Authors name : Datin Hjh Mahidah Bt Datuk Hj Ab Wahab Dr. Hj Abdul Ghani Kanesan Abdullah Affiliation: School of Educational Studies Universiti Sains Malaysia 11800 Minden Pulau Pinang E-mail Agk @usm.my Seminar sub-themes The Pattern in Educational Management and Leadership Title: The Impact of Principal(cid:8217)s Instructional Leadership Behavior on PPSMI Teachers(cid:8217)s Teaching Practices THE IMPACT OF PRINCIPALS(cid:8217) INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ON PPSMI TEACHERS(cid:8217) TEACHING PRACTICES By Dr. Hj Abdul Ghani Kanesan Abdullah Datin Hjh Mahidah Bt Datuk Hj Ab Wahab School of Educational Studies University Sains Malaysia Pulau Pinang The critical role for all principals is that of being an instructional leader. Leadership in instructional matters should emerge freely from both the principal and teachers. Thus it is the principal who should responsible for developing a school climate that is conducive to providing the very best instructional practices. Therfore, the aim of the study are to identify the impact of Principals(cid:8217) Instructional Leadership Behaviour and PPSMI Teachers(cid:8217) Teaching Practices. A total of 260 PPSMI teachers were randomly selected from 29 secondary schools in District Pulau in Penang. The Principals(cid:8217) Instructional Leadership Behaviour was measured from PPSMI Teachers perspectives using questionnaires as of Principal Instructional Management Ratings Scale (PIMRS) by Philip Halliger (2003). Meanwhile, questionnaires for Teachers Teaching Practices were taken from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) measuring scale. Data was analysed using mean, standard deviation, multiple regressions.. The results revealed that Principals(cid:8217) Instructional Leadership Behaviour such as Protecting Instructional Time ((cid:946) = 3.18; p < 0.05) and Promoting Professional Development ((cid:946) = -0.520; p<0.05) has significant impact upon Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Materials and Tools. This finding explains that Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Techniques can be improved further if Principals enhanced Instructional Leadership Behaviour for subscales Protecting Instructional Time and Promoting Professional Development. 45.1% of the change in variance on Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Materials and Tools is influences by Principals Instructional Leadership Behaviours. Meanwhile, the dimensions subscale for Managing Instructional Program ((cid:946) = 2.670; p < 0.05) has significant impact on Teachers Instructional Materials and Tools. Implications of study findings are discussed for principals, and futher research. 2 INTRODUCTION Strong instructional leadership by the school principal is essential for achieving academic excellence (Alimuddin Mohd Dom, 2006). Thus, it is the principal who should forge a partnership with teachers with the primary goal of the improvement of teaching and learning processes, (Hoy & Miskel, 2006). The Ministry of Education in Malaysia administers strong emphasis on instructional leadership in principals by defining the mission of the school, developing a vision for schools and headcount, (Balasandran A Ramiah, 2006). This is because it has been proven empirically that schools that make a difference in students(cid:8217) learning are led by principals who make a significant and measurable contribution to the effectiveness of teachers(cid:8217) instructional teaching practices or teachers(cid:8217) teaching behaviour (Mohd Nor Jaafar, 2004). PPSMI Instrumentations such as new terminologies, new methods of teaching using notebooks and LCD projectors, teaching techniques like drumming, saying, delivering lessons or in other words making students do an abrupt turn to learning Mathematics and Science in English is a task. Plain, good instructions make an easy implementation and therefore teaching and learning Mathematics and Science in English should go smoothly without hitches. Hence there is a need to bring the principals(cid:8217) instructional leadership into the classroom. Teachers should copy and emulate the principals(cid:8217) behaviour so that classroom management is in order. Instructional leadership is a series of behaviours that is designed to affect classroom instruction. In this environment, principals are responsible for informing teachers about new educational strategies, technologies and tools that apply to effective instruction (Davies, 2003]. Although we recognize the importance of the instructional leadership responsibilities of the principal, in reality, good instructional leadership skills are seldom practiced. 3 Principals, who are leaders in schools, are great influence to effective teaching and learning only if they function as instructional leaders and managers. But because of the complex organizational characteristics of schools today, principals are heavy with work loads of sorts such as entertaining visitors, reading and answering letters. In their daily assignments and appointments, works needed to improvise the process of teaching and learning are not included, (Mohd Hasani Dali,1995). Then what does it means to be an instructional leader if the ability to deliver the best and influence PPSMI teachers in order to give the best is unbecoming of Principals? Arbain Miswan (2005) described an effective principal as one who plays his or her role as an instructional leader that could lead teachers towards school academic excellence. Principals that are instructional leaders manage differently from other principals. They spend their time accordingly with the biggest portion for curriculum quality time. The cultures of their schools are shaped in a way that curriculum matters at the end of the day. They then must be knowledgeable of the subject- matter content or best said to be a know-how personality. Based on the above arguments, the research problem of this study is to examine the impact between the principals(cid:8217) instructional leadership behaviour and the PPSMI teachers(cid:8217) instructional practices. According to Hallinger (2003), there are many researches on leadership effecting studies that linked instructional leadership to school outcomes including teacher morale and satisfaction (Mohd Hasani Dali,1995; Khalid Ansari,1997; Chee Keat Bee,1998; Lim Lay Hong,1998; Seah Kok Guang, 1998, Mohd Nor Jaafar, 2004), teacher self-efficacy (Anna Christina Abdullah,1989), teacher stress (Rozihaya Yahaya ,1998), principal locus of control, school and organizational culture (Rozihaya Yahaya ,1998), teacher effectiveness and time on task, organisational climate or health and teacher participation in decision-making. 4 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TEACHERS(cid:8217) INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES Current literature about instructional leadership falls into four broad areas. First, prescriptive models describe instructional leadership as the integration of the tasks of direct assistance to teachers, group development, staff development, curriculum development, and action research; as a democratic, developmental, and transformational activity based on equality and growth; as an inquiry-oriented endeavor that encourages teacher voice; and as a discursive, critical study of classroom interaction to achieve social justice (Hallinger, 2003). Second, studies of instructional leadership, though few in number, include exploratory studies of indirect effects of principal-teacher instructional conferences and behaviors such as the effects of monitoring student progress (Hallinger, 2003). Third, studies of direct effects of principal behavior on teachers and classroom instruction include (Hallinger, 2003) synthesis of research demonstrating the relationship between certain principal behaviors and teacher commitment, involvement and innovation. Fourth, studies of direct and indirect effects on student achievement include (Quinn, 2002) review of studies investigating the principal(cid:8217)s role (e.g. use of constructs such as participative leadership and decentralized decision making) in school effectiveness. Given the emergent popularity of this leadership model during the early 1980s, scholars subsequently generated a substantial body of international research. Indeed, in their comprehensive review of research on school leadership and its effects, Quinn, (2002) concluded that this was the most common conceptualization of school leadership used during the period of their review of empirical research on school leadership effects (1980(cid:8211)1995). A subsequent review of research focused solely upon instructional leadership found that over 125 empirical studies employed this construct between 1980 and 2000, (Hallinger, 2003). 5 This body of research has yielded a wealth of findings concerning antecedents of instructional leadership behaviour (school level, school size, school SES), the effects of the school context on instructional leadership (e.g., gender, training, experience), as well as the effects of school leadership on the organization (e.g., school mission and goals, expectations, curriculum, teaching, teacher engagement) and school outcomes (e.g., school effectiveness, student achievement). Space limitations make an extended discussion of these findings impractical; interested readers are therefore referred to other relevant sources (Quinn, 2002). Conclusions from researches on instructional leadership are as below. (cid:8226) The preponderance of evidence indicates that school principals contribute to school effectiveness and student achievement indirectly through actions they take to influence what happens in the school and in classrooms. (cid:8226) The most influential avenue of effects concerns the principal(cid:8217)s role in shaping the purposes of the school. The actual role that principals play in mission building is influenced by features of the school context such as socio-economic status and school size. (cid:8226) Instructional leadership influences the quality of school outcomes through the alignment of school structures (e.g., academic standards, time allocation, and curriculum) with the school(cid:8217)s mission. (cid:8226) It is interesting to note that relatively few studies find a relationship between the principal(cid:8217)s hands-on supervision of classroom instruction, teacher effectiveness, and student achievement. Where effects have been identified, it has generally been at the elementary school level, and could possibly be a function of school size. (cid:8226) The school context does have an effect on the type of instructional leadership exercised by principals. As suggested above, school level as well as the socio-economic status of the school influence the requirements for and exercise of instructional leadership. The influence of the instructional leadership role of principals must be acknowledged. 6 However, it was not and will never be the only role of the school principal, (Fulmer, 2006). Principals play managerial, political, instructional, institutional, human resource, and symbolic leadership roles in their schools, (Fulmer, 2006). Critics assert that efforts to limit or even focus narrowly on this single role in an effort to improve student performance will be dysfunctional for the principal, (MacBarth 2003). Instructional leaders must adjust their performance of this role to the needs, opportunities and constraints imposed by the school context. The principal in a small primary school can more easily spend substantial amounts of time in classrooms working on curriculum and instruction. In one effective elementary school that was studied, there was a consensus among the teachers that the principal knew the reading level and progress of all 450 students in their school, (Hallinger & Murphy, 2003). However, this type of direct involvement in teaching and learning is simply unrealistic in a larger school, be it elementary or secondary level. Context effects on the principal(cid:8217)s instructional leadership have also been found with respect to school SES (Douglas, 2003). For example, in one comparative study of effective schools serving high vs. low SES student populations, the researchers concluded that both sets of principals were instructional leaders. However, the form of their leadership was adjusted to the needs of their schools. Principals in the low SES effective schools had clear measurable goals focused on academic achievement of the students. These were known and supported throughout the school and its community. In each of the high SES effective schools, there was a clear academic mission known and supported by staff, students and parents. However, the missions were expressed more broadly and several of the schools did not have any measurable goals at all, (Hallinger & Murphy, 2003). During the 1980s when instructional leadership emerged as a model of choice, numerous scholars questioned the capacity of principals to fulfil this somewhat heroic role. Principals, who demonstrated the type of instructional 7 leadership needed to lift performance in their schools, were by definition a small minority, (Kroeze, 1983). Skeptics wondered if the majority of principals had the necessary combination of (cid:8216)will and skill(cid:8217) to carry out this type of hands-on, directive leadership (Kroeze, 1983). Others suggested that the very nature of the principalship renders instructional leadership an (cid:8216)impossible dream(cid:8217) for many principals, (Hoy & Miskel, 2001). Hoya and Miskel (2001), a self-described (cid:8216)friendly critic(cid:8217) of instructional leadership and effective schools described the managerial or maintenance role of the principal as (cid:8216)embedded in the DNA of the principalship(cid:8217).). He asserted that efforts by principals to act as instructional leaders in schools inevitably run aground against basic structural and normative conditions of the principalship and the school. For example, principals occupy a middle management position in which their authority to command is severely limited. The limited authority of principals is compounded when considered in light of their need to meet the expectations of those above and below them in the hierarchy. Moreover, any intention to provide instructional leadership, especially in secondary schools, is complicated by the fact that in many cases principals have less expertise than the teachers whom they supervise, (Barth, 1990; Lambert, 1998). Instructional strategies consist of the unique way a teacher designs and delivers a lesson. Much like a blueprint, each instructional strategy involves following a set of step-by-step procedures that are known to enhance student learning. The value of utilizing research-based instructional strategies to meet the needs of students and improve student achievement is widely recognized in education. The effective teacher knows many strategies and more important, when to use them. While some instructional strategies are relatively straightforward in approach, many require advanced training and repeated practice to develop expertise, (http://www.lewispalmer.org/solo/curric_instruc_strat, 2007). This research used the MCAS measuring scale which incorporates the various aspects of teaching strategies from writing assignments to the usage of 8 rubrics or scoring guides. These criteria were noted to be curriculum-related activities which will maintain student engagement. Effective instruction includes questions (cid:8216)planned to engage students in sustained discourse structured around powerful ideas(cid:8217) and teachers provide the assistance students need (cid:8216)to enable them to engage in learning activities productively, (Davies, 2003). OBJECTIVES The aim of the this study is to identify : 1. does the principal practice Instructional Leadership in the school? 2. does the principal practice Instructional Leadership have an impact on PPSMI Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Practices in Teachers(cid:8217) Strategies? 3. does the principal practice Instructional Leadership have an impact on PPSMI Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Practices in Teachers(cid:8217) Teaching Techniques? 4. does the principal practice Instructional Leadership has an impact on PPSMI Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Practices in Teachers(cid:8217) Instructional Materials and Tools? RESEARCH METHODOLOGY For this study, twenty nine out of 46 secondary schools were chosen randomly (simple random) from the district of Pulau in Penang, Malaysia. Then by using a proportionate stratified random sampling a total number of 260 PPSMI teachers were randomly selected. The approach design is descriptive using two sets of questionnaires Principals(cid:8217) Instructional Leadership and Teachers Instructional Practices. These two sections use Likert Scale where 1 represents never, 2 represents seldom, 3 represents sometimes, 4 represents frequently and 5 represents always. The most commonly used of these instruments has been the Principal Instructional Management rating Scale or PIMRS, (Hallinger, 1982, 1983, 1990, 2003) [cited in Halliger, 2003] was used to identify the Principals(cid:8217) Instructional 9 Leadership Behaviour. While a high-stakes, state-mandated performance assessment called the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) was designed to evaluate progress in meeting the state's new learning standards in the curriculum frameworks, (Vogler,2002), (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? id=237507641&sid=1& Fmt=4&clientId=27905&RQT=309&VName=PQD) was used to identify implementation of PPSMI teachers(cid:8217) instructional practices. A pilot test was carried out to obtain the reliability item used and 30 teachers from one school in Seberang Perai Utara, Pulau Pinang were involved in this test. The result of the pilot test is encouraging with the value of reliability Cronbach Alpha were ranging from 0.96 to 0.89 for these two set of questionnaires. RESEARCH FINDINGS Analysis on Instructional Leadership Practices: According to findings in Table 1, the overall Principals(cid:8217) instructional leadership practices, from the PPSMI teachers perspective is moderate. This is because the mean score obtained for this variable is 3.48. The level is also moderate for Defining School Mission Dimension (mean=3.67); Managing Instructional Program Dimension (mean=3.41) and Creating a Positive School Climate Dimension (mean=3.36). Further analysis was carried out on the subscales dimensions in order to identify the level of the Principals(cid:8217) Instructional Leadership Practices. Table 1 also shows that while defining school mission dimensions, the level of the principals(cid:8217) practices when Framing Clear School Goals subscale, is high with a mean=3.72.; the level of the principals(cid:8217) practices when Communicating Clear School Goals subscale, is moderate with a mean=3.672.; the level of the principals(cid:8217) practices when Supervising and Evaluating Instruction subscale is moderate with a mean=3.672.; moderate for (cid:8216)Coordinating Curriculum(cid:8217) (mean=3.58), moderate for (cid:8216)Monitoring Student Progress(cid:8217) (mean=3.3). As for (cid:8216)Protecting Instructional Time(cid:8217) (mean=3.43); (cid:8216)Promoting Professional Development(cid:8217) (mean=3.11); (cid:8216)Maintaining High 10