kasmah, 2010; Masitah and Alias, 2015; Sukarmin, 2010), teacher job
satisfaction (7 studies; e.g. Jaafar, 2004; Lee, 1991; Sukarmin, 2010), and teacher work
motivation (7 studies; e.g. Nasir and Mansor, 2001; Talip, 2010; Turut, 2010).
As indicated in Table I, there were four Model 5 studies and a single Model 6 study
that examined teacher attitudes as possible mediators of leadership effects on a third
variable such as another teacher attitude (Ismail, 2011; Sukarmin, 2010), teaching practices
(e.g. Dzulkifli and Talip, 2015), or student achievement (e.g. Genesan, 2008; Ponnusamy,
2010). Although almost all of the Model 5 and 6 studies of leadership effects on teacher
attitudes employed Level 4 statistical tests (e.g. multiple regression, SEM), the results of
these studies were inconsistent. Some found significant effects of principal instructional
leadership on teacher attitudes, while others did not.
Variables related to teacher performance and practice have been studied both as
dependent variables (Models 3 and 4) and as mediators of leadership effects on student
achievement. Malaysian researchers most frequently (ten studies) examined the direct
effects of principal instructional leadership on measures of teacher competency or
performance (Dzulkifli and Talip, 2015; Hussin, 2010; Ibrahim and Amin, 2014; Johari, 2016;
Yusof, 2016; Zaibon, 2013). Several studies investigated the relationship between
instructional leadership and the professional learning of teachers (Rodzi and
Mansor, 2016; Salamat, 2011; Wafir, 2011). In light of the recent emergence of “teacher
professional learning” as an important factor in the international literature, we would
expect to see more of these studies in the future (e.g. see Liu and Hallinger, 2017).
Given their abundance in the global EDLM literature we were surprised to find so few
studies of leadership effects on school climate, academic optimism, and school culture
(see Table I). School climate was studied as a mediator of instructional leadership in two
studies (Ismail, 2011; Lan, 2014) and as a dependent variable in seven studies (e.g. Mohamed,
2013; Othman, 2000; Sabtu, 2015; Walat, 2014; Yusoh, 2003). Findings were inconsistent.
Studies of leadership effects on school performance outcomes have assumed greater
importance in the context of expanding accountability systems throughout the world.
This Malaysian database contained six studies that examined leadership effects on school
effectiveness (e.g. Baharuddin and Pihie, 2013; Genesan, 2008; Ismail, 2009, 2011;
Ismail et al., 2011; Jaafar, 2004; Mohd Nor, 2005) and 13 that investigated leadership effects
on measures of school performance (e.g. Hatta, 2009; Othman, 2016; Ponnusamy, 2010;
Saidi, 2010; Sabit, 2013; Sam, 2004; Yaacob, 2009). In total, studies that sought to understand
leadership effects on school outcomes represented a rather small portion of the Malaysian
PIMRS corpus (i.e. 16 percent).
Moreover, this is another area where the prevalence of lower-order conceptual models Principal
and weak quantitative methods’ predominated. For example in the “school effectiveness instructional
studies” researchers typically identified a small sample of schools that varied in leadership
terms of effectiveness on student achievement (e.g. high and low effectiveness).
They collected data in the contrasting sets of schools with the PIMRS and then sought
to determine if differences in principal leadership were associated with differences in
school effectiveness.
Although this is an intuitively appealing research design, most of the studies compared
very small school samples (2 to 6 schools) and failed to control for other sources of variance
such as student socio-economic status. Even the largest sample of 20 schools collected
within this corpus (Genesan, 2008) did not meet recommended sample size requirements
(see Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Therefore, when reading these studies, it was difficult to
accept the authors’ conclusions that differences in school effectiveness were attributable to
differences in the instructional leadership of the principals.
Indeed, despite recommendations to use indirect effects models (i.e. Models 5 and 6) when
studying leadership effects on learning (see Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Heck and Hallinger,
2005), only two studies approximated this approach (Genesan, 2008; Ponnusamy, 2010).
Most studies of leadership effects on learning relied on direct effects Models 3 and 4
(e.g. Abu Samah, 2006; Hatta, 2009; Nor Rida, 2012; Quah, 2011; Sam, 2004; Wong, 2010).
Moreover, eight of the 13 studies sought to measure leadership effects on student
achievement using Level 2 statistics such as Pearson’s correlation test and t-tests
(e.g. Hatta, 2009; Quah, 2011; Sabit, 2013; Saidi, 2010; Sultan, 1998; Wong, 2010). These
tests are wholly inappropriate for use in this research (Hallinger and Heck, 1996;
Scheerens et al., 2012; Witziers et al., 2003).
Discussion
This review of research was undertaken in the belief that an in-depth, systematic analysis of
conceptual models and methods used in Malaysian scholarship on instructional leadership
would be useful in guiding future studies both in Malaysia and other developing societies.
In this section of the paper, we outline limitations of this review, interpret the main findings,
and discuss their implications.
Limitations
Notable limitations arise from the scope of the review defined by the authors. First, our
review did not seek to synthesize substantive findings reported across the 120 studies.
Although we mentioned some findings in passing, space limitations did not permit a
systematic review of conceptual and methodological issues as well as a synthesis of
substantive results in the same report.
Second, the paper focused solely on studies that had employed the PIMRS instrument.
This delimitation of review’s scope was justified by the large size of the PIMRS database in
Malaysia (i.e. 120 studies). Indeed, the global prevalence of PIMRS research enabled the
authors to compare trends in this study with trends reported in other reviews of PIMRS
research (e.g. Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Wang, 2015). This comparative dimension
added value to this review.
Fourth, although the authors went to considerable length to identify “all Malaysian
studies that had used the PIMRS,” it is possible – even likely – that we missed some. Lack of
a digital repository in Malaysia is compounded by university policies that “lock out” both
local and international scholars who might be interested in accessing master theses and
doctoral studies. This is a rather strange policy for universities in a nation that is intent on
increasing its research profile and impact internationally.
JEA Finally, it should be reaffirmed that it is not only principals who exercise instructional
leadership, but also vice principals, department heads and regular classroom teachers.
Although a few of the studies covered in this review did examine the practices of middle level
leaders, these alternate sources of instructional leadership also deserve attention in the future.
Interpretation of the findings

The first finding of note concerned the large volume of Malaysian scholarship that has used the
PIMRS in studies of principal instructional leadership. When compared with findings reported
by Hallinger and Wang (2015), the Malaysian corpus of PIMRS studies trails only the USA in
volume among the 35+ countries in which it has been used. Indeed, we estimate that the
Malaysian studies represents approximately 25 percent of the global corpus of PIMRS research.
It was further noted that 91 percent of these PIMRS studies had been conducted since
2005. We found that 73 percent of the studies (88) were conducted in master degree
programs offered in 14 different Malaysian institutions of higher education. These trends
highlight the expansion of higher education as well as the increased policy-relevance of
instructional leadership in Malaysia during this period (Bajunid, 2008; Jones et al., 2015).
It should be deemed a notable success in Malaysia’s national development that expanded
access to higher education has enabled young scholars to contribute toward the
development of a locally relevant knowledge base. Equally laudable is the fact that
these scholars were mostly practitioners whose research experience challenged them to
grapple with unfamiliar concepts.
At the same time, however, celebrations of this success should be tempered by
acknowledgment of limitations identified in this review. First, 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 and doctoral studies in either Bahasa Malay 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).
These design features of the Malaysian PIMRS studies handicap the capacity to make
significant contributions to either a Malaysian or global knowledge base on principal
instructional leadership. In 1982, Bridges highlighted similar weaknesses in the early
North American research on educational leadership. Although the studies reviewed in
this paper employed a well-validated research tool (i.e. the PIMRS), inadequacies in the
design of the studies limited the results.
During the course of this review, we only commented occasionally on the pattern
of substantive results of the Malaysian PIMRS studies. Even so, when considering the
substantive findings, three features stand out. First, even when results reported by
authors were accepted without consideration of the study’s quality, they were quite
inconsistent. Second, the authors tended to overstate their findings. So, for example,
a researcher might claim to have identified a positive relationship when the conceptual
model, research design, and statistical tests were not up to the task of making such a
determination. Finally, more broadly, our analysis found that the prevalence and
seriousness of conceptual and methodological weaknesses in the Malaysian PIMRS
literature limits their capacity for making meaningful contributions to knowledge.
Therefore, future efforts to synthesize substantive findings from these studies should be
approached with the utmost caution and careful attention to evaluating the quality of the
research before accepting these findings as valid.
Implications of the findings

A key goal of this review was to chart a more productive route for research on
instructional leadership in Malaysia going forward. In this regard, we note that recent
reviews of EDLM research conducted in developing societies of Asia and Africa have Principal
surfaced very similar trends in the use of conceptual models and methods (see Hallinger, instructional
2017; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013; Hallinger and Chen, 2015). Thus, our recommendations leadership
have implications beyond Malaysia.
Our first recommendation is that 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 programs that enable them to conduct “successful studies.” It seems
difficult to justify repetition of a model of graduate research that holds small promise
of generating usable knowledge for society, local or global. The author’s recent experience of
publishing with graduate students from developing societies in Iran, Thailand, Vietnam,
South Africa and China confirm that this weakness in graduate research preparation is not
limited to Malaysia. If, on the other hand, achieving a higher standard of knowledge
output is deemed impractical, then master and professional doctoral degree programs
should consider other practice-oriented designs for capstone projects rather than theses
(see Bridges and Hallinger, 1995; Hallinger, 2011; Murphy and Vriesenga, 2005).
In order to move this discussion from the abstract to the practical, we offer two
illustrations of research models that meet the quality standard implied above and which
seem within the reach of graduate students in developing societies. Hallinger et al. (2017)
recently reported results of a master-level study conducted in Iran that examined the
relationship of principal instructional leadership and teacher commitment. Notably,
this was a topic studied frequently in the Malaysian research (e.g. Ail et al., 2015;
Genesan, 2008; Jaafar, 2004; Rosdi, 2012; Sukarmin, 2010). In contrast with the
Malaysian studies that usually employed a Model 3 design, the Iranian study was
organized within a Model 6 framework. As shown in Figure 8, the authors conceptualized
principal self-efficacy as an antecedent of both principal instructional leadership and
collective teacher efficacy. In turn, principal instructional leadership and collective
teacher efficacy were conceptualized as independent and mediating variables in relation
to teacher commitment.
This multi-factor conceptual model (i.e. Model 6) offers potential for illuminating a
constellation of direct and mediated variable relationships with theoretically justifiable,
and practically useful implications for practice. A similar design could be used with
other antecedents (e.g. gender, instructional knowledge, urban/rural location), mediators
(e.g. collective teacher efficacy, academic optimism, school climate), and dependent variables
(e.g. teacher performance, teacher job satisfaction, student engagement with the school).
Principal Self- Principal

Efficacy Instructional
Leadership
Teacher
Commitment
Teacher Collective
Efficacy Figure 8.
Example of a
Model 6 study
Source: Adapted from Hallinger et al. (2017)
JEA In practical terms, only the need for a larger school level sample distinguishes
the data collection requirements of this study from those in the Malaysia database.
Statistical analysis for this type of study (e.g. ANOVA or regression analysis) does not
necessarily require more complex tests (e.g. SEM, HLM, CFA) or specialized software
(e.g. AMOS, Mplus). Moreover, the results have potential to inform local policy and practice,
contribute to global research, and achieve publication in international journals, as was the
case with the Hallinger et al. (2017) study.
Our second example highlights the added value and potential offered by mixed
methods studies. Analysis of qualitative data has largely untapped potential to enrich and
extend the findings of quantitative research with the PIMRS. Take, for example,
Abu Samah’s (2006) study that compared the instructional leadership of principals in four
rural schools of varying levels of effectiveness. The small sample size, in concert with the
lack of contrasting groups, and reliance on descriptive statistics limited the study’s
potential for unpacking the challenges of leading learning in rural schools. However, use
of qualitative data in a mixed methods research design with the same sample of four rural
schools could have both deepened and extended the pattern of quantitative findings
(as an example see Liu and Hallinger, 2017). We are confident that this type of mixed
methods, multi-site analysis has potential for contributing to local knowledge and
prospects for international publication.
This review devoted considerable space to the discussion of variables and
research foci. Before addressing these, however, we would like to highlight the value of
the conceptual framework employed in this review (see Figure 2). This framework,
adapted from Hallinger and Heck (1996), proved to be a valuable tool during the
analytical phase of the review and could be applied in other reviews of research on
educational leadership.
The most salient conclusion with respect to the body of antecedent effects studies
examined in this review was their relative scarcity. Whereas Hallinger’s (2011) cross-
national review of PIMRS studies found that 50 percent had incorporated antecedent
variables, only 25 percent of the Malaysian studies had done so. Moreover, the lack of a
critical mass of studies on any particular antecedent in this database reprises Bridges’ (1982)
characterization of EDLM research as a series of “intellectual random events.”
Studies of the personal characteristics of principals have too often been directed toward
the repetitive analysis of variables that either lack evidence of prior results or practical
relevance. Based on these criteria, administrator age, seniority, and years of administrative
experience may not warrant additional investigation. We suggest focusing on variables
such as principal gender (i.e. not teacher gender), principal self-efficacy, emotional
intelligence, autonomy and instructional knowledge/skill. These antecedent variables can be
measured reliably. Finally, when scholars choose to conduct antecedent effects studies,
we suggest employing Model 4 and 6 designs (see Figure 2).
Research on context-related antecedents of school leadership was very thin in this
literature and also deserves greater attention from Malaysian scholars. We recommend
that researchers focus on variables such as school location (e.g. urban/rural communities),
school level (i.e. primary schools vs high schools), and school size. We noted, for example,
a clear imbalance in the Malaysian database favoring studies of leadership in secondary
schools. This suggests a need not only for more studies of principal instructional
leadership in primary schools, but also studies that explicitly compare role enactment in
primary and secondary schools. Analyses of how these school contexts shape
instructional leadership will benefit greatly from mixed methods research designs as
described above.
More broadly, we opened this review with Bajunid’s (1996) challenge for EDLM scholars
to focus on the nexus of global and local contexts. Conspicuous by its absence
in this literature was “explicit” treatment of how the Malaysian social-institutional context Principal
(Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2016; Hallinger, 2016; Jones et al., 2015) influences principal instructional
instructional leadership. Researchers should do more to illuminate the Malaysian character leadership
of instructional leadership.
We also have suggestions for gaining additional value when examining data on the
instructional leadership of principals. First, we recommend the discontinuation of studies whose
main purpose is to compare teacher and principal perceptions of the principal’s instructional
leadership (see Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Although it may be of interest to include this
analysis in the body of a Model 3 (e.g. Jamelaa and Janaibee, 2012) or Model 4 study
(e.g. Abdullah, 2012), this no longer constitutes a worthy research question in and of itself
(e.g. Lindong, 1998; Jamelaa and Kassim, 2012). Similarly, we see no value in continuing studies
that focus on the characteristics of teacher respondents in relation to their assessments of the
principal (e.g. Daud et al., 2016; Sam, 2004; Walat, 2014). This represents a “dry well” devoid of
theoretical justification or policy implications.
Second, scholars should be more “intentional” when deciding which “construct level” of
the PIMRS to employ when analyzing their data, the full scale score, three dimensions and/
or the ten functions. Depending upon the nature of the research model, different patterns
of interest may emerge from the alternative levels of data analysis (see Hallinger and
Wang, 2015). In general, the ten-function level of analysis tends to be informative when the
researcher aims at “describing” patterns of instructional leadership practice. The full scale
score or the three-dimension structure is preferred when analyzing comprehensive models
(e.g. Models 4, 5, 6) due to their more parsimonious structures.
Although research into leadership effects on school performance is highly attractive
from a policy perspective, such studies often exceed the data collection and analytical
capacities of graduate students, especially master degree students. Most graduate-level
studies of leadership and school performance that we have examined, both for this and other
research reviews, fail to recognize critical assumptions embedded in the conceptual models
and research designs (see also Bridges, 1982; Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Heck, 1996;
Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Scheerens et al., 2012; Witziers et al., 2003). Researchers who seek
to study leadership effects on school performance must proceed carefully, and hopefully
with access to high level expertise and technical support.
Given the stringent requirements for studying leadership effects on student achievement,
we suggest that Malaysian scholars will generally find their time better spent on high value
teacher-related and school organization constructs. Teacher-related variables include trust,
commitment, job satisfaction, capacity, organizational citizenship behavior, professional
learning, teaching performance, and collective teacher efficacy. School organization
variables include school climate, school culture, academic optimism, school health, and
professional learning community. Again, the use the higher order models (i.e. Models 4 to 6)
will offer greater potential for illuminating these relationships.
In closing, this review has highlighted the evolution of knowledge construction
in the field of EDLM in Malaysia over the past several decades. While we have focused on
one subset of the literature, PIMRS studies of principal instructional leadership,
our findings have broader relevance. Many of the issues identified in this review reprise
challenges noted in reviews of EDLM research conducted in the USA from the 1960s
through the 1990s (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Hallinger and Heck, 1996), as well as more
recent reviews of EDLM research in the developing societies of East Asia (Hallinger and
Bryant, 2013) and Africa (Hallinger, 2017). Thus, we assert that the findings, implications,
and recommendations following from this review of research are neither limited to
scholars in Malaysia, nor to users of the PIMRS instrument. Rather we believe that these
findings hold relevance for EDLM scholars more broadly, and especially for those
conducting research and seeking to generate new knowledge in developing societies.
JEA References
Abas, Z. (1999), “Kepimpinan pengajaran di kalangan guru kanan mata pelajaran sekolah menengah daerah
kota tinggi: Satu Kajian”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Abdullah, J.B. (2012), “Amalan kepimpinan instruksional dan sikap terhadap perubahan dalam kalangan
pengetua sekolah menengah di Negeri Pahang”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor.
Abdullah, J.B. and Kassim, J. (2011), “Instructional leadership and attitude towards organizational
change among secondary schools principal in Pahang, Malaysia”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 3304-3309.
Abu Samah, M.A. (2006), “Kepemimpinan pengajaran pengetua dan pencapaian bahasa inggeris di
beberapa sekolah luar bandar di Jerantut, Pahang”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Agalita, J. (2014), “Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions on principals’ instructional management
behaviors in aboriginal schools”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Selangor.
Ail, N.M., Taib, M.R., Jaafar, H., Mohamed, W.A.R. and Omar, M.N. (2015), “Principals’ instructional
leadership and teachers’ commitment in three Mara junior science colleges (MJSC) in
Pahang, Malaysi”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 191, pp. 1848-1853.
Aziz, N.A.A., Foo, S.F., Hassan, A. and Asimiran, S. (2014), “Instructional leadership: validity and
reliability of PIMRS 22-item instrument”, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,
Vol. 8 No. 23, pp. 200-206.
Baharuddin, A. and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2013), “Amalan kepimpinan pengajaran mengikut kumpulan prestasi
sekolah”, dalam seminar pasca siswazah dalam pendidikan, GREDUC 2013, pp. 346-353.
Bajunid, I.A. (1996), “Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational
management: the evolving Malaysian experience”, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 50-73.
Bajunid, I.A. (2008), “The development of educational leaders in Malaysia: the creation of a professional
community”, in Johnson, D. and Maclean, R. (Eds), Teaching: Professionalization, Development
and Leadership, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 215-232.
Bellibas, M.S., Bulut, O., Hallinger, P. and Wang, W.C. (2016), “Developing a validated instructional
leadership profile of Turkish primary school principals”, International Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 75, pp. 115-173.
Bridges, E. (1982), “Research on the school administrator: the state-of-the-art, 1967-1980”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 12-33.
Bridges, E.M. and Hallinger, P. (1995), Implementing Problem based Learning in Leadership Development,
ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Bunyin, A.A. (2015), “Instructional leadership practices among elementary school principal in Malaysia: a
study of Kanowit District, Sarawak”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Che Mat, M.Y. (2013), “Amalan kepimpinan instruksional pengetua dalam pengurusan kurikulum di
Sebuah MRSM Terengganu”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Clarke, S. and O’Donoghue, T. (2016), “Educational leadership and context: a rendering of an
inseparable relationship”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Daud, Z., Daud, N., Ari, Z., Iskandar, S.M.K.T.M., Ismail, Z. and Kassim, A.B. (2016), “Essential
practices for instructional leadership in the implementation of elementary science and
technology education from preservice teachers’ perspective”, paper presented at the 6th
International Conference on Educational, Management, Administration and Leadership,
Bandung, West Java.
Dzulkifli, D.N.K. and Talip, R. (2015), “Instructional leadership, work motivation, and work
performance of history teachers in Sabah, Malaysia”, Jurnal Kajian Sejarah and Pendidikan
Sejarah, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 147-159.
Fromm, G., Hallinger, P., Volante, P. and Wang, W.C. (2016), “A validation study and cross-cultural Principal
comparison of principal instructional leadership using the PIMRS Spanish language form”, instructional
Educational Management Administration and Leadership, pp. 1-26, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1177/1741143215617948 leadership
Genesan, S. (2008), “Kepimpinan pengajaran dan komitmen guru besar ke atas prestasi akademik
pelajar di sekolah-sekolah tamil negeri Kedah Darul Aman”, unpublished master thesis,
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Gough, D. (2007), “Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of
evidence”, Research Papers in Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 213-228.
Hallinger, P. (1982/1990/2015), Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale, Leading Development,
Bangkok.
Hallinger, P. (1995), “Culture and leadership: developing an international perspective in education

administration”, UCEA Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-7.
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, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 271-306.
Hallinger, P. (2013), “A conceptual framework for reviews of research in educational leadership and
management”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 126-149.
Hallinger, P. (2016), “Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership”, Educational Management
Administration and Leadership, pp. 1-20, available at: https://doi.org/1741143216670652
Hallinger, P. (2017), “Revealing a hidden literature: a systematic research on educational leadership and
management in Africa”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694895
Hallinger, P. and Bryant, D.A. (2013), “Mapping the terrain of research on educational leadership and
management in East Asia”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 618-637.
Hallinger, P. and Chen, J. (2015), “Review of research on educational leadership and management in
Asia: a comparative analysis of research topics and methods, 1995-2012”, Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H. (1996), “Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of
empirical research, 1980-1995”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-44.
Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. (1985), “Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals”,
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 217-248.
Hallinger, P. and Walker, A.D. (2017), “Leading learning in Asia: emerging empirical insights from five
societies”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 130-146.
Hallinger, P. and Wang, W.C. (2015), Assessing Leadership for Learning with the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale, Springer, Dordrecht.
Hallinger, P., Li, D. and Wang, W.C. (2016), “Gender differences in principal instructional leadership:
a meta-analytic review of studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale
(PIMRS)”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 567-601.
Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh, R., Hashemi, N. and Kouhsari, M. (2017), “Do beliefs make a
difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher
efficacy and commitment in Iran”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership.
Hamid, A.A.T. (1989), “Peranan pengetua dalam kepimpinan pengajaran”, unpublished master thesis,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (Malay).
Hatta, M. (2009), “The practice of instructional leadership among principals in Aceh and its relationship
with students’ academic achievement”, unpublished master thesis, International Islamic
University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Heck, R.H. and Hallinger, P. (2005), “The study of educational leadership and management: where does
the field stand today?”, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 229-244.
JEA Hussin, K.E.C.C.C.B. (2010), “Hubungan kepemimpinan pengajaran pengetua dan kompetensi guru
sekolah menengah, Kuala Lumpur”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Ibrahim, M.Y. and Amin, A. (2014), “Model kepemimpinan pengajaran pengetua dan kompetensi
pengajaran guru”, Jurnal Kurikulum dan Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Ismail, M.Z. (2009), “Amalan kepimpinan instruksional pengetua sekolah menengah berprestasi tinggi
dengan sekolah menengah berprestasi rendah di Daerah Kota Setar Kedah Darul Aman”,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Ismail, W.R.W. (2011), “Korelasi Amalan kepemimpinan pengajaran pemimpin pertengahan dengan
iklim sekolah, sikap kerja guru dan komitmen organisasi di Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan”,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Ismail, W.R.W., Kassim, M., Abdul, I.P.G.K.S. and Darulaman, H.K. (2015), “Amalan kepemimpinan
pengajaran penolong kanan kurikulum, iklim sekolah, sikap kerja guru dan komitmen
organisasi di Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan”, Pedagogik-Pendas, 457 (Malay).
Jaafar, H.M.N. (2004), “Kepemimpinan pengajaran guru besar, komitmen dan kepuasan kerja guru:
satu kajian perbandingan dan hubungan antara sekolah berkesan dengan sekolah kurang
berkesan”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
Jahet, R. (1998), “Perceived instructional leadership roles of principals of secondary schools in Sarawak,
Malaysia”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak.
Jamelaa, B.A. and Janaibee, M.K. (2012), “Mengurus program instruksional dan sikap terhadap
perubahan dalam kalangan pengetua sekolah menengah negeri Pahang”, Jurnal Teknologi
(Social Sciences), Vol. 59, pp. 71-77 (Malay).
Jamelaa, B.A. and Kassim, J. (2012), “Promoting learning environment among the Islamic school
principals in the state of Pahang, Malaysia”, Multicultural Education and Technology Journal,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 100-105.
Johari, A.Z.A. (2016), “A case study: instructional leadership on teaching quality in new curriculum in
one of MRSM in Perak”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Jones, M., Adams, D., Tan, M., Vasu, M., Perera, C.J. and Harris, A. (2015), “Contemporary challenges
and changes: principals’ leadership practices in Malaysia”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 353-365.
Kasmah, A. (2010), “Pengaruh kepimpinan instruksional dan hubungannya dengan komitmen dan
efikasi guru sekolah gred a dan b di Kota Kinabalu: Satu tinjauan”, unpublished master thesis,
Lan, S.G. (2014), “The relationships between instructional leadership behavior, school climate and
teacher efficacy in secondary schools in Kedah”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Lee, C.N. (1991), “Kepimpinan instruksi dan pencerapan pengajaran di sekolah-sekolah daerah hulu
langat”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor.
Leithwood, K. (2005), “Understanding successful principal leadership: progress on a broken front”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 619-629.
Lindong, L. (1998), “Perceptions of instructional leadership behaviour of school principals, Sarawak”,
unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan.
Liu, S. and Hallinger, P. (2017), “Teacher development in rural China: how ineffective school leadership
fails to make a difference”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, doi: 10.1080/
13603124.2017.1294266.
Mahput, Z. (2014), “Amalan kepimpinan instruksional di maktab rendah sains mara negeri sembilan
darul khusus”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Mannan, F., Hoque, K.E., Veeriah, J. and Sharma, S. (2016), “Predictive validity of gender and
experience of teachers into Malaysian women principal’s instructional leadership practices”,
Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 52-67.
Masitah, M.Y. and Alias, M.K. (2015), “The relationship between instructional leadership and Principal
self-efficacy in environmental education among Malaysian secondary school teachers”, instructional
International Academic Research Journal of Social Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
leadership
Mertkan, S., Arsan, N., Inal Cavlan, G. and Onurkan Aliusta, G. (2016), “Diversity and equality in
academic publishing: the case of educational leadership”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative
and International Education, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 46-61.
Mohamed, M.F. (2015), “Principal instructional leadership practices in a MARA college”, unpublished
master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Mohamed, N. (2013), “Hubungan antara kepimpinan instruksional dan iklim sekolah di Sekolah
Kebangsaan Zon Batu Anam Segamat”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Mohd Nor, J. (2005), “Kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar, komitmen dan kepuasan kerja guru: satu
kajian perbandingan dan hubungan antara sekolah berkesan dengan sekolah kurang
berkesan”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Jurnal Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Bahagian
Perancangan dan Penyelidikan Dasar Pendidikan, Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Georgetown.
Muhamad, S. (2015), “Exploring a principal leadership style at a MARA college in the northern region”,
unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Muhammad, L. (2006), “Pelaksanaan kepemimpinan pengajaran di kalangan pengetua sekolah di
Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan”, unpublished thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor.
Murphy, J. and Vriesenga, M. (2005), “Developing professionally anchored dissertations: lessons from
innovative programs”, School Leadership Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-57.
Nasir, A.J.M. and Mansor, M.I. (2001), “Persepsi guru-guru terhadap kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua:
Satu tinjauan di sekolah-sekolah menengah daerah batu pahat”, unpublished master thesis,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Ng, F.S.D., Nguyen, T.D., Wong, K.S.B. and Choy, K.W.W. (2015), “Instructional leadership practices in
Singapore”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 388-407.
Nor Rida, A. (2012), “Hubungan kepimpinan instruksional pengetua terhadap pencapaian akademik”,
unpublished master thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Oplatka, I. (2004), “The principalship in developing countries: context, characteristics and reality”,
Comparative Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 427-448.
Oplatka, I. and Arar, K. (2017), “The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab
world since the 1990s: a systematic review”, Review of Education, pp. 1-41, doi: 10.1002/rev3.3095.
Othman, M.M.R. (2000), “Hubungan kepimpinan instruksional dengan iklim sekolah”, unpublished
master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Othman, Z. (2016), “Kepimpinan instruksional guru besar di sekolah Kurang Murid”, unpublished
doctoral dissertation thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Ponnusamy, P. (2010), “The relationship of instructional leadership, teachers’ organizational
commitment and students’ achievement in small schools”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Quah, C.S. (2011), “Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools in Malaysia”,
Educational Research, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 1784-1800.
Rodzi, R.M. and Mansor, M. (2016), “The relationship of instructional leadership with professional
learning practices in high prestige school in Selangor”, Proceedings of ADVED 2016 2nd
International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences, Istanbul, October 10-12.
Rosdi, S.B.H. (2012), “Instructional management of head teachers and its relation to teachers’ commitment
to teaching work”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Selangor.
Sabit, N. (2013), “Hubungan kepemimpinan instruksional dengan pencapaian murid pendidikan Islam
Program J-Qaf”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabulu.
JEA Sabtu, N.Z. (2015), “Head academic officers’ instructional leadership and institution culture in Mara
professional colleges”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Saidi, S. (2010), “Tahap amalan kepimpinan pengajaran dalam kalangan guru besar sekolah rendah:
Satu kajian di Daerah Penampang”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Salamat, Z. (2011), “Kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua dan amalan komuniti pembelajaran profesional
di sebuah sekolah di Putrajaya”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Salleh, M.J. (2014), “Best practice of framing and communicating school goals among principals
of cluster secondary schools towards realization of Malaysian education blueprint
2013-2025”, The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, Vol. 1 No. 6,
pp. 458-466.
Sam, K.M. (2004), “Peranan guru besar sebagai pemimpin pengajaran di sekolah berkesan: persepsi
guru di Sebuah Sekolah Rendah Kepong”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur.
Scheerens, J., Hendriks, M. and Steen, R. (2012), School Leadership Effects Revisited: Review and
Meta-Analysis of Empirical Studies, Springer, Dordrecht.
Sukarmin (2010), “Hubungan tingkah laku kepimpinan pengajaran guru besar dengan keafiatan
sekolah, komitmen organisasi, efikasi dan kepuasan guru sekolah rendah di Surakarta”,
unpublished master thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Sultan, Z. (1998), “Persepsi guru-guru kanan terhadap gelagat kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua
sekolah-sekolah menengah daerah bentong, Pahang Darul Makmur”, unpublished master
thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Talip, B. (2010), “Hubungan kepimpinan instruksional pengetua dengan efikasi kendiri guru di
sekolah menengah di Daerah Saratok, Sarawak”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Utara
Malaysia, Kedah.
Turut, R. (2010), “Kemahiran kepimpinan instruksional guru besar dan hubungannya dengan motivasi
kerja guru”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Wafir, N. (2011), “The role of the principal’s leadership in contributing towards the professional
development of teachers in schools”, unpublished master thesis, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham.
Walat, A. (2014), “The relationship between principals’ instructional leadership behavior and school
climate in secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti
Teknologi Mara, Selangor.
Walker, A.D. and Dimmock, C. (2002), “Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries:
developing a cross-cultural approach”, in Leithwood, K. and Hallinger, P. (Eds),
Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Springer,
Dordrecht, pp. 167-204.
Walker, A.D. and Hallinger, P. (2015), “A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in
East Asia”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 554-570.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R.J. and Krüger, M.L. (2003), “Educational leadership and student achievement:
the elusive search for an association”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 398-425.
Wong, Y.N. (2010), “Instructional leadership in Malaysia”, unpublished master thesis, Open University
of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Yaacob, M. (2009), “Kepimpinan pengajaran pengetua di sebuah sekolah menengah di Pasir Puteh,
Kelantan”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Yusof, Y. (2016), “Instructional leadership of MRSM principal in elevating teachers’ professionalism”,
unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Yusoh, H. (2003), “Hubungan antara kepemimpinan pengajaran pengetua wanita dengan iklim
sekolah”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
Zaibon, S. (2013), “Kepimpinan instruksional pengarah kolej kemahiran tinggi mara dalam Principal
peningkatan profesionalisme pensyarah”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti Malaya, instructional
Kuala Lumpur.
Zailah, J. (2007), “Hubung kait kesibukan pengetua dengan tahap kepimpinan pengajaran yang
leadership
diamalkan di sekolah menengah di Zon Bandar Muar”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
Zamzam, A. and Mansor, M.I. (1999), “Kepimpinan pengajaran di kalangan guru kanan mata pelajaran
sekolah menengah daerah kota tinggi satu kajian”, unpublished master thesis, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
About the authors

Dr Philip Hallinger is the Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation Chair Professor of

Leadership in the Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership, College of Management, Mahidol
University (Thailand), and a Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg (South Africa). He was a Chief Co-editor of
the Journal of Educational Administration from 2010 to 2017. Dr Philip Hallinger is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: hallinger@gmail.com
Dr Donnie Adams is a Senior Lecturer in the Institute of Educational Leadership at the University
of Malaya (Malaysia). He was a recipient of the University of Malaya’s Excellence Award in 2016 for
his dissertation research.
Dr Alma Harris FRSA is a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy in the Department of
Education, University of Bath. She is Editor of School Leadership and Management. She was formerly
the Director of the Institute of Educational Leadership at the University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Dr Michelle Suzette Jones is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy in the
Department of Education, University of Bath. She was formerly the Deputy Director (Development and
International) of the Institute of Educational Leadership at the University of Malaya, Malaysia.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Hallinger 2017 Review of Conceptual Models and Methodologies in Research on Principal Instructional Leadership in Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hallinger 2017 Review of Conceptual Models and Methodologies in Research on Principal Instructional Leadership in Malaysia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hallinger 2017 Review of Conceptual Models and Methodologies in Research on Principal Instructional Leadership in Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Educational Administration

Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal

To cite this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

principal instructional leadership

Defines a School Manages the Develops a Positive

Maintains High Figure 1.

dimensions/functions, and/or compare teachers’ and principals’ perceptions

Antecedent Variable(s) Dependent Variable(s)

120 PIMRS studies conducted in Malaysia between 1989 and 2016.

Measurement properties of the PIMRS in Malaysia

Research designs, conceptual models and methods

Conference, 9% Master, 68%

18% 15% 45% 11% 8% 2%

Figure 5. Conceptual Model

• Level 2: bivariate correlational without controls (e.g. t-test, Pearson’s correlation).

(Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Leithwood, 2005; Witziers et al., 2003).

Interpretation of the findings

Implications of the findings

Principal Self- Principal

Hallinger, P. (1995), “Culture and leadership: developing an international perspective in education

About the authors

Dr Philip Hallinger is the Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation Chair Professor of

You might also like