Relationship of Teachers’ Professional

Development and their Leadership with

School Improvement in District Lodhran and
Bahawalpur

Student No.

Supervisor
 Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Literature Review
• Significance of the Study
• Statement of the Problem
• Objectives of the Study
• Null Hypotheses
• Research Methodology
• Population
• Sample
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
• Findings
• Conclusion
• Recommendations
 Introduction
Professional development practices expand new ideas by which
teachers gain knowledge to promote one’s skill, creating
network and establishing relationships but also self insight and
a variety of competencies. The ultimate goal of teachers’
professional development in school is to understand the
students’ knowledge and teaching.
Teachers’ professional development enhances teachers’
information about content knowledge or content values and
teaching methods, classroom management and assessment
techniques. It is considered as an important factor or
component policies and practices to increase the quality of
teaching and learning in schools. As a result, there is a wide
interest in research that indentifies characteristics of successful
professional learning.
 Conti…
Factors those attract teachers to professional development are their
faith that it will increase their content knowledge and
competencies, add to their personal development and increase
their efficiency and effectiveness with students.
Teachers’ leadership or distributed leadership means when
responsibilities are shared among all teachers in school.
Teachers’ leadership is the ability to encourage colleagues to
change, to do things they would not ordinarily consider without
the influence of the leader. In this sense, teachers considered
themselves as a part of the change and development and have a
sense of ownership.
School improvemrent is an approach that enhances the students’
achievement, and strengthens the school’s capacity to manage.
 Theoretical Foundations for Research

The theoretical framework for this study was grounded in the

theories of distributed leadership developed by Spillane (2006)
and Elmore (2000); and the theory of school improvement
developed by Bolman and Deal (2003). These frameworks
were chosen for this study based on their prominence in their
respective subject areas.
 Spillane’s Theoretical Framework
Spillane (2006) asserts that what is paramount in the distributive
perspective is the collective interactions between leaders,
followers, and their situation. Within Spillane's (2006)
framework, leadership does not reside solely in the principal's
office but instead within multiple leaders throughout the
school who assume formal and informal roles and
responsibility for leadership activities.
Within the distributed leadership framework, the principal is not
always the authority figure at the centre. The followers are a
defining element of leadership activity, shaping it from the
inside out rather than the outside in (Spillane, 2006).
 Statement of the Problem
The present study was designed to investigate the relationship
among teachers’ professional development and their leadership
with school improvement. Teachers’ professional development
and teachers’ leadership are considered major factors to
achieve the today’s educational demands. There are many
researches available on teachers’ professional development
and school improvement but the researcher did not find any
large scale study on the relationship among these three
variables. That is why researcher intended to conduct his
M.Phil. Study.
 Objectives of the Study
Objective of the study were to:
1 Find out the relationship among teachers’ professional
development, their leadership and school improvement in
district Lodhran and Bahawalpur at secondary school level.
2 Investigate gender-wise difference among teachers’
professional development, their leadership and school
improvement at secondary school level.
3 Investigate teachers’ qualification and experience-wise and
training-wise difference among teachers’ professional
development, their leadership and school improvement.
4 Investigate district-wise difference among teachers’
professional development, their leadership and school
improvement.
 Null Hypotheses
Following hypotheses were designed to achieve the objectives of
the study;
1. There is no statistically significant relationship between
teachers’ professional development and school improvement.
2. There is no statistically significant relationship between
teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
3. There is no statistically significant relationship between
teachers’ professional development and teachers’ leadership.
4. There is no statistically significant gender-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and school
improvement.
5. There is no statistically significant gender-wise difference
between teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
 Conti..
6. There is no statistically significant gender-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and teachers’
leadership.
7. There is no statistically significant qualification-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and school
improvement.
8. There is no statistically significant qualification-wise difference
between teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
9. There is no statistically significant qualification-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and teachers’
leadership.
10. There is no statistically significant experience-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and school
improvement.
 Conti..
11.There is no statistically significant experience-wise difference
between teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
12.There is statically significant experience-wise difference
between teachers ‘professional development and teachers’
leadership.
13.There is no statistically significant training-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and school
improvement.
14.There is no statistically significant training-wise difference
between teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
15.There is no statistically significant training-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and teachers’
leadership.
 Conti..
16.There is no statistically district-wise difference between
teachers’ professional development and school improvement.
17.There is no statistically significant district-wise difference
between teachers’ leadership and school improvement.
18.There is no statistically significant district-wise difference
between teachers’ professional development and teachers’
leadership.
 Significance of the Study
This study has been designed to investigate the relationship
among teachers’ professional development and their leadership
with school improvement at secondary school level.
The study may contribute to the existing knowledge about
importance of various elements of professional development
and how teachers in the Pakistan now a days are developed
professionally. The results of this study might provide useful
information to policy makers and Quaid-e-Azam Academy for
Educational Development (QAED) for introducing suitable
programs for professional development of teachers.
 Conti..
This study will also give some recommendations
about teachers’ professional development and school
improvement in Boys and Girls public schools at
secondary level in Lodhran and Bahawalpur districts.
The findings of the present research will best
practices, which may be useful for teachers and
district education managers for policy formulation.
The results of the study may also provide valuable
suggestions that the teachers’ professional
development, their leadership to school improvement
has vital role to achieve the school improvement and
to train the teachers.
 Delimitations of the Study
Owing to time and financial constraints, the study was delimited
to the public sector secondary schools of district Lodhran and
Bahawalpur.
 Research Methodology
Research Paradigm and Design

The present research study was:

• Quantitative
• Correlational research design

The study, therefore, employed Positivist research

Paradigm.
 Population
The population of present research was consisted of
2139 male & female teachers of public secondary
schools in district Lodhran and 4668 male & female
teachers of public sector secondary schools in district
Bahawalpur. The total population of both districts
were consisted of 6807 male and female teachers of
public sector schools.
 District Lodhran Population

Boys HSS =06 Girls HSS =08

High Schools =58 High Schools =
Total Schools =64 37
Total School=
45

Total School
(Boys and Girls)= 109

Total Teachers ( Male

and Female ) 2139
 District Bahawalpur Population

Boys HSS =11 Girls HSS =11

High Schools =104 High Schools
Total Schools =115 =98
Total =109

Total School
(Boys and Girls)= 224

Total Teachers ( Male

and female ) 4668

Total Teachers of both District (2139+4668)= 6807

 Sample of the Study
Sample of the study was drawn at two steps.
Step I:
At first step, 20 % Boys’ schools (13) and 20 % Girls ‘schools(9)
schools from district Lodhran, and 20 % Boys schools (23)
and 20 % Girls’ schools (21) from district Bahawalpur were
selected as sample using the Proportionate stratified random
sampling technique. The sample was comprised of 66 schools
from both districts.
Step II:
At second step, 20 % male teachers (54) and 20 % female
teachers (38) from district Lodhran and 20 % male teachers
(105) and 20 % female teachers (129) from district
Bahawalpur were selected by using simple random sampling
technique. The total 326 male and female teachers from both
districts were selected as sample of this study.
 District Lodhran Sample District Bahawalpur Sample

First Step 20% Schools First Step 20% Schools

Boys Schools 64* 20/100= 13 Boys Schools 115*20/100=23
Girls Schools 45*20/100 = 09 Girls Schools 109*20/100=21
Total School 22 Total School 44

Second Step 20% Teachers Second Step 20% Teachers

Male Teachers 270*20/100 =54 Male Teachers 524*20/100 = 105
Female Teachers 191*20/100 =38 Female Teachers 646*20/100 =129
Total Teachers = 92 Total Teachers = 234

Total Sample=(92+234)=326 teachers

Instrument Development and Validation
Two questionnaires were used for data collection.
The first questionnaire was Teachers’ Professional
Development Questionnaire which adopted (Hoque et al.,
2010). The major constructs of teachers’ professional
development were Teachers’ Collaboration, In-service
Training, Classroom Observation, Action Enquiry, Curricular
Focus, and Study. Instrument was piloted on 26 teachers
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of reliability was .71.
 Contd.
The second questionnaire Teachers’ Leadership
Questionnaire was also adopted Dampson (2018).
The constructs to measure Teachers’ Leadership
were, Coherent Leadership Team; Distributed
Leadership Collaboration; Promotion of
Collaborative School Culture and Distribution of
Leadership Responsibilities. Instrument was piloted
on 26 teachers Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of
reliability was .76.
 Cont….
• The documents were also analyzed to know the
frequency of training courses teachers have attended,
the duration and themes of training, school
improvement plans, minutes of meetings conducted
in the schools, teachers’ participation in workshops
and seminars, meetings conducted by school council,
students’ last five years’ results of grade 9 and 10
under the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary
Education, Multan and Bahawalpur.
 Conti..
• The instruments were developed under the guidance
and supervision of supervisor, however, to assure
validity of each instrument through opinion of four
educationists who were experts in their fields. The
questionnaires were developed by using clear
language, which was relevant to experiences and
qualification of teachers.
• The questionnaires contained two main sections: 1)
Teachers’ demographic variables; (teachers’ gender,
experience, qualifications, school category etc.), 2)
items at five point Likert type scale which included
items containing relevant constructs as mentioned
above.
 Reliability of Instruments
• The reliability of instruments was measured by using
Cronbach’s Alpha after piloting the questionnaires in
two of secondary schools (each from Girls’ and Boys’
schools) from both districts.
• The questionnaires were administered to 6 male
teachers and 5 female teachers from district Lodhran
and 7 male teachers and 6 female teachers from
district Bahawalpur. While taking the actual sample of
the study these schools were excluded. Reliability of
the instruments was mentioned in the following table.
 Reliability of Instruments
Instruments Cronbach’s Alpha
Teacher Professional .71
Development
Teacher Leadership .76
 Data Collection and Ethical Consideration

• Two questionnaires were administered by the

researcher personally to sampled teachers who were
teaching at secondary level to collect the data.
• The relevant documents available in the schools were
reviewed for seeking information pertaining to
teachers’ professional development and school
improvement.
 Conti..
The teachers were asked to read questionnaires
clearly, and ask freely to the researcher if they find
any difficulty in statements. Furthermore , teachers
were assured that the information given by them will
be kept confidential and used for research purpose
only. Researcher collected the data from teachers of
the sampled schools by seeking the due permission
from schools’ heads.
 Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistical Technique
• Frequency
• Mean
• Standard Deviation

Inferential Statistical Technique

• ANOVA
• Independent sample t-test
• Pearson Product Moment (r)
Correlation Between Teachers’ Professional Development and School Improvement

Professional
Development
School Improvement Pearson Correlation .378(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 278
Correlation Between Teachers’ Leadership and School Improvement

Teacher Leadership

School Improvement Pearson Correlation .621(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 278
Correlation Between Teachers’ Professional Development and Their Leadership

Leadership
Professional Development Pearson Correlation .252(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 280

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed).

Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on their Academic Qualification Basis

Academic t-value
Factors N M SD Sig.
Qualification

Teachers’ Collaboration M.Sc./M.A 276 27.15 1.385 1.174 .250

M.Phil. 2 26.00 .000

In- service Training M.Sc./M.A 276 35.90 3.449 .984 .958

M.Phil. 2 33.50 2.121

Action Enquiry M.Sc./M.A 276 22.60 3.378 .045 .775

M.Phil. 2 22.50 .707

Classroom Observation M.Sc./M.A 273 22.44 1.423 .-.056 .542

M.Phil. 2 22.50 .707

Curricular Focus M.Sc./M.A 273 22.45 1.355 .2.539 .125

M.Phil. 2 20.00 2.828 .

Study M.Sc./M.A 273 22.45 1.274 -1.717 .156

M.Phil. 2 24.00 .000

Total M.Sc./M.A 276 152.28 10.116 .528 .833

M.Phil. 2 148.50 4.949
Teachers’ Average Scores Difference on the Basis Of Their Professional Qualification
Professional
Factors n M SD t-value Sig
Qualification
Teachers’ Collaboration B.Ed. 119 27.37 1.104 2.418 .363
M.Ed. 158 26.97 1.547
In-service Training B.Ed. 119 35.69 1.782 -.910 .503
M.Ed. 158 36.07 4.264
Action Enquiry B.Ed. 119 22.83 4.968 .950 .149
M.Ed. 158 22.44 1.175
Classroom Observation B.Ed. 118 22.42 1.504 -.217 .218
M.Ed. 156 22.46 1.364
Curricular Focus B.Ed. 118 22.29 1.445 -1.514 .473
M.Ed. 156 22.55 1.326
Study B.Ed. 118 22.35 1.323 -1.212 .977
M.Ed. 156 22.54 1.240
Total B.Ed. 119 152.42 9.789 .182 .979
M.Ed. 158 152.19 10.368
 Teachers’ Means Score Difference on the Basis of School Category
Factors School n M SD t-value Sig.
Teachers’ Collaboration Boys 135 27.28 1.509 1.585 .159
Girls 145 27.02 1.238
In-service Training Boys 135 35.74 2.093 -.663 .973
Girls 145 36.02 4.326
Action Enquiry Boys 135 22.44 1.704 -.800 .792
Girls 145 22.76 4.365
Classroom Observation Boys 135 22.31 1.552 -1.609 .335
Girls 142 22.58 1.267
Curricular Focus Boys 135 22.42 1.590 -.212 .021
Girls 142 22.46 1.140
Study Boys 135 22.51 1.465 .531 .055
Girls 142 22.42 1.067
Total Boys 135 152.72 6.430 .694 .210
Girls 145 151.88 12.544
Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on the their Teaching Experience Basis
Factors Experience in years N M SD f Sig.
Teachers’ Collaboration 1-4 89 27.15 1.086 9.862 .873

5-7 101 27.13 1.378

8-24 89 27.15 1.636

Total 280 27.14 1.379

1-4 89 35.92 1.391 2.417 .410

In-service Training 5-7 101 35.54 1.982
8-24 89 36.28 5.528

Total 280 35.88 3.432

1-4 89 22.49 1.119 4.300 .440

5-7 101 22.32 1.806

Action Enquiry 8-24 89 23.06 5.511
Total 280 22.61 3.355

1-4 88 22.64 1.072 .586 .026

5-7 101 22.27 1.662

8-24 87 22.49 1.362

Classroom Observation Total 277 22.45 1.417

1-4 88 22.46 1.049 3.412 .727

5-7 101 22.43 1.486

8-24 87 22.42 1.537

Total 277 22.44 1.375 .586

Curricular Focus 1-4 88 22.57 1.058 .617

5-7 101 22.34 1.284

8-24 87 22.50 1.461

Total 277 22.46 1.275 3.412

Total 1-4 89 152.50 8.873 .891

5-7 101 152.06 5.869

8-24 89 152.41 14.228

Total 280 152.29 10.062

 Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on Gender Basis

Factors Gender N M SD t-value Sig.

Teachers’ Collaboration Male 136 27.28 1.505 1.659 .154
Female 144 27.01 1.240
In-service Training Male 136 35.75 2.086 -.659 .987
Female 144 36.02 4.341
Action Enquiry Male 136 22.45 1.703 -.750 .792
Female 144 22.75 4.379
Classroom Observation Male 136 22.32 1.553 -1.476 .330
Female 141 22.57 1.266
Curricular Focus Male 136 22.42 1.585 -.251 .024
Female 141 22.46 1.143
Study Male 136 22.50 1.460 .487 .060
Female 141 22.43 1.071
Total Male 136 152.75 6.412 .738 .199
Female 144 151.86 12.584
 Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on District Basis

Factors District N M SD t-value Sig.

Teachers’ Collaboration Lodhran 81 27.23 1.614 .681 .050

Bahawalpur 199 27.11 1.274

In-service Training Lodhran 81 36.29 5.743 1.267 .095

Bahawalpur 199 35.72 1.783

Action Enquiry Lodhran 81 23.01 5.806 1.279 .158

Bahawalpur 199 22.44 1.465

Classroom Observation Lodhran 80 22.30 1.562 -1.132 .286

Bahawalpur 197 22.51 1.353

Curricular Focus Lodhran 80 22.28 1.552 -1.236 .060

Bahawalpur 197 22.51 1.296

Study Lodhran 80 22.45 1.395 -.160 .267

Bahawalpur 197 22.47 1.227

Total Lodhran 81 152.75 12.507 .488 .331
Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on their Academic Qualification Basis

Academic
Factors N M SD t-value Sig.
Qualification
M.A/M.Sc. -1.388
Coherent Leadership Team 272 36.34 1.747 .867
M.Phil.
M.Phil. 2 38.00 1.414
Distributed Leadership M.A/M.Sc. .629
272 27.16 1.492 .535
Collaboration M.Phil.
2 26.50 .707
Promotion of Collaborative M.A/M.Sc. -.492
274 35.99 2.889 .768
School Culture M.Phil.
2 37.00 1.414
Distribution of Leadership M.A/M.Sc. .425
272 36.01 1.721 .621
Responsibilities M.Phil.
2 35.50 .707
Total M.A/M.Sc. 274 134.79 9.563 -.326 .584

M.Phil. 2 137.00 1.414

Teachers’ Means’ Score Difference on Their Professional Qualification Basis

Professional
Factors N M SD t-value Sig
Qualification
Coherent Leadership Team B.Ed. 117 36.29 1.921 -.439 .880
M.Ed. 156 36.38 1.612
Distributed Leadership .211
B.Ed. 117 27.17 1.256 .218
Collaboration
M.Ed. 156 27.14 1.647
Promotion of Collaborative -.933
B.Ed. 119 35.80 3.742 .050
School Culture
M.Ed. 156 36.13 2.003
Distribution of Leadership -.803
B.Ed. 117 35.91 1.941 .098
Responsibilities
M.Ed. 156 36.08 1.532
Total B.Ed. 119 133.52 13.43 -1.923 .012
M.Ed. 156 135.74 4.622
 Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on School Category Basis

Factors School N M SD Sig.

t-value
Coherent Leadership Team Boys 131 36.09 2.041 -2.304 .184
Girls 145 36.57 1.387
Distributed Leadership -2.030
Boys 131 26.96 1.612 .924
Collaboration
Girls 145 27.33 1.343
Promotion of Collaborative -.418
Boys 131 35.92 2.175 .362
School Culture
Girls 147 36.06 3.379
Distributions of Leadership -1.619
Boys 131 35.83 1.924 .151
Responsibilities
Girls 145 36.17 1.478
Total Boys 131 134.83 5.312 .038 .135
Girls 147 134.78 12.083
Teachers’ Means Score Difference on the Basis of Teaching Experiences

Experience in
Factors N M SD F Sig.
Years
Coherent Leadership Team 1-4 88 35.70 2.2291 9.862 .000
5-7 95 36.54 1.4858
8-24 93 36.76 1.2282
Total 276 36.35 1.7424
Distributed Leadership Collaboration 1-4 88 26.92 1.5845 2.417 .091
5-7 95 27.40 1.3160
8-24 93 27.13 1.5293
Total 276 27.15 1.4856
Promotion of Collaborative School
1-4 89 35.32 3.3769 4.300 .014
Culture
5-7 96 36.09 2.4669
8-24 93 36.54 2.6231
Total 278 36.00 2.8715
Distribution of Leadership
1-4 88 35.85 1.8664 .586 .557
Responsibilities
5-7 96 36.10 1.6826
8-24 92 36.07 1.5845
Total 276 36.01 1.7098
Total 1-4 89 132.69 11.965 3.412 .034
5-7 96 135.47 9.0878
8-24 93 136.13 6.5401
Total 278 134.80 9.4972
Teachers ‘Mean Score Difference on Gender Basis
Factors Gender N M SD t-value Sig.
Male
Coherent Leadership Team 133 36.10 2.0347 -2.281 .161
Female
143 36.58 1.3861
Distributed Leadership
Male 133 26.97 1.6023 -1.973 .967
Collaboration
Female 143 27.32 1.3519
Promotion of Collaborative
Male 133 35.94 2.1683 -.292 .335
School Culture
Female 145 36.04 3.3979
Distribution of Leadership
Male 133 35.84 1.9260 -1.620 .110
Responsibilities
Female 143 36.1748 1.46948
Total Male 133 134.8722 5.29925 .105 .121
Female 145 134.7517 12.15555
Teachers’ Mean Score Difference on District Basis

Factors District N M SD t-value Sig.

Coherent Leadership Team Lodhran 83 36.38 1.4965 .213 .627

Bahawalpur 193 36.33 1.8415

Distributed Leadership
Lodhran 83 26.83 1.6951 -2.427 .032
Collaboration
Bahawalpur 193 27.30 1.3665

Promotion of Collaborative
Lodhran 83 36.28 1.9033 1.096 .327
School Culture

Bahawalpur 195 35.87 3.1923

Distribution of Leadership
Lodhran 83 35.54 2.2158 -3.055 .000
Responsibilities

Bahawalpur 193 36.21 1.3972

Total Lodhran 83 135.04 4.1020 .273 .088

Bahawalpur 195 134.70 11.0290

 Theme of Training Courses Teachers Received

Training F M SD T Sig.

Induction 260 134.799 10.0490 -.028 .214

Refresher 34 134.848 3.72593 -1.529
Frequency of Training Teachers’ Received

Frequency N M SD F Sig.
1 192 135.3833 8.63621 1.056 .379
2 60 133.7931 11.32263
3 26 131.9200 12.66202
4 13 136.7692 2.58695
5 3 136.0000 4.24264

Total 294 134.8094 9.49727

Duration of Training Teachers’ Received

Days N %
30 280 95.23
15 06 2.04
07 08 2.72
Total 294 100.0
 School Improvement Plan

School N Responses in% age

Yes No Total
Boys 36 92 08 100
Girls 30 88 12 100
Total 66
 Meetings Conducted in School

School N Responses in% age

Yes No Total
Boys 36 86 14 100
Girls 30 82 18 100
Total 66
 Teachers’ Participation in Workshops

No. of Work
f M SD F Sig.
shops

1 105 134.8119 9.41670 .515 .672

2
3 141 135.5985 6.45579
4 44 134.0238 10.05470
Total 4 139.0000 8.14234
294 135.0833 8.21907
 Teachers’ Participation in Educational Conference

No. of
f M SD F Sig.
Conferences
1.
2 145 135.1397 6.83799 3.064 .010

3
111 136.4245 3.83703
4
24 131.0833 12.78558
5
11 140.3333 2.08167
6
1 141.3463 1.0543
Total
1 136.2356 1.0678
293 135.3653 6.74917
 Meetings of School Councils

Schools N Responses in% age

Category
Yes No Total
Boys 36 90 10 100
Girls 30 86 14 100
Total 66
 BISE Matriculation Results of District Lodhran

School Category N Years 9th class 10th class

results in % results in %
age age
Boys 13 2014 51 54
Girls 09 2015 49 52
2016 54 58
2017 59 60
2018 64 64
Total 22 5 55 57
 BISE Matriculation Results of District Bahawalpur

School N Years 9th class 10th class

Category results in % results in %
age age
Boys 23 2014 54 56
Girls 21 2015 51 55
2016 56 59
2017 61 63
2018 66 69
Total 44 5 58 61
Objective
Find out the relationship
among teachers’
professional development,
their leadership and school
improvement in district
Lodhran and Bahawalpur at
secondary school level.
Hypothesis Findings
Findings
There is no statistically There was weak correlation
significant relationship found between the variables.
between teachers’
professional development
and school improvement.
There is no statistically There was strong correlation
significant relationship found between the variables.
between teachers’
leadership and school
improvement.
There was strong correlation
There is no statistically found between them.
significant relationship
between teachers’
professional development
and teachers’ leadership.
Objective
Investigate gender-wise
difference among teachers’
professional development,
their leadership and school
improvement.
Hypothesis Findings
Conti..
There is no statistically It was found that there is
significant difference statistically significant
gender-wise between difference in male and
teachers’ professional female teachers’ score
development and school about Curricular Focus. So
improvement. null hypothesis is rejected.
There is no statistically No significant difference
significant difference was found in the mean
gender-wise between score of male and female
teachers’ leadership and teachers in all factors.
school improvement.
Objective Hypothesis
Investigate teachers’ There is no statistically
qualification-wise, significant difference
experience-wise and professional qualification-
training-wise difference wise between teachers’
among teachers’ professional development
professional and school improvement.
development, their
leadership and school There is no statistically
improvement. significant difference
professional qualification-
wise between teachers’
leadership and school
improvement.
Findings
Conti..
No significant difference
was found according to
B.Ed./M.Ed. Teachers in
all factors.
It was found that
significant difference
found in Promotion of
Collaborative School
Culture and significant
difference found in
M.Ed./B.Ed. Teachers.
Objective Hypothesis Findings
Conti..
Investigate teachers’ There is no statistically It was found that there is
qualification-wise, significant difference significant difference in
experience-wise and experience-wise between teachers’ scores on the
training-wise difference teachers’ professional basis of experience about
among teachers’ development and school Action Enquiry.
professional improvement.
development, their
leadership and school There is no statistically Significant difference was
improvement. significant difference found in Coherent
experience-wise between Leadership Team and
teachers’ leadership and Promotion of
school improvement. Collaborative School
Culture.
Objective Hypothesis Findings
Investigate teachers’ There is no statistically No significant difference
qualification-wise, significant difference was found in teachers’
experience-wise and training-wise between mean scores on the basis
training-wise difference teachers’ professional of trainings.
among teachers’ development and school
professional improvement.
development, their
leadership and school There is no statistically No significant difference
improvement. significant difference was found in teachers’
training-wise between mean scores on the basis
teachers’ leadership and of trainings.
school improvement.
 Conti..
Objective Hypothesis Findings
Investigate district-wise There is no statistically No significant difference
difference among difference district-wise was found in teachers’
teachers’ professional between teachers’ mean scores on the basis
development, their professional development of district in all factor
leadership and school and school improvement. teachers’ professional
improvement. development scale.

There is no statistically Significant difference was

significant difference found in teachers’ mean
district-wise between scores about Distributed
teachers’ leadership and Leadership Collaboration
school improvement. and Distribution of
Leadership
Responsibilities regarding
Teachers’ Leadership
scale.
 Discussion
• The key purpose of this research was to explore the relationship
among teachers’ professional development and their leadership
with school improvement.
• For making teachers professionally developed, Teachers’
Collaboration can be considered the most important activities. The
teachers’ collaboration, a critical factor of organizational learning
that has direct and significant effect on school improvement.
• This is considered most important because teachers’ practices,
including reflective practices in context of dialogues, sharing of
classroom practices, exchange and development of content
knowledge base for improvement and collaboration on
the development of new material and curricula.
 Conclusion
 The overall findings suggested that
the strong relationship among variables of present
study. Boroko and Putnam (1998) carried study
numerous international research scholars’ articles to
check the effect if professional development on various
factors of schools improvement also
investigated the teachers’ constant development  and
modify irrespective of subjects (Kolnik, 2010).
 The results of present research also support the key
results of Borko and Putnam that there isrelationship
exists among teachers’ professional development to
their leadership.
 Conti…
In current study, it also found that there difference found in
Curricular Focus activity among teachers, and it is matching with
the results of Moran (2010).
For making teachers professionally developed, Teachers’
Collaboration can be considered the most important activities. The
teachers’ collaboration, a critical factor of organizational learning
that has direct and significant effect onschool improvement(Moran,
2000).
This is considered most important because teachers’ practices,
including reflective practices in context of dialogues, sharing of
classroom practices, exchange and development of content
knowledge base for improvement and collaboration on
the development of new material and curricula.
 Recommendations
The following recommendations were made based on the
findings:
• The Quaid e Azam Academy for Educational Development
QAED and other teacher s’ training institutes pay due attention
towards training programs and activities covering the latest
knowledge, in this regards teachers will be professionally
developed and the desired results will be achieved.
• The trainings programs and study circles at cluster level
should be started in this way there is greater chances of
sharing of knowledge, exchange of information and findings
of latest research studies.
 Conti…
• The school education department and policy makers should
encourage the District Education Authorities to publish their
educational research journals in this way teachers’ will seek
up to date knowledge, also teachers and officers are directed to
contribute their research for these journals.
• There is need to create research culture among teachers,
therefore seminars, workshops and educational conferences
should be organized at district or regional level by the
concerned district education authorities.
• It is recommended that the policy makers must direct the
school heads to formulate school improvements plans and
arrange meetings of school council on regular basis and for the
improvement of school.
 Conti…
• It is further recommended that school heads must establish
collaborative team of teachers and allow the teachers involve
teachers in planning and decision making process.
• There is need to establish students counseling centers so that
students may provide counseling regarding challenges and
issues faced by students for improvement of their academic
achievements and career.
• Further qualitative research may be conducted to find the
relationship among teachers’ professional development, their
leadership to school improvement. 
Thank You