A MIXED-METHOD APPROACH TO THE EXPLORATION OF PRINCIPALS’
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN TURKEY:
THE PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER PERSPECTIVES
By
Mehmet Sukru Bellibas

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Educational Administration K-12—Doctor of Philosophy
2014

ABSTRACT
A MIXED-METHOD APPROACH TO THE EXPLORATION OF PRINCIPALS’
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN LOWER SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN TURKEY: THE
PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER PERSPECTIVES
By
Mehmet Sukru Bellibas
Instructional leadership has been a substantial focus of school improvement research over the
last thirty years. The literature on effective schools has associated effective school leaders with
those who spend a considerable proportion of their time dealing with instructional and curricular
activities aimed at improving teaching and learning in schools. Consistently, many countries
require principals to become instructional leaders in their schools. The importance of
instructional leadership has also been acknowledged by the Turkish Ministry of Education,
which mandated school principals to become involved more in instructional issues by entering
classrooms, observing teaching, and providing teachers with necessary feedback.
Despite the prominence of the instructional leadership research, the literature has failed to
provide extensive knowledge regarding how instructional leadership is understood and enacted
in real school contexts. This deficiency is especially the case in Turkey, where the literature has
focused mostly on descriptive analysis of either teachers or principals’ perspectives. The purpose
of my research was to focus on formal leaders’ instructional leadership practices by investigating
the extent to which principals become involved in instructional leadership, and by examining
which contexts and personal characteristics explain current leadership practices. The study also
aimed to inquire into how instructional leadership is understood and is enacted, depending on
multiple administrative and instructional staff. I used the explanatory approach of mixed method
research to conduct this research. Data for the quantitative part of the research came from TALIS

(Teaching and Learning International Survey), which included surveys of 191 principals and
3,637 teachers. The second part of this research involved an analysis of qualitative data, which
depended on documents and interviews that were collected from six schools. These data
involved a total sample of 36 participants, including 12 administrative staff, 18 instructional
staff, and six counselors.
Descriptive analyses of the quantitative survey data showed that principals paid specific attention
to the development of school goals and instructional problems, and that they were less likely to
become involved in the direct supervision of classroom instruction. Although principals and
teachers disagreed about the frequency of each leadership behavior being carried out by leaders,
they concurred on behaviors that occurred with the highest and lowest frequency. Inferential
analyses indicated that female principals and the principals working in private schools were more
likely to carry out instructional leadership than others were.
The qualitative results further enhanced the knowledge regarding the type of instructional
leadership being carried out by principals. I found that principals did become involved in various
instructional leadership activities, yet most of these activities were not coherently linked to one
another to bring about instructional change. In addition, I found that principals had a short vision
concerning whether a leader can or should influence teaching. Principals lacked strong intention
and specific action to contribute to teaching and learning in the classroom. Teachers’ views in
this regard were not different. Even though teachers were not reluctant to have a principal help
them to improve their teaching skills, teachers seemed to be suspicious about the capability of
principals to do so. Teachers’ notion of a principal influencing instruction was substantially
shaped and constrained by the idea of leaders lacking knowledge and expertise in the particular
subject matter in which teachers considered themselves to be experts.

Copyright by
MEHMET SUKRU BELLIBAS
2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank the Ministry of Turkish National Education for the scholarship I
received which covered all educational and living expenditures throughout my master’s and
doctoral studies in the US. This gave me the opportunity to embark on and complete such an
intellectually challenging journey without any worries about financial issues.
Second, I would like to express a sincere appreciation to my advisor, BetsAnn Smith.
This long and challenging journey would not have been possible without the outstanding support
and guidance I received from her. She has always been ready to help me with any challenges I
faced throughout my doctoral studies. I am also grateful to have been advised by my dissertation
committee—Susan Printy, John Dirkx and Doug Campbell. Their support and feedback in this
process has made an invaluable contribution to my scholarly growth.
I owe special thanks to my master’s advisor, Amita Chudgar, who also advised me on
various research projects. Also, I would like to thank Nancy Colflesh, who provided me with
tremendous support to make connections with practitioners in the field and to learn from their
experiences.
I have been very fortunate to have friends, Sedat Gumus, Emre Gonulates, Serafettin
Gedik, Ibrahim Delen, and Iwan Syahril in the College of Education at MSU. I would like to
thank them for their willingness to provide me with social and academic support whenever
needed.
I must also acknowledge my cohort and friends, Jae-Bum Han, Yan Liu, Kartika
Yulianti, Felix Umeana, Blair Anstey, Kevin Lane, and Tiffany Bunge together with whom I
embarked on this journey. They have been great sources of support and feedback. I enjoyed and

v

benefitted substantially from the intellectual stimulation created by the colorful diversity they
possess.
Last but not least, a wholehearted appreciation is due to my dearest mother and father,
Fidan and Nedim Bellibas, who have raised me up to this point in my life with solicitude and
compassion. Their greatest dream was that each of their children acquires a high quality
education. I believe this degree is the most precious gift I can ever offer to them. In addition, I
would like to thank my sisters, Cigdem Simsek and Asli Bellibas, and my brother Ahmet
Bellibas for their continuous encouragement and emotional support to pursue a doctoral degree
in a continent thousands of miles away from my home.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Importance of the Problem.................................................................................................. 2
Past Research on the Problem ............................................................................................. 4
Deficiencies in Existing Research ...................................................................................... 5
The Potential Audiences of the Study................................................................................. 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 13
The Evolving Concept of Instructional Leadership .......................................................... 15
Effective School Research .................................................................................... 17
Instructional Leadership Models........................................................................... 20
Hallinger (1983)’s model. ......................................................................... 22
Murphy (1990)’s model. ........................................................................... 23
Petterson (1993)’s model. ......................................................................... 23
Weber (1996)’s model. ............................................................................. 24
McEwan (1998)’s model........................................................................... 24
Linking Instructional Leadership to Teaching and Learning ................................ 26
Enactment of Instructional Leadership ................................................................. 32
Perspectives on Principals’ Enactment of Instructional Leadership ................................. 34
The Discussion of Principals’ Direct versus Indirect Involvement ...................... 35
Instructional Leadership as a Shared Responsibility ............................................ 37
Distributed leadership. .............................................................................. 38
Shared instructional leadership. ................................................................ 38
Shared instructional leadership integrated with transformational
leadership. ................................................................................................. 39
International Perspectives on Instructional Leadership ........................................ 40
Summary of Outstanding Issues and Questions................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ........................................ 44
Bureaucracy and Centralized Control ............................................................................... 44
Principalship in the Turkish Educational Context ............................................................ 45
Principal Recruitment Policy ................................................................................ 46
Principals’ Job Description ................................................................................... 48
School Inspection System ..................................................................................... 50
Tension in Educational Goals ........................................................................................... 54
Recent Educational Policies and Reforms ........................................................................ 58
Teacher Committees ......................................................................................................... 60
Implications…................................................................................................................... 61
vii

CHAPTER 4: METHODS ............................................................................................................ 64
Mixed-Method Design ...................................................................................................... 64
Type of Design .................................................................................................................. 68
Secondary Data and Analysis – the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
……………………………………………………………………………...…….72
The TALIS Principal Survey ................................................................................ 72
The TALIS Teacher Survey .................................................................................. 78
Quantitative Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 82
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 83
T-Test .................................................................................................................... 83
One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) .......................................................... 83
Correlation (r) ....................................................................................................... 84
Multiple Regressions ............................................................................................ 84
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................... 84
Participants ............................................................................................................ 85
Sources of Qualitative Data and Procedures ......................................................... 90
Qualitative Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 91
Trustworthiness (Reliability and Validity Issues)............................................................. 92
Limitations and Threats to Validity and Reliability ......................................................... 93
CHAPTER 5: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ............................................................................... 96
Principals’ Perceptions of Their Instructional Leadership................................................ 97
Question 1a: Which Behaviors of Instructional Leadership are More or Less
Prevalent in Schools, According to Principals? .................................................... 97
Question 1b: How are Schools’ Characteristics Associated with Principals’
Perceptions of Their Own Instructional Leadership? ........................................... 99
Question 1c: How are Principals’ Personal Characteristics Associated with Their
Perception of Instructional Leadership? ............................................................. 103
Teachers’ Perception of Principals’ Instructional Leadership ........................................ 107
Question 2a: In Which Behaviors of Instructional Leadership are The Principals
Strong or Weak, According To Teachers? .......................................................... 107
Question 2b: How are Schools’ Characteristics Associated with Teachers’
Perceptions of Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership? ................................ 109
Question 2c: How are Principals’ Personal Characteristics Associated with
Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership? ............... 111
Question 2d: How are Teachers’ Personal Characteristics Associated with
Teachers’ Perception of Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership? ................. 112
Relationships between Teachers’ Assessment of Their Principals and Principal SelfAssessment ...................................................................................................................... 114
Question 3: How do the Reports of Teachers Compare to the Reports of Principals
with Regard to Principals’ Instructional Leadership in the Turkish School
Context? .............................................................................................................. 114
Summary of Quantitative Findings and Implications for Qualitative Research ............. 117

viii

CHAPTER 6: QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ............................................................................... 121
Qualitative Themes ......................................................................................................... 122
Theme 1: Teachers’ Understanding of Effective Schools and Principals Has
Limited Focus On Instruction and Principals’ Instructional Leadership ............ 124
Theme 2: Principals Influence Classroom Instruction and Student Outcomes by
Creating Conditions in Which Teaching and Learning Is Possible and by
Providing Material and Motivational Support to Teachers................................. 130
Theme 3: Principals Enactment of Instructional Leadership and a Focus on the
Improvement of Teaching ................................................................................... 133
School goals. ........................................................................................... 134
Instructional problems. ........................................................................... 138
Supervision of instruction. ...................................................................... 140
Theme 4: A Lack of Coherence among Activities Associated with Principals’
Instructional Leadership...................................................................................... 144
CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................. 148
Quantitative Results ........................................................................................................ 149
Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings........................................................ 152
Challenges to Instructional Leadership ........................................................................... 155
Implications for Policy, Practice and Research .............................................................. 159
Implications for Policymakers ............................................................................ 159
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................... 162
Implications for Future Research ........................................................................ 164
CLOSING SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. 166
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 168
APPENDIX 1: TALIS Principal and Teacher Survey Instructional Leadership Items .............. 169
APPENDIX 2: Principal and Teacher Interview Protocols ........................................................ 172
APPENDIX 3: Consent Forms for Teachers and Principals ...................................................... 177
APPENDIX 4: ANOVA Tables for Principal Survey Analyses: School Factors ...................... 180
APPENDIX 5: ANOVA Tables for Principal Survey Analyses: Principals’ Characteristics .... 182
APPENDIX 6: ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: Factors Related To Teachers’
Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 186
APPENDIX 7: ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: School Factors ........................ 189
APPENDIX 8: ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: Factors Related to Principals’
Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 197
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 204

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Instructional Leadership Framework in TALIS (2008), Created by
OECD………………………………………………………………………… 25

Table 2

Demographic Information for Schools in TALIS…………………………….

76

Table 3

Demographic Information for Principals in TALIS………………………….

78

Table 4

Demographic Information for Teachers in TALIS …………………………..

81

Table 5

Research Questions, Corresponding Sources of Data and Analysis of the
Data…………………………………………………………………………...

82

Table 6

Qualitative Research Questions, Corresponding Sources of Data and
Analysis of the Data………………………………………………………….. 85

Table 7

Demographic Information for Schools in the Qualitative
Sample………………………………………………………………………... 88

Table 8

Demographic Information for Principals in the Qualitative
Sample………………………………………………………………………... 88

Table 9

Demographic Information for Other Participants in the Qualitative
Sample………………………………………………………………………... 89

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Items Associated with Instructional Leadership in
the Principal Survey………………………………………………………….. 98

Table 11

ANOVA Table for the School Type (Public vs. Private)……………….........

99

Table 12

One-Way ANOVA for Percentage of Parents with a Bachelor
Degree………………………………………………………………………...

101

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation between School Size and Instructional
Leadership in the Principal Survey…………………………………………...

102

Table 13

Table 14

One –Way ANOVA for Principals’ Gender (Male and Female)…………….. 103

Table 15

Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting Management of School
Goals………………………………………………………………………….

105

Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting Direct Supervision of
Instruction…………………………………………………………………….

106

Table 16

x

Table 17

Regression Results for Variables Predicting Instructional
Leadership……………………………………………………………………. 106

Table 18

Descriptive Statistics for Items Associated with Instructional Leadership in
Teacher Survey……………………………………………………….............

108

One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of School Related Factors to
Teachers’ Perceived Instructional Leadership………………………………..

109

Table 19

Table 20

One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of Factors Related to Principal
Characteristics to Teachers’ Perceived Instructional
Leadership……………………………………………………………………. 111

Table 21

One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of Factors Related to Teacher
Characteristics to Teachers’ Perceived Instructional
Leadership……………………………………………………………………. 112

Table 22

Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting the Aggregated Item
(Instructional Leadership)…………………………………………………….

113

T-Test for Relationship between Responses of Teachers and Principals to
Each Item……………………………………………………………………..

115

Table 23

Table 24

Multiple Regression Analyses for the Relations of Principals to Teachers….. 116

Table 25

Multiple Regression Analyses for the Relationship of Principals to
Teachers………………………………………………………………………

117

Table 26

One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Categories of
School Location (City, Town and Village)………………………………....... 181

Table 27

One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference between principals with
bachelor and Masters’ Degree………………………………………………..

183

Table 28

One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Principals
according to Principals’ Total Year of Experience…………………………... 184

Table 29

One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Principals
according to the Year of Experience in the Current School………………….

185

One Way ANOVA Table for Mean Difference between Female and Male
Teachers’ Understanding of Principals Instructional Leadership…………….

187

Table 30

Table 31

One Way ANOVA Table for Mean Difference between Bachelor and
Graduate Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional
Leadership……………………………………………………………………. 188
xi

Table 32

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to School Type (Public and
Private)……………………………………………………………….............. 190

Table 33

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to School Location……........

191

Table 34

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to Percentile of Parents with
a High School Diploma………………………………………………………. 193

Table 35

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to Percentile of Parents with
Bachelor Degree……………………………………………………................ 195

Table 36

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to Principals’ Gender………

198

Table 37

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to Principals’ Educational
Level………………………………………………………………………….. 199

Table 38

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership. Difference according to Principals’ Total
Experience……………………………………………………………………. 200

Table 39

One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s
Instructional Leadership, Difference according to Principals’ Experience in
the Current School……………………………………………………………

xii

202

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1:

How School Leaders Influence Student Achievement (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996)…………………………………………………....................

26

Figure 2:

How Instructional Leadership is Associated with Student
Achievement……………………………………………………………... 28

Figure 3:

Matching Instructional Leadership in the TALIS Principal Survey with
Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership Model……………………………..

74

Matching Instructional Leadership in the TALIS Teacher Survey with
Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership Model……………………………..

80

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Participants’ Description of the Effective School and Principal………… 128

Figure 6:

Participants’ Description of How Principals Influence Classroom
Instruction and Student Achievement……………………………………

xiii

133

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
International rankings such as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), TIMSS
(Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), and PIRLS (Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study), which rank and compare countries in terms of student achievement,
have received increasing attention over the last decade (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2010). These
data have become very important sources of information regarding the effectiveness of education
systems and their impact on student outcomes (Mullis et al., 2000; Schnepf, 2007). The sources
of student data available internationally have also enabled researchers to conduct a considerable
number of comparative studies investigating the education systems of the high performing
countries. Comparing themselves with other countries has triggered substantial criticisms in
those countries regarding the quality of education provided to students (Naumann, 2005).
Due to Turkish students’ poor performance on these international tests, Turkey has been
one of the countries in which the quality of education is being severely criticized (Aksit, 2007).
According to PISA, Turkish students are ranked as one of the least achieving students compared
to other nations (OECD, 2004). The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) acknowledged the
fact that students in Turkey scored so poorly, nowhere close to their counterparts in developed or
developing countries (OECD, 2004). In response to that, the Ministry of National Education in
Turkey has adapted several state-wide reform packages: a new curriculum that emphasizes
student-centered learning, and the expansion of technology availability in classrooms. Through
these reform movements, the Turkish education system is now experiencing an extensive
transformation process which is considered a prerequisite for improvement. The main goal of the
reform acts is to direct all the attention toward learning and teaching, the core pillars of the
whole school system. By doing so, the Ministry intends to create effective schools in which

1

every student can receive a quality education and enhance their achievement. The reforms
primarily are intended to enhance the quality of teaching and learning for all students (Grossman,
Onkol & Sands, 2007).
Importance of the Problem
The 1970s’ research on successful schools constantly found that effective schools had principals
who were particularly concerned with and spent time on improvement of the teaching and
learning aspects of the school (Brieve, 1972; Bridges, 1967; Duke & Stiggins, 1985; Edmonds
1979; Eberts & Stone, 1988; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; McKenzie, 1988; Niedermeyer; 1977). In
contrast to principals who spent most of their time dealing with managerial issues such as budget
and paper work, and the implementation of rules and regulations, principals in effective schools
directed their attention more toward the academic aspects of their schools, such as setting
academic goals, assessing the effectiveness of teachers’ instructional practices, and providing
opportunities for instructional improvement. Such behaviors associated with the principals of
effective schools were defined as “instructional leadership” (Blasé & Blasé, 1999; Bossert,
Dwyer, Rowan & Lee, 1982; Bridges, 1967; Hallinger, 1983, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2012; Marks &
Printy, 2003; Hallinger & Murphy, 1983, 1985; Hallinger, Murphy, Well, Mesa, & Mitman,
1983).
Based on findings from effective school research, combined with the reforms’ goal of
improving learning and teaching, it can be argued that without having effective instructional
leaders, it is difficult for the reform movements of the Ministry to accomplish their goals. In the
current time of substantial reforms, Turkish schools need principals who concern themselves
more with classroom instruction, student progress, and teacher improvement, in order to achieve
their goal. In response to that need, the Ministry passed a law in 2010 that required school

2

principals to take on instructional leadership roles through developing their school’s vision and
mission, observing teaching and learning activities, and providing feedback to teachers regarding
their performance, all in order to ensure high quality teaching and learning.
However, in contrast to this shift toward a more instructionally oriented focus in the
education system, the traditional principalship model in the Turkish education context is
predominantly associated with managerial tasks, such as maintaining student discipline,
managing the school budget, completing mandated paper work, maintaining the flow of
information with the authorities at the upper levels of the education system, and managing school
materials (Ada & Gumus, 2013; Korkmaz, 2005; Simsek, 2004). As a matter of fact, such
responsibilities are extensively emphasized in the Ministry’s principal recruitment policies,
evaluation criteria, and job descriptions. Despite the new requirements mandated by the Ministry
calling on principals to concern themselves more with teaching and learning, formally
communicated responsibilities do not involve clear incentives for school administrators to
improve instruction.
Other factors are helpful to understanding why principals might be more inclined towards
managerial leadership and less likely to take on instructional leadership tasks. First, the
Ministry’s recruitment policy for principals includes limited standards in relation to instructional
leadership. Second, conventional understandings among educators have been that a school
principal would continue his job as long as he, or she, successfully maintained managerial
expectations and was not involved in any sort of discreditable activity. Third, principal
evaluation involves only a few standards that link principals to teaching and learning, and the
process is carried out by inspectors who do not have time to effectively assess instructional
leadership practices. Given this context, it makes sense that the state of instructional leadership

3

would be more emergent than established. As a start, then, it is useful to investigate developing
patterns of instructional leadership and explore some of the assumptions and beliefs among
teachers and leaders about these patterns.
Past Research on the Problem
Since the development of the concept in the 1980s, instructional leadership has been a substantial
focus of educational research. Early researchers mainly concerned themselves with the
development of significant conceptual knowledge – how we might clarify and define
instructional leadership—and theoretical understandings of the value and influences of
instructional leadership (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger, 1983; Murphy 1990; Petterson, 1993;
Weber, 1996). Later research investigated the relationship of instructional leadership to teacher
and student learning (Blasé & Blasé, 1999; Gerrell, 2005; Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger et al., 1983;
Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Heck, Larsen, & Marcoulides,
1990; May & Spovitz, 2011; Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris & Hopkins, 2006; Leithwood &
Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012;
Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010).
In Turkey, most instructional leadership research was based on survey data from teachers
and principals as well, with the purpose of examining the extent to which Turkish school
principals were involved in instructional leadership practices and what the variations were
between the different regions in which they worked across the country (Aksoy & Isik, 2008;
Bayrak, 2001; Can, 2007; Daglı, 2000; Gumuseli, 1996; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013; Inandi &
Ozkan, 2006; Kaykanaci, 2003;Yavuz & Bas, 2010). Most of these studies concluded that
Turkish principals were more likely to be concerned with managerial issues than with
instructional matters. Other research that focused on principals’ level of engagement in

4

instructional leadership, however, suggested reverse results; that is, principals in Turkish schools
were highly involved in instructional leadership behaviors (Celik, 2002; Ergen, 2013; Gumuseli,
1996; Gurocak & Hacifazlioglu, 2012). In addition to research on principals’ level of
engagement in instructional leadership, the literature also focused on investigating of the
relation of principals’ instructional leadership to several other concepts, such as school climate
(Sahin, 2011), organizational health (Recepoglu & Ozdemir, 2013), organizational dependence

(Buluc, 2009) , teachers’ job satisfaction, teachers’ self-efficacy (Duyar, Gumus, & Bellibas,
2013), collective efficacy (Calık, Sezgin, Kilinc, & Kavgaci, 2012), and collaboration (Gumus,
Bulut, & Bellibas, 2013).
Deficiencies in Existing Research
The field has only modest qualitative evidence concerning how instructional leadership is
interpreted and practiced in actual school settings (Coldren & Spillane, 2007; May & Spovitz,
2011; Mitchell & Castle, 2005). That is, we have theories of what instructional leadership is and
how it affects student learning, yet we do not know what particular dimensions of instructional
leadership principals and teachers practice or observe. . The fact that the contemporary literature
lacks qualitative inquiry into how instructional leadership is understood and practiced is
particularly true in the Turkish educational context.
An overwhelming majority of studies on instructional leadership in Turkey are based on
survey data gathered to understand to what extent principals demonstrate instructional leadership
behavior. Quantitative research on instructional leadership has largely focused on its relationship
to certain characteristics of individuals, such as gender, education level, and years of experience
(Aksoy & Isık, 2008; Gokyer, 2010; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013; Serin & Buluc, 2012; Sahin,
2011). However, these studies have failed to go beyond descriptive analyses to make sense of

5

context and its influence on participants’ perceptions and practices of instructional leadership
(Aksoy & Isik, 2008; Bayrak, 2001; Dagli, 2000; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013; Inandi & Ozkan,
2006; Kaykanaci, 2003; Sahin, 2011; Yavuz & Bas, 2010). Research has yet to develop insights
on how variations in school settings influence both the emergence of instructional leadership and
the profile of practices associated with it. For example, there are only a few studies that examine
the relationship of instructional leadership to factors related to the school, such as socioeconomic status and school type (public vs. private), and to the principal and the teacher, such as
gender, educational level, total years of experience and years of experience in their current
schools.
A second limitation in this research is its limited sampling of elementary school
principals, in schools in different provinces (eg, (Aksoy & Isik, 2008; Bayrak, 2001; Dagli,
2000; Gumuseli, 1996; Kaykanaci, 2003; Sahin, 2011; Serin & Buluc, 2012;Yavuz & Bas,
2010). Data gathered from different school levels and across regions will provide a more
generalizable picture of’ instructional leadership in Turkey and offer some understanding of the
variation that occur.
A third limitation associated with existing research is that studies mostly depend on the
data derived from one single perspective. That is, they either ask teachers about their principals’
instructional leadership behaviors, or they ask principals directly regarding their own behaviors
(eg. Aksoy & Işık, 2008; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013; Serin & Buluc, 2012; Sahin, 2011; Turan,
Yıldırım, & Aydogdu, 2012). There are only a few studies that jointly sampled and connected
teachers’ and principals’ perspectives (eg, Gokyer, 2010; Inandı & Ozkan, 2006). Hallinger (n/a)
indicated that it is important to use data from both teacher and principal’s perspective in the
instructional leadership literature, since most principals either overestimate or underestimate

6

their level of engagement in leadership behaviors. Including the teachers’ perception enhances
the reliability and validity of the data informing principals’ instructional leadership.
The Potential Audiences of the Study
This study has significant practical implications for school principals who are passionate about
helping teachers improve their instructional practices and increase student learning. The study
revealed important information with regard to principals’ understandings and practices of
instructional leadership. It informed principals about certain behaviors of instructional leadership
that were performed by principals working in [effective middle schools.] Various examples of
instructional leadership behaviors and associated problems mentioned in this study can benefit
principals in a sense that prompts them to reflect on their current practices for increasing the
number of students passing the high school entrance exam and enrolling in prestigious high
schools across the country. In this regard, the study involved common issues associated with
instructional leadership practices and suggestions regarding how they might improve their skills
and practice to overcome these issues and better to serve the needs of teachers and students.
In their effort to improve schools, national policy makers also must know that principals
play a key role in the effectiveness of schools. In this regard, this study provides policy makers at
the Ministry level with information concerning the country’s principals’ current practices of
instructional leadership. Because the quantitative part of the study was derived from a relatively
large-scale data set that represented the entire country, the results may inform the Ministry about
the strengths and weaknesses of school principals in performing tasks associated with the
improvement of teaching and learning activities in classrooms. The qualitative part also can
inform the Ministry concerning how instructional leadership is perceived and enacted in schools
and what type of problems principals face as they seek to increase their involvement in academic

7

matters. Therefore, the research can serve as a reference for the Ministry to determine the type of
interventions and to revise the principals’ job description, principal recruitment, and evaluation
criteria.
Finally, another audience of the study is international or national researchers who are
interested in school improvement and leadership. As literature on instructional leadership has
been growing substantially at the global level, the current study provides an understanding of
how the educational context of a country affects the perception and practices of instructional
leadership in schools.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate how instructional leadership is understood,
conceptualized, and practiced in secondary schools in Turkey at a time of substantial reform. It
sought to develop a more empirically grounded picture of instructional leadership through a
mixed method approach that develops understandings from qualitative field data but that also
brings that data to bear on findings from a large scale survey.
According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010), contemporary mixed method research
should adopt a cyclical approach which involves both deductive and inductive logics. The cycle
in this study began with deductive analyses of quantitative survey data on instructional
leadership collected from Turkish principals and teachers in 2008 through the Teaching and
Learning International Survey (TALIS)—an international survey that depended on teacher and
principal perceptions to reveal teaching and learning conditions in schools. My study first
inquired into principals’ specific instructional leadership behaviors as highlighted in the survey,
and it aimed to explore how often Turkish principals got engaged in these behaviors, as reported
by both themselves and teachers. Second, it examined the potential relationship between school

8

and principal characteristics and instructional leadership perceptions, in order to provide an
understanding of the school, principal and teacher related factors that were associated with
variations in the frequency of principals’ specific instructional leadership behaviors.
In addition to findings regarding principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional
leadership, analyses of the TALIS data investigated the comparisons between principal and
teacher level reports of instructional leadership. This was considered as a means to ensure the
validity and reliability of findings by looking at the consistency between the reports from both
sides. According to Hallinger (n.d.), while some effective principals were inclined to
underestimate the extent that they performed instructional leadership, others who might not be
considered effective overestimated their capacity to assess their behaviors associated with
instructional leadership. It was therefore important for the research in this field to depend on
multiple sources of data to examine principals’ leadership behaviors. Hallinger drew upon
teachers’ reports to ensure validity and reliability. Aligned with his method, my study aimed to
use teachers’ reports as well and to compare them with principals’ reports in order to provide a
more valid and reliable picture of principals’ instructional leadership behaviors in Turkish
schools. Overall, this initial step (the quantitative part) provided a broad and reliable profile of
instructional leadership behaviors and associated context factors as reported by principals and
teachers working at middle schools in Turkey
My research then developed case studies of instructional leadership in a sample of six
schools in order to examine more closely how instructional leadership was enacted by principals
and understood by the school community, drawing upon the perspective of principals, assistant
principals, teachers, and counselors. Inductive, interpretative analyses of this qualitative field
data developed a more detailed and grounded profile of instructional leadership perceptions and,

9

importantly, behaviors. The primary aim of the quantitative part of the cycle was to examine
instructional leadership behaviors that seemed to be more or less dominant, and to test the
relationship of a number of school and personal characteristics to the frequency of the
instructional leadership behaviors of principals. The purpose of the qualitative part of the cycle,
on the other hand, was to enhance the explanation by furthering the knowledge and information
acquired from the deductive quantitative analyses. This was achieved through more probing and
in-depth questions that scrutinized principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of instructional
leadership in their schools. The purpose with the qualitative inquiry was to focus on principals’
instructional leadership behaviors that received either more or less attention, and to investigate
how principals and teachers explain the type of instructional leadership enacted by principals and
what encourages or discourages principals to demonstrate certain behaviors.
In the final part of this cycle (the conclusion chapter), analyses sought to shed light on
how instructional leadership was understood and practiced, by bringing together all analyses and
comparing and contrasting survey and case study profiles to probe the potential meanings,
ambiguities, and reliabilities of the quantitative survey reports that influence perceptions,
policies, and practices of the Ministry and other key actors in Turkey. The purpose here, and
overall, was to inform the understandings and actions of policy makers and practitioners alike.
Research Questions
The main question of the study was: How is instructional leadership understood and practiced in
schools in Turkey and what factors influence the way that principals enact instructional
leadership? More specific questions were:
1. How do principals in Turkey perceive and report their own instructional leadership?

10

a. Which instructional leadership behaviors are more or less prevalent, according
to principals?
b. How are school characteristics associated with principal’s reports of their
instructional leadership behaviors?
c. How are principals’ personal characteristics associated with reports of their
instructional leadership behaviors?
2. How do teachers in Turkey perceive the instructional leadership of their principal?
a. How often do the principals demonstrate specific behaviors that are associated
with instructional leadership, according to teachers?
b. How are schools’ characteristics associated with teachers’ perceptions of their
principals’ instructional leadership?
c. How are teachers’ personal characteristics associated with teachers’
perception of their principals’ instructional leadership?
d. How are principals’ characteristics associated with teachers’ perception of
their principals’ instructional leadership?
3. How do the reports of teachers compare to the reports of principals with regard to
principals’ instructional leadership in the Turkish school context?
The above three main questions are quantitative and will be answered using the TALIS
data. Below are the qualitative questions that were intended to further our knowledge regarding
principals’ understanding and enactment of instructional leadership:
4.

How is principals’ instructional leadership understood by administrative and
academic staff?

5.

How is instructional enacted by principals in lower secondary schools in Turkey?

11

6.

How do principals and teachers explain sources of support and constraints to
instructional leadership behaviors?

12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The launch of the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik, by the Soviet Union in 1957 generated
substantial criticism with regard to the intellectual force of the United States. One of the main
targets of the criticism was the education system. After this incident, the report of 1983, A Nation
at Risk, escalated the criticism and proposed the need for a systemic change in education. The
report, comparing US with other nations such as Japan, claimed that US schools were not
sufficiently effective in equipping students with the necessary competencies, skills, and
knowledge to bring out the intellectual force required to compete with other nations. Ever since,
US researchers have directed close attention toward student achievement and the dynamics of
effective schools that have the potential to produce desired student outcomes. For instance, in
order to analyze factors associated with differences in student achievement, Coleman et al (1966)
conducted an extensive study which, later, resulted in a prominent report titled Equality in
Educational Opportunity. In this report, Coleman concluded that student socio-economic status
is the most significant factor determining student achievement.
In response to the Coleman report, more sophisticated research that investigates
characteristics of effective schools has been conducted (DiPaola & Hoy, 2008). A vast body of
this research has found evidence that various school level factors, such as a safe and orderly
environment, high academic press and expectations for students and staff, skillful principals, and
good quality teachers, are also significantly associated with increased student learning (DarlingHammond, 2000; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Klitgaard & Hall,1975; Marzano, 2007). That is,
considerable variation in student achievement and school effectiveness can also be explained
through various factors controlled by schools (Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1984; Edmonds, 1979),
and hence school itself makes a difference in enhancing student learning (Hallinger, et al., 1983).

13

Recent research has also concluded that schools can play an important role in
ameliorating student failure. In this regard, the most outstanding finding has been that the teacher
possesses a critical position (Borman & Kimball, 2005; Ingersoll, 2001; Rockoff, 2004). The
literature further stresses that the teacher particularly makes a difference in the schools that are
filled predominantly with students suffering from low socio-economic conditions (Aaronson,
Barrow, & Sander, 2007). In addition, what Elmore (2004) found concurs with the research
stressing the influence of teachers on student learning. His research pointed out that some
schools, albeit with a high-poverty student population, were doing as well as affluent schools on
state-wide standardized tests. When such cases were further investigated, it was concluded that
the difference between these schools could be explained in terms of the emphasis placed on
continuous efforts for improving instructional quality, and on high expectations for student
learning. This discussion brings us to the question, if the quality of teaching matters, how can
instructional quality be enhanced so that increased student achievement might be attained?
A vast body of research on effective schools provides consistent evidence that effective
leadership is the key factor for school improvement and student achievement (Duke & Stiggins,
1985). For instance, drawing on longitudinal data derived from hundreds of schools in Chicago,
a recent study by Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) concluded that the
school principalship is a significant driving force for a school to achieve high quality instruction
and thereby to enhance student achievement. One of the key elements that constitute an effective
principalship is the principal as an instructional leader. This study provides empirical evidence
that when a school principal demonstrates strong instructional leadership, such as providing
teachers with necessary professional development, establishing a school-wide vision, and

14

aligning instructional practice with the curriculum, student math and reading achievement
increases to a measurable extent.
Instructional leadership as a model varies depending on researchers. There is not one
single understanding of instructional leadership in the literature. Yet, as a concept in general, it
suggests that principals establish school-wide goals and communicate determined goals with the
staff (Hallinger, 1982; 2012; Murphy, 1990; Petterson, 1993; Weber, 1996); it requires principals
to coordinate school curriculum, monitor student progress, and develop instructional strategies
(Hallinger, 1982; 2012: Hallinger & Murphy, 1985); it provides the principal with a framework
to observe and evaluate teachers’ instructional practice, provide feedback, and offer incentives
based on teacher and student progress (Hallinger, 1982; 2012; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Murphy, 1990); and it charges principals with the responsibility to make various professional
development opportunities available to the academic staff (Hallinger, 1982, 2012; Weber, 1996).
The ultimate goal in the emergence of this leadership model is to increase student achievement
by augmenting teacher effectiveness, developing aligned curricula, and specifying school goals.
Compared with other leadership theories, instructional leadership has a particular focus on the
academic aspects of the school, such as educational goals, curriculum development, teacher
improvement, and classroom instruction, in order to ensure the quality of teaching and eventually
to enhance student learning.
The Evolving Concept of Instructional Leadership
The research on instructional leadership traces back to the 1960s, when numerous educational
scholars directed a considerable amount of research toward understanding the characteristics and
components of effective schools. This research has concluded that a principal working closely
with teachers to enhance their instructional competency is one of the key common characteristics
15

of effective schools (Bridges,1967; Brieve, 1972; Clark et al., 1984; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger,
2012; Niedermeyer, 1977). Since then, various models stretching out instructional leadership
have been proposed, and its impact on the processes and outcomes of schooling has been widely
investigated. According to the literature, the research on instructional leadership can be classified
into four categories, based on the evolution of their focus (Hallinger, 2012). These are:
a) instructional leadership in the studies of effective schools;
b) introduction of comprehensive instructional leadership models;
c) studies investigating the impact of context factors on instructional leadership
behaviors of principals and research on the impact of instructional leadership on
teaching and learning;
d) instructional leadership enactment in actual school settings,
Each category above represents different proclivities of research in relation to
instructional leadership. In the first category, instructional leadership is considered a necessary
function of effective school administrators who intend to foster student learning. In the second
category, there has been considerable criticism about instructional leadership in terms of being a
vague concept and not having a well-articulated concrete model. This also corresponds to the
time when a number of researchers invested effort in expanding the view of school management
by developing explicit models of instructional leadership. In the third category, the availability of
various models encouraged researchers to investigate the impact of context factors, such as
school and personnel characteristics, on the instructional leadership behaviors of principals, and
the influence of these behaviors on teacher and student learning. However, the absence of
research on how principals enact instructional leadership, and thereby what instructional
leadership looks like in actual school settings, was still a considerable concern. Researchers in

16

the fourth category largely concerned themselves with filling this gap by conducting qualitative
case studies of those who are considered to be effective instructional leaders.
Effective School Research
After the 1950s, a plethora of studies directed their focus to the characteristics of
principals working in effective schools, and hence the attention was toward the administrative
dynamics that make a school productive. In these studies, the idea of the principal as a central
figure for instructional improvement was usually embedded in the description of effective school
principals, rather than an explicit mention of the term “instructional leadership.” Chase and Cuba
(1955), for instance, identified effective principals as those who help teachers improve their
instructional practices, act less authoritarian and more democratic, develop good human
relationships with staff, and provide directions to reduce ambiguity. Consistently, Goldman and
Heald (1968) found that teachers’ depiction of the effective principal was based predominantly
on two main areas: a) staff involvement in activities, such as evaluating school effectiveness, and
teachers being supervised in terms of their instructional practices; and b) provision of social
support through good relationships and facilitating the work of the teachers.
Research on effective school leadership continued to prevail in the studies of school
administration during the 1970s as well; however, the focus was more on case studies of specific
schools (Clark et al., 1984). Edmonds (1979) stated that strong school leadership is a cornerstone
for developing an effective school that makes a difference, especially in educating lower-income
students. Even though the term instructional leadership was not used, one dimension of strong
leadership in this study involved instructional leadership practices such as helping teachers
develop effective instructional strategies, creating academic goals for students, and keeping track
of the progress that students made. Descriptions of effective school principals in this study

17

associated various activities that could be attributed to instructional leadership. Similarly, Austin
(1979) pointed out that high performing schools were frequently associated with effective
principals who were experts in instructional matters, rather than those who expended plentiful
time in dealing with managerial issues.
On the other hand, a few researchers at that time specifically used the term “instructional
leadership,” and they proposed the term to be an indispensable function of the principalship in
effective schools (eg. Bridges,1967; Brieve, 1972; Niedermeyer; 1977). These early studies
involved initial attempts to develop instructional leadership models. They often depicted
instructional leadership as a model that required principals to take on new roles. For example,
Brieve (1972) created a framework of instructional leadership composed of four principalship
roles: administrative, supportive, coordinating, and initiating. The administrative role included
mainly clerical activities, such as scheduling programs, managing the budget, and assigning
people. The supportive role constituted any motivational or material support that facilitated
instructional improvement. The coordinating role suggested that principals should carry out
necessary changes that enable instructional staff to improve their practice. Finally, the initiating
role meant that principals were the key figures who sought opportunities for that school and
teachers to collaborate and to reach out with resources, such as professional development
activities. Even though the last three roles connect the principal to instructional activities, the
first role, administrative, was substantially focused on non-instructional matters.
In another study, Bridges (1967) examined four prominent instructional leadership
notions that were prevalent in the 1960s—evaluator, helper, integrator and designer. He pointed
out that the role of principal as evaluator is to monitor and evaluate teacher practice based on the
goals and policies of the school. The principal as a helper is responsible for observing teachers

18

and giving them feedback to help them improve their practice. The principal who is an integrator
works for complying with the school’s expectations through the instructional practices of
teachers. Lastly, those who are designers incorporate teachers in their efforts to enhance the
techniques and skills necessary for instructional improvement. Bridges eventually asserted that
none of these views were either comprehensive or appropriate for the skills of principals. He then
provided an alternative view of instructional leadership—the principal-as-experimenter, which
suggested that principals develop and implement strategies and programs for instructional
improvement, and eventually evaluate the contribution of the strategies to the equality of
classroom instruction easier to decide whether to keep or change the strategies.
The study of Blasé (1987), which aimed at discovering characteristics of effective
leadership depending on the teachers’ perspective, depicted leaders of effective schools whose
behaviors were aligned with a number of practices of instructional leadership. He found that
effective leaders were those who possessed expertise, were knowledgeable about curriculum and
instruction, maintained high visibility, had clear and reasonable expectations, provided goals
and directions, and praised and rewarded teachers’ efforts toward improvement. De Bevoise
(1984) defined instructional leadership as the accomplishment of certain actions, including
establishing goals, providing staff with necessary resources for productive instructional practices,
supervising and assessing teacher practice, managing professional development activities, and
creating a school in which teachers engaged through professional collegiality. Elements pointed
out in the study were consistent with the general portrait of current instructional leadership
models.
Accordingly, Rosenholtz (1985) stressed the important role that principals of effective
schools play by saying:

19

Principals of effective schools have a unitary mission of improved student learning,
and their actions convey certainty that these goals can be attained. Such actions
include recruiting outstanding teachers who have goals similar to their own and to
those of other staff, organizationally buffering teachers to ensure that their efforts
are directed toward raising student achievement, monitoring the academic progress
teachers make, supplying additional technical assistance to needy teachers, and
providing-mostly in concert with teaching colleagues-the opportunities to establish
strategies to achieve instructional goals. (p.352)
Although these early effective school studies identified some of the key components of
instructional leadership successfully, such as creating opportunities for teachers to improve,
developing instructional strategies and techniques, and goal alignment, they failed to provide
comprehensive conceptual frameworks or models that brought all the components together
(Hallinger, 2012; Murphy, 1988). Hallinger (2012) summarized the problems in the research on
instructional leadership at this stage as:
a) lack of clearly explicated conceptual frameworks, b) lack of valid and reliable
instrumentation for studying the role, c) lack of theoretical models that articulate how this
role influences student learning, and d) reliance on weak research designs, ill-equipped to
test for causal effects. (p. 49)
Instructional Leadership Models
Even though in my analysis of effective school research above, I focused mostly on the
instructional role of principals, the research on effective schools highlights three key roles of
principals: managerial, instructional, and political (Cuban, 1998). Over time, it is evident that the
instructional role of the principal gained more emphasis and became a separate field of research

20

called instructional leadership. Yet the concept seemed ambiguous in the 1970s, due to the lack
of concrete models identifying key dimensions of instructional leadership. As a consequence of
the awareness that instructional leadership was not conceptualized properly, and of the lack of
evidence concerning its influence on student learning, researchers started developing various
models and corresponding questionnaires that later brought about substantial scholarly attention
and investment in the field of instructional leadership. In this part, I discuss multiple models
proposed by researchers according to their chronological order.
One of the first studies developing a framework for the instructional leadership role of
principals was carried out by Bossert et al. (1982). In this framework they identified
instructional management as the interaction of three components: principal management
behavior, school climate, and instructional organization, which, according to their claim, were
supposed to bring about increased student learning (p.40). Principals can affect the organization
of instruction through school-level factors, such as buffering instructional time, determining
class size and composition, and grouping students and teachers. The other way through which
principals influence classroom instruction is to produce a positive school climate. They stated
that although the concept of climate itself was poorly defined, depending on the research, it
could be argued that climate-related factors, such as teachers’ and students’ sense of efficacy,
focus on goals, safe and disciplined school environment, supportive relationships, and faculty
commitment, were important concepts that principals could work on to improve classroom
instruction. Lastly, it was contended that although principals’ management behaviors did not
have direct influence on classroom instruction, they had an impact indirectly through
instructional organization and school climate, as mentioned above.

21

Hallinger (1983)’s model. The instructional leadership framework proposed by
Hallinger et al. (1983) was, perhaps, the most comprehensive and received the most scholarly
attention. They identified instructional leadership as three dimensions: Defining the school’s
mission, managing curriculum and instruction, and promoting a positive learning climate (p.85).
In addition, each dimension included a number of functions. The functions of defining the
school’s mission were framing and communicating school goals (p.85); and managing
curriculum and instruction consisted of knowledge of curriculum and instruction, supervision
and evaluation of instruction, curriculum coordination, and monitoring student performance
(p.86). Promoting a positive learning climate involved several functions: establishment of high
expectations for students, establishment of academic standards and incentives for learning,
protection of instructional time, and promotion of instructional improvement and professional
development (p.88).
The framework suggests that it is a critical function of school leaders who want to create
an effective school and increase student achievement to determine a number of school goals in
relation to students’ academic achievement. The principal should also ensure that the school
goals are absorbed by the staff. Once clear school goals are established, it is important to align
the curriculum and the classroom practice of teachers with these goals. To accomplish this,
principals need to coordinate curriculum, observe instructional practices of teachers, and provide
teachers with feedback based on observations and other sources of evaluation. Finally, in order to
improve instruction and thereby student learning, it is critical for school leaders to protect
instructional time, determine standards, provide incentives and professional development based
on the current state of classroom instruction and a teacher’s effectiveness, and set high
expectation for all students (Hallinger et al., 1983; Hallinger & Murphy, 1987; Murphy,

22

Hallinger & Mitman, 1983). Hallinger et al. (1983) also developed an instrument that measured
the instructional leadership behaviors of school principals, called the “Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale” (PIMRS), which was later transformed into a form of three
dimensions, including defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and
promoting a positive school learning climate, and 10 functions of instructional leadership
behaviors (Hallinger, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2012).
Murphy (1990)’s model. Murphy (1990) developed a model derived from effective
school research that was composed of four dimensions. His model of instructional leadership
possessed close similarity with the model proposed by Hallinger et al. The first dimension of the
model included developing school missions and goals and communicating these goals with the
school staff. The second dimension, managing the educational program, involved various subdimensions such as supervising and evaluating classroom instruction, promoting good quality
instruction, coordinating the curriculum, protecting instructional time, and monitoring the
progress that students make. Another dimension was promoting an academic learning climate,
and this included setting high standards and expectations, providing incentives for teaching and
learning, maintaining high visibility, and promoting professional development. The last
dimension was creating a supportive work environment, by promoting collaboration among
academic staff, creating a safe environment, promoting student involvement, establishing and
maintaining links between the school and parents, and securing outside resources supporting
school goals.
Petterson (1993)’s model. A different instructional leadership model was developed by
Petterson (1993). His model was constituted by various dimensions which were consistent with
those identified by Hallinger (2001). The first dimension—providing a sense of vision to the

23

school—emphasized the importance of determining shared goals with respect to student
achievement. Supporting classroom instruction and engaging others in the process of
instructional improvement was another key component of his model. The third dimension
involved monitoring instruction by visiting classrooms, observing teachers, and providing them
with constructive feedback. Lastly, creating an instructional climate and school environment that
was conducive to accomplishment of the determined goals corresponded to the effective learning
climate dimension of Hallinger’s model.
Weber (1996)’s model. Weber (1996) also framed a model of instructional leadership
that consisted of five dimensions. According to his model, defining the school’s mission was the
first dimension which helps establish common goals and provides direction toward improvement.
The second dimension, managing curriculum and instruction, referred to principals’
effectiveness in determining instructional practices with teachers that are compatible with the
schools. The third dimension, promoting a positive learning climate, involved setting high
expectation for students and staff, providing rewards for and recognizing improvement, and
protecting instructional time. Another dimension, observing and giving feedback to teachers,
required principals to conduct classroom observations and give feedback with respect to
instructional performance. The last dimension was assessing the instructional program, to make
sure that it was effective in bringing about desired outcomes.
McEwan (1998)’s model. In the book, Seven Steps to Effective Instructional Leadership,
McEwan (1998) developed an instructional leadership model that identified seven dimensions.
Her model viewed instructional leadership more as collective behaviors shared among the
principal and teachers than as behaviors carried out exclusively by the principal. According to
this model, principals share instructional improvement responsibilities by developing teacher

24

leaders and involving them in decision making processes. The first dimension of her
instructional leadership model was establishing and implementing instructional goals. Consistent
with established goals, she suggested that principals should set high expectations for the staff and
offer instructional support to anyone who is in need of it. Other dimensions of her models
included creating a school culture and climate conducive to learning, communicating the vision
and mission of the school, and maintaining positive attitudes toward students, staff and parents.
Taking all models into consideration, it is evident that instructional leadership has been
defined, conceptualized, and framed in many different ways. While conducting TALIS in 2008,
OECD developed a conceptual framework of instructional leadership based on the models listed
above. This model defined instructional leadership through three major functions: management
of school goals, instructional management, and direct supervision of instruction, as indicated in
Table 1 below.
Table 1
Instructional Leadership Framework in TALIS (2008), Created by OECD

Management of School Goals

Instructional Management

Direct Supervision of Instruction

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Ensures PD Activity Consistent with Goals
Ensures Teachers Work According to Goals
Uses Student Results to Determine Goals
Uses Exam Results for Curriculum Development
Ensures Clarity for Curriculum Responsibilities
Works on Goals/ Development Plan
Takes Initiative to Discuss Classroom Issues
Informs about Opportunities to Update Knowledge
Solves Problems Together
Pays Attention to Disruptive Behavior
Conducts Classroom Observations
Gives Suggestions to Improve
Monitors Student Work
Ensures Classroom Activities are Consistent with
Goals

25

Linking Instructional Leadership to Teaching and Learning
Effective school research found that strong leadership was one of the key components of
the schools where student success was evident. This led to the development of the idea that there
might be some connection between leadership and student achievement. An important body of
effective school research therefore was concerned with the relationship between principal
leadership and student learning. In a comprehensive review of the research that was conducted
between 1980 and 1995, Hallinger and Heck (1996) examined principals’ roles in school
effectiveness. They discovered several models in the research that displayed how school
principals might be associated with the student achievement. While some of these models
suggested a direct relationship, the more comprehensive model proposed indirect relationships
that occurred through various mediating variables. The model, which suggested a more
complicated and indirect relationship with mediating variables, was also supported by the
contemporary research (Leithwood et al., 2006)

Antecedent
variables &
Context factors

Mediating
Variables

Principal
Practices

Student
Achievement

Figure 1: How School Leaders Influence Student Achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1996)
Figure 1 displays a model which suggests that the impact of principals on student
learning is indirect. This finding motivated scholars to pay close attention to factors that mediate
between leadership and student learning (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Numerous studies
focusing on mediating factors provided persuasive evidence that by performing instructional
leadership practices such as making various professional development opportunities available to
26

teachers, contributing to the learning climate of the school, and promoting ambitious instruction,
principals can change classroom instruction, and consequently affect student learning (Bryk et
al., 2010; Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
Eberts and Stone (1988), for instance, analyzed the relationship between effective school
leadership and student achievement. The concept of effective leadership in this study consisted
of instructional leadership and conflict resolution, and the concept of instructional leadership was
summarized through several functions of principals, such as setting priorities, evaluating
instructional programs, and organizing and participating in the professional development of staff.
Using a nationally-representative data set encompassing over 14.000 elementary school students,
the study concluded that leadership behaviors with respect to instruction are more likely to
improve student learning; however, principals being a strong school leader in behaviors which
were not related directly to classroom instruction was not found to be directly associated with
student learning. This early study is substantial in that it attempted to link instructional
leadership to student achievement.
Hallinger et al. (1996) examined the relationship between instructional leadership and
students’ reading achievement. Compared with the research of Eberts and Stone (1988), they
analyzed a relatively small set of data, which involved principal and teacher questionnaires and
student test scores of 87 elementary schools from the U.S. They found that principals had an
influence on student reading achievement, yet the influence was indirect, and it was largely
carried out through principals’ influence on the school’s learning climate, such as the school’s
mission, teacher expectations, and student opportunities to learn. The study concluded that
principals play an important role in building a school environment and climate that result in
increased student achievement. Since these factors are unable to exert direct influence, future

27

research should focus on examining multifaceted mediating factors to provide a complete
understanding of the situations through which school leaders might be linked to educational
outcomes.
The study of Hallinger et al. (2006), indeed, furthered the understanding of principal
leadership and the student achievement relationship by providing a framework within which the
influence of leadership could be examined. The framework provided an understanding of the
impact of leadership on student learning. They stressed that there is a need to focus on
antecedent variables and context factors, which help develop a sense of dynamics that influence
the development of instructional leadership behaviors, in order to comprehend how principals’
instructional leadership affects student learning. For instance, Hallinger et al. used a number of
antecedent variables, such as school SES, principals’ gender, parental involvement, and
principals’ teaching experience, to examine the influence of context factors on the practice of
principals’ instructional leadership. The study also identified instructional leadership practices as
one of the mediating variables. However, they ultimately emphasized that there exists more
research focusing on how leadership affects student learning than research investigating the
impact of context factors and antecedent variables on principals’ leadership practices.

Antecedent
variables

Instructional
Leadership
Behaviors

Instructional
Change

Student
Achievement

Figure 2: How Instructional Leadership is Associated with Student Achievement
Figure 2, which displays a model that links instructional leadership to student
performance, suggests that antecedent variables are strongly associated with whether and how

28

principals perform instructional leadership behaviors. Investigation of how these variables are
related with instructional leadership is important for understanding the context behind leadership
practices. The literature pointed out that without taking into account antecedent variables, it is
difficult to understand the context in which principals work and the relationship between
principals’ leadership behaviors and the context (Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1998),
because principals’ decisions concerning what to focus on is not independent of the context and
their characteristics (Goldring, Huff, May, & Camburn, 2008).
A number of studies which examined the instructional leadership behaviors of principals
also investigated the relationship between the level of behaviors practiced and school
characteristics, such as parental involvement, student SES, and student composition (Goldring,
1990; Hallinger et al., 1996). Other studies investigated the relations of instructional leadership
to principals’ and teachers’ personal characteristics, such as gender and professional experience
(eg, Borden, 2011; Goff, Mavrogordato, & Goldring, 2012; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013; Hallinger
& Murphy, 1983). For instance, Hallinger et al. analyzed the relationship of various antecedent
variables to instructional leadership, including parental involvement, the socio-economic status
of students, and the principals’ gender. First, they found a positive relationship between parental
involvement and instructional leadership; that is, principals were ranked higher in terms of
practicing instructional leadership in schools where parents were frequently involved in
schooling processes. Second, they found a positive association between the socio-economic
status of students and principals’ involvement in instructional leadership activities. This suggests
that instructional leadership is more prevalent in the schools in which students have higher socioeconomic status. Lastly, they also found some relationship between the principals’ gender and

29

instructional leadership, such that female principals were more likely to engage in instructional
leadership than male principals.
Apart from antecedents, researchers also directed attention toward understanding how
instructional leadership is associated with student achievement. As a result of considerable
scholarly work, there now seems to be a consensus among researchers that school leaders can
increase student achievement, through their influence on the conditions that lead to instructional
change. The focus of research, hence, has been on the factors that influence change in teaching
methods and strategies (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998, 2010; Heck, 1992; Leithwood et al.,
2006; May & Spovitz, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Southworth, 2002; Supovitzs et al.,
2010).Yet it is also acknowledged that instructional change is not always straightforward
(Hargreaves, 2004), and it requires a great deal of effort. Reviewing the extant literature,
Richards and Skolits (2009) identified a wide variety of barriers to effective instructional change.
These are habits, feeling uncomfortable and fear of change, viewing change as a threat, an unsafe
work environment, lack of administrative support, and the pressure of accountability that results
in doing what sounds the best. Therefore, principals who desire to influence change in teachers’
instruction should effectively work on factors that remove barriers and provide sufficient support
and encouragement to teachers to experiment with different instructional strategies that are
known to be associated with increased student learning.
In response to the fact that instructional change is a challenging issue, the contemporary
research has been devoting effort to exploring ways through which principals might influence
teachers to provide better instructional practices to students. For example, May and Supovitz
(2012) examined the extent to which principals’ instructional leadership efforts resulted in
change in teachers’ instructional practice. They used data collected through principal web logs

30

and teacher surveys, from 51 urban schools. They found that the degree of instructional change
depended on the interaction between teachers and principals, and that the time principals spent
directly on classroom instruction was significantly associated with instructional change. They
also found that the variation in change among teachers was larger than the variation among
schools. The study concluded that principals who allocate more time and energy to a balance of
targeted and broad instructional issues, and who also work closely with individual teachers, are
more likely to change and improve teachers’ instructional practices.
Similarly, drawing upon teacher survey and student achievement data collected from a
school district during an academic year, Supovitzs et al. (2010) examined the influence of the
principal on teachers’ instructional practices and student learning. Specifically, they investigated
whether and how principals might be associated with changes in teachers’ instructional practices.
Their analysis suggested that “principals who focus on instruction, foster community and trust,
and clearly communicate school mission and goals are associated with teachers who report
making a greater degree of changes to their instructional practice” (p.43-44). The importance of
communication, trust, and sense of community in instructional change supports the notion that
effective instructional leaders should maintain close and effective relationships with teachers.
Sebastian and Allensworth (2012) also studied the relationship between principal
leadership and change in teachers’ instructional practices, using the framework of essential
supports (Byrk et al., 2010), which involves some key components of instructional leadership
such as professional community, quality of instructional program, and the learning climate of the
school. Consistent with other studies, they also found an indirect effect of principals’ leadership
on classroom teaching. They found that the only factor that is significantly associated with
classroom instruction is the learning climate of the school when between-school dynamics are

31

examined. Their finding suggests that principals can promote the quality of the instructional
practices of teachers through their influence on the learning climate. The indirect influence of
principals on the quality of teachers’ instructional practices through program quality, such as
professional development and program coherence, seems to be significant when in-school
dynamics are addressed. School teachers who receive high quality professional development are
more likely to possess high academic demand and better instructional practice by maintaining
classroom order.
Enactment of Instructional Leadership
The emergence of instructional leadership definitions and the development of
frameworks have satisfied the need for conceptualizing the term in theory; yet, as was stressed in
the early studies, practices of instructional leadership in actual school settings through qualitative
inquiry is an area that still needs considerable attention. For instance, De Bevoise (1984)
contended that there cannot be a clear certain way of practicing instructional leadership;
therefore, it is important to analyze how instructional leadership is being practiced in different
educational contexts. Similarly, pointing out limitations in the literature on instructional
leadership, Murphy (1988) stated,
Research that investigates the more indirect, less visible, and less technical ways
that principals exercise their instructional leadership role is especially needed.
Studies that investigate the micro and macro contexts in which instructional
leadership unfolds should also have a high priority. (p. 131)
Despite early attention to the need for specific practices of instructional leadership in
various school contexts, responses to that gap in the literature mainly occurred after the
2000s, yet in a small number. For instance, Mitchell and Castle (2005) argued that the

32

concept of instructional leadership is vague because it is practiced differently in different
contexts. In order to illustrate how Canadian principals understand and enact instructional
leadership, they collected data from a sample that consisted of 12 purposively selected
elementary school principals in southern Ontario, Canada. Those principals were selected
from those who achieved huge impacts in building and improving teachers’ instructional
capacity. Drawing upon a qualitative method, the researchers collected data through semistructured in-person interviews, focus group discussions, and in-school observations. The
study’s findings are consistent with the conceptual map of Hallinger (2005), which
illustrated that principals think of instructional leadership through three components:
curriculum expertise, providing professional development, and building a school culture
conducive to learning. Furthermore, the study found that principals’ enactment of
instructional leadership was influenced by four dimensions: personal style that implies
different leadership approaches, degree of coherence in their agendas, direction of
instructional strategies, and availability of enabling structures such as meetings and
workshops. The study further confirmed preceeding literature that instructional leadership is
not practiced in the same way in different places and by different people; hence its’ analysis
should be context-based.
In order to unveil the mechanisms through which principals perform instructional
leadership, Coldren and Spillane (2007) examined the role of boundary practices. Boundary
practices have two components: boundary practice and boundary spanning activities. The authors
defined boundary practices as routines which connect different communities of practice or
constituencies, such as teachers and principals, and boundary spanning activities as individuals
who connect different constituencies. The school sample was selected from those schools whose

33

teachers rated their principals as strong instructional leaders. The study found that effective
leaders used various boundary practices to connect to teachers’ instructional practices, including
observing teachers and conducting formative and summative evaluations, collecting writing
folders, monitoring student assessment results and using them to evaluate instructional programs,
reviewing teachers’ lesson plans, and orchestrating a major professional development program.
In addition, boundary spanning activities helped principals connect teachers with external
resources, such as professional development workshops. The study implied that principals who
want to become effective instructional leaders can exert substantial influence on classroom
instruction by using boundary practices.
Perspectives on Principals’ Enactment of Instructional Leadership
The purpose of the previous section was to provide a framework within which the research on
instructional leadership has evolved over time since the beginning of effective school research.
My review of the literature started with factors leading to effective school research, which
consistently contended that principals’ involvement in educational issues is an important feature
of schools that accomplish substantial student achievement (eg. Bridges,1967; Brieve, 1972;
Clark et al., 1984; Edmonds, 1979; Niedermeyer; 1977). However, effective school research has
not been able to establish conceptual models associated with the term instructional leadership
(Hallinger, 2012). Concrete models that categorize specific behaviors came out as a consequence
of efforts of scholars who conducted a comprehensive review of effective school research (eg.
McEwan, 1998; Murphy, 1990; Peterson, 1993; Weber, 1996). In the literature reviews, I also
pointed out a different segment of research, which was predominantly concerned with
investigating the association between instructional leadership and the teaching and learning that
take place in schools (eg, Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998, 2010; Heck, 1992; Leithwood et al.,

34

2006; May & Spovitz, 2012; Robinson et al., 2008; Southworth, 2002; Supovitzs et al., 2010).
Lastly, I briefly summarized a different type of literature that examined the specific means
through which principals enact instructional leadership (eg. Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Coldren &
Spillane, 2007).
Despite the existence of specific models displaying certain behaviors defined as
instructional leadership, many scholars have suggested a different and sometimes contradictory
definition of the concept as a result of the empirical research they have conducted on school
leadership (Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Reitzug, 1997). This concurs with the argument that
instructional leadership is considerably influenced by the educational context and the leaders’
characteristics (Neumerski, 2012). The context is linked to how principals perceive and practice
instructional leadership on a daily basis (Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Spillane, Diamond, & Jita,
2003; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond 2001). In this part of the review, I provide an analysis of
different perspectives on how instructional leadership is understood and analyzed in a variety of
qualitative and quantitative empirical research.
The Discussion of Principals’ Direct versus Indirect Involvement
A considerable body of studies in the 1980s was designed to provide an understanding of
the link between principals and instructional improvement. The concept of instructional
leadership in these studies did not always imply principals’ direct influence on classrooms and
teaching. For instance, Gillat and Sulzer-Azaroff (1994) supported principals’ direct involvement
in instructional improvement and student learning. They argued that when the principal acts
more like a teacher by observing classrooms, setting goals with students, and giving feedback
and praise to students, student achievement is more likely to increase. In this perspective, the

35

principal is a strong instructional leader who should directly and actively engage in classrooms
and work not only with teachers but also with students.
On the other hand, an important number of scholars have actually contended that direct
influence is not as important as indirect influence, due to the nature of their job; hence, effective
principals are more likely to affect teaching indirectly (Fireston & Wilson, 1985; Dwyer, 1985).
From their perspective, instructional leadership might also involve what is traditionally
considered to be managerial tasks, if such tasks provide an environment of support for
instructional improvement and student progress (Kleine-Kracht, 1993; Mitchell & Castle, 2005).
Kleine-Kracht (1993) provided a different perspective on instructional leadership. She
investigated how instructional leadership is carried out by conducting a qualitative case study of
a high school that was recognized as a good school by the community, as well as by the US
Department of Education. The author drew upon various sources of qualitative data, such as
interviews, school visits, observations, and document analysis, to see an overall picture of the
enactment of instructional leadership tasks. In this study, it appeared that the principal enactment
of instructional leadership was through other people, such as chairs and administrators, by giving
more authority to them so that they could exert more productive influence on teachers
concerning instructional issues. The role of the principal as an instructional leader in this context
was to select people who have more direct influence on teachers, to produce a work environment
conducive to increased student success, and to encourage teachers toward change and innovation.
Blase and Blase (1999) also examined everyday practices of principals’ instructional
leadership, drawing upon teachers’ perspectives. Data for this study was gathered using an openended questionnaire that asked teachers to describe in detail the characteristics or actions of their
principals that helped them improve their instructional practices. The teachers’ responses to the

36

questionnaires indicated that they did not want their principals to be directive in giving them
instructional strategies; rather, they wanted to possess more autonomy in structuring instruction.
Moreover, based on what teachers reported, the authors categorized principals’ instructional
leadership strategies into groups of activities—those which promoted reflection and those which
provided teachers with professional growth. “Activities promoting reflection” included making
suggestions, giving feedback and praise, using inquiry, and soliciting advice and opinions.
Activities defined as providing professional growth included the study of teaching and learning,
supporting collaboration among educators, and developing coaching relations among educators.
In this context, the principals’ instructional leadership role was more of creating opportunities
and environments for teachers and teacher groups so that they could reflect on their own and
colleagues’ instructional practices.
Instructional Leadership as a Shared Responsibility
As schools have received more pressure through the prominent accountability
movements, the support for teachers’ involvement in instructional leadership activities has been
substantial. Indeed, research indicates that school where teachers collaborate and take
responsibility for improving the knowledge and skill of other colleagues are associated with
effective organizations (Hopkins, Ainscow &West, 1994). This finding supported the emergence
of the idea of teacher leadership, which is based on the notion of empowering teachers to take
more responsibilities beyond the classroom, such as getting involved in the decision making
processes of the school and contributing to the professional development of other staff. In many
cases, the way that teacher leadership is defined corresponds to distributed leadership (Harris &
Muijs, 2005).

37

Distributed leadership. The idea of distributed leadership is based on the fact that
carrying out all responsibilities of instructional, managerial, and political duties is beyond the
capability of the one single person who is the school principal (Harris, 2009). Handling
challenges to learning is much easier when people with different backgrounds, skills, and
knowledge collaborate on the problem (Harris, 2008). Hence, the type of leadership that is
distributed among the school community is more likely to create conditions within the school
that are conducive to increased teaching and learning (Dimmock, 2011).
Leadership distribution can be carried out during various leadership processes, including
decision making, improving student learning, empowering academic staff and students, and
evaluating the schools’ academic development (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The school community
can carry out these tasks by distributing the responsibilities among different school personnel, so
that each person can become a part of the school-wide leadership. Leadership distribution,
however, does not devalue the important role that formal leaders play. In the processes of
leadership distribution, principals can lead and direct teachers and play the role of leader of
leaders (Elmore, 2000).
Shared instructional leadership. The idea of distributed leadership has considerable
implications for shared instructional leadership as well. The literature suggests that improving
teaching and learning is not a straightforward task (Hallinger, 2012). It rather requires substantial
amount of time and expertise to determine student needs based on data, to adjust the curriculum
to student needs, to work with individual teachers to determine their instructional needs, and to
provide the type of professional development that addresses the needs of teachers (Leithwood,
1994). In a school where instructional leadership is shared, each teacher who possesses more
expertise in a particular subject matter takes formal and informal responsibility to contribute to

38

the professional development of each other. They collaboratively observe and reflect on the
teaching practices of each other to solve problems related to classroom instruction. The formal
leaders again play the role of leading leaders (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Spillane et al. (2001), for instance, develop a distributed perspective on the enactment of
instructional leadership. In this study, they examined a number of schools to identify the type of
leadership that emerged as a result of work regarding instructional improvement. In one of the
schools, they observed that some important tasks of instructional leadership, such as forging
close and friendly relationships with teachers, observing classroom instruction, and engaging in
post-observation conferences, were enacted by the assistant principal. The principal, on the other
hand, acted more as an authority figure whose connection with teachers was more formal and
involved formal assessment of classroom instruction.
Shared instructional leadership integrated with transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership suggests that the principal plays a role of motivating and/or
inspiring staff so that they develop awareness regarding school goals and prioritize the school to
accomplish goals (Marks & Printy, 2003). Bass (1998) identifies four components of
transformational leadership, including idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. A transformational leader demonstrates at least
one of these functions.
Marks and Printy (2003) suggested that transformational leadership lacks an explicit
focus on teaching and learning in the school. Therefore, they developed a study that linked
transformational leadership and shared instructional leadership, in order to investigate the
influence of an integrated model on student learning. Their research concluded that the school, in
which the principal exhibits features of transformational leadership, and at the same time

39

instructional leadership is shared among the staff, has a higher performance in terms of the
quality of pedagogy and student achievement scores.
International Perspectives on Instructional Leadership
The body of research that has been reviewed so far is based predominantly on US
education and school context. Instructional leadership has also gained prominence
internationally (Hallinger, 2012). Educational researchers in a large number of countries have
investigated the instructional leadership behaviors of school principals, adapting the concept into
their education and school context. For example, Brown and Chai (2012) expounded the efforts
of the New Zealand government to build the instructional leadership capacity of novice school
principals. Aligned with the available research, they developed an instructional leadership tool
entitled “Self-assessment of Leadership of Teaching and Learning (SALTAL). The tool
included various dimensions that enrich the scope of the instructional leadership concept, which
has been primarily theorized by educational scholars from North America. Apart from key
components that existed in PIMRS (Principals’ Instructional Management Rating Scale), an
instructional leadership tool developed by Prof. Hallinger (1983) from North America, SALTAL
also emphasized a collaborative leadership component (principals’ skills and competencies to
work with others toward student achievement goal) and an ethical leadership component (dealing
effectively and fairly with challenging staff issues). From this view, collaboration is a necessary
skill of school principals that should be considered within the framework of instructional
leadership.
Lee, Hallinger, and Walker (2012) conducted a qualitative study regarding the
instructional leadership in international baccalaureate schools in East Asian countries, including
Vietnam, Thailand, Hong Kong, and China. While they interviewed principals, teachers, and

40

students to understand the extent to which instructional leadership was distributed among
different people, the study also involved important implications concerning the practices of
instructional leadership in the East Asian context. As a result of the analysis of the interviews,
they found that these schools had strong instructional leaders, yet their role was more as a
facilitator who encourages the involvement of other staff in instructional leadership activities.
However, a case study on a number of the Australian principals indicated that the way
instructional leadership was enacted varied, depending on the principal. While some principals
linked themselves more directly to classroom instruction, by spending a significant amount of
time in classrooms to enhance teaching and learning, other principals worked with staff to build
capacity as a means to influence instruction rather than engaging directly in the classroom (Gurr,
Drysdale & Mulford, 2010).
Summary of Outstanding Issues and Questions
Educational research has overwhelmingly emphasized that principals should not be constrained
to administrative activities; rather, they should be highly concerned with and involved in
instructional and curricular matters in their schools. In this regard, instructional leadership
studies have played an important role in informing both researchers and practitioners regarding
the means through which school leaders might connect themselves with the core dynamics of the
school—teaching and learning. The literature review on instructional leadership shows that the
concept has emerged from effective school studies. Principals who focus more on teachers’
competency and skills to teach and whether students learn have been found to be one of the
indispensable components of effective schools.
Qualitative studies of effective schools have revealed a wide variety of behaviors and
practices that are associated with instructional leadership. These behaviors and practices appear

41

more like a desultory scene of instructional leadership, until the time when scholars conducted
extensive effective school research and organized those behaviors by developing instructional
leadership models. These models were helpful for the field to conceptualize clearly the term and
to conduct more sophisticated quantitative research. For instance, a considerable number of
quantitative studies focusing on how instructional leadership might be associated with changes
and improvements of teachers’ instructional practices, and increases in students’ academic
achievement, came out after concrete models of the concept had been produced. Using various
instructional leadership models, researchers reached the consensus that instructional leadership
practices are substantial means through which school principals can be linked to the
improvement of teachers’ instructional practices. Since instructional improvement has a direct
influence on student learning, school leaders’ instructional practices were found to be indirectly
associated with student learning. As a consequence, the literature on school leadership was able
to conclude that principals are second to teachers in affecting student achievement.
Despite the fact that the development of instructional leadership models has made an
important contribution to furthering the knowledge of how school principals work with teachers
to enhance teaching, these models might also constrain the literature investigating the specific
roles related to instructional leadership. Researchers have agreed that instructional leadership
consists of a broad range of definitions and practices. Principals get involved in different
practices, depending on the context they work in, and on their knowledge and beliefs regarding
how to improve teaching and learning. For instance, while in some contexts the principal is
considered as a strong instructional leader who is actively and directly involved in processes to
improve teaching and learning, in other context principals are considered as agents who facilitate
school instructional leadership among teachers by forging conditions for teachers to collaborate

42

and engage in reflection on their own and others’ classroom practices. Another argument is that
even managerial behaviors might be considered instructional leadership if they indirectly link to
conditions that facilitate teachers’ work. Instructional leadership, therefore, might imply different
sets of practices for distinct principals and educational contexts; that is, a concrete model or
definition may not be applicable to all principals or schools. This argument is also consistent
with the literature which appears to emphasize different practices corresponding to principals
assuming instructional leadership roles, and different means of enacting instructional leadership.
Furthermore, most of the practices or behaviors that are associated with instructional
leadership were developed as a result of research on effective schools that made substantial
progress in dealing with student failure and improving their achievement. This research,
however, largely focused on the US context. The leadership practices emphasized in these
studies, hence, can better represent the American education and school system, yet might have
limited application to other contexts. As a consequence, it is possible to see efforts in different
countries to develop their own understanding of instructional leadership that better fits their
context. In sum, the need to investigate how instructional leadership is understood and enacted in
different education and school contexts is substantial. Specifically, it is important to know what
type of practices principals and teachers associate with instructional leadership, what constrains
or supports principals to become instructional leaders, and how their personal characteristics and
the characteristics of the context in which they work affect what they practice.

43

CHAPTER 3: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
The literature suggests that leadership behaviors are substantially situated in context, and having
an understanding of the context is crucial in examining and making sense of principals’
leadership behaviors (Hallinger et al., 1996) In this part of the research, I provide a discussion of
educational and social contexts associated with the Turkish educational system, in order to
understand better the multifaceted issues that influence the development of principals’
instructional leadership in Turkey. My analysis of the context involves various issues in relation
to the Turkish education system. Specifically, I start with a discussion of educational structure,
and talk about how someone becomes a principal in Turkey and what types of professional
knowledge and experience they are likely to possess. Then, I shift the discussion to an
examination of various issues that might constrain or support the development of principals’
instructional leadership. These issues include the dominance of social mobility goals, recent
educational policies and reforms from the Ministry, and the role of teacher committees in
schools.
Bureaucracy and Centralized Control
The first educational reform in the history of Turkey took place in 1924, the second year of the
declaration of the Republic. The prominent reform, entitled Law on Unity of Education,
suggested that all educational institutions are to be combined and governed by the Ministry of
National Education (MoNE), in order to ensure centralized control of the state in the execution of
all educational affairs (Erdogan, 2005; Gumuseli, 1996; Silman & Simsek, 2009: Simsek, 2004).
The most comprehensive law that has determined the organization of the education system was
introduced in 1992—Law on Organization and Duties of Ministry of National Education (Milli
Eğitim Bakanlığının Teşkilat ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun). According to the law, MoNE is

44

comprised of sections, including Central Organization (Merkez Teşkilatı), Provincial
Organization (Taşra Teşkilatı), and Foreign Organization (Yurtdışı Teşkilatı) (MoNE, 2011b)
The Central Organization is located in Ankara, the capital city of Turkey, and it involves
various branches, such as the Authority of Minister and the Turkish Board of Education,
Principal Services Units, Counseling and Supervision Units, and Auxiliary Units. In general, the
Central Organization is responsible for producing various policies, programs, rules, and
regulations with regard to education and schools at the national level. For instance, the Ministry
develops educational plans and programs; determines materials and textbooks and provides
schools with educational materials; recruits school personnel, including principals, assistant
principals, and teachers; determines qualifications for specific positions and defines the scope of
responsibility for those positions; and evaluates the performance of recruited personnel (MoNE,
2011b). As a sub-system of the Provincial Organization, each province and district (each
province has various districts) in the country has a branch of the Ministry that is responsible for
the educational issues in that province or district. District Organizations in each province are
connected to the Provincial Organization in that province. Schools are the last in the hierarchy,
and they are governed by District and Provincial Organizations on behalf of the Ministry.
Principalship in the Turkish Educational Context
In this part, I discus the principalship in the context of the bureaucratic and centrally controlled
Turkish education system. Specifically, I address issues including the Ministry’s principal
recruitment policy, principals’ formal job description, and the principal evaluation policy, in
order to understand how someone becomes a principal, what types of professional experience,
knowledge, and skills they are likely to have, and to what extent they are expected to assume
instructional leadership roles.

45

Principal Recruitment Policy
The Ministry of National Education is the formal authority to produce and implement
policies with regard to principal recruitment and appointment to different schools. According to
the current recruitment policy of the Ministry, school staff that have accomplished two basic
criteria—a) having at least a college degree, and b) having at least three years of teaching
experience—are eligible for applying for a principalship position. Candidates are appointed to
the schools based on the final grade they gained from a combination of administrator evaluation
form and administrator selection exam results. The evaluation form is a tool that provides
information regarding the background of the candidate, such as years of teaching and
administrative experience, level of education, and awards and punishments. The administrator
selection exam is designed to measure candidates’ knowledge and competences in Turkish
language proficiency (10%), formal writing (4%), communication (4%), school administration
(4%), human relations (4%), school improvement (4%), ethical issues in education (5%),
bureaucratic protocols (5%), and the Ministry’s rules and regulations (60%) (MoNE, 2011a).
The Ministry’s selection policy gives important information about the profile of
knowledge and skills that principals are supposed to have. The most conspicuous point in the
exam is the dominance of the criteria to know the rules and regulations developed by the
Ministry, which occupies 60% of the total exam questions. The reason why rules and regulations
are strongly stressed in the principalship exam is most likely a consequence of the centralized
control system. The Ministry wants to make sure that schools are filled with principals who are
knowledgeable about the way that the education system operates and are capable of running the
school accordingly. Other components of the exam, such as bureaucratic protocols, language
proficiency, and formal writing skills, also support the notion that the Ministry is primarily

46

concerned with the ease of the flow of information for maintaining a tight connection of the
school to the Ministry, which is a critical characteristic of centrally controlled bureaucratic
systems.
Taking into consideration the principal evaluation form as a criterion for the selection
policy, it is difficult to predict the type of principal leadership roles that might emerge in the
schools. However, we know that the components of the evaluation form—the level of education,
and the years of teaching and administrative experience—are not strongly associated with
instructional leadership, according to the contemporary literature in Turkey. This does not mean
that they are not important at all. For instance, educational researchers suggest that having some
level of teaching experience is crucial for effective enactment of instructional leadership,
because this leadership type requires principals to have some level of pedagogical and content
knowledge, and a sense of what good quality instruction in general looks like (Stein & Nelson,
2003). Teaching experience might be helpful for principals to acquire pedagogical and content
knowledge that is more practice-oriented.
The principal selection exam gives some information about the role of principal as well.
If the exam reflects knowledge and competencies properly, principals are presumably recruited
from those who are skilled at turning national educational policies into practice at the school
level; and Turkish language proficiency and formal writing indicates that they are supposed to
have good formal communication skills. On the one hand, those types of knowledge and skills
seem to be more compatible with managerial roles, such as completing the paper work required
by the Ministry, managing the budget, and keeping track of the school and the academic
schedule. On the other hand, other components of the exam, including school administration,
human relations, and school improvement, which constitute 12% of the total exam questions,

47

involve knowledge and skills necessary for enactment of instructional leadership practice. This is
because instructional leadership is seen as a substantial characteristic of principals aiming to
improve the school. In addition, developing a good relationship with the academic staff is
important for enactment of effective instructional leadership. The point, however, is that these
components are in a minority, and they have not received much emphasis in the exam.
Therefore, in general, based on the Ministry’s principal selection criteria, it can be hypothesized
that the managerial roles requirements are more salient and receive greater attention than
instructional leadership roles.
Principals’ Job Description
As discussed above, the principal selection criteria provide some information regarding
the type of knowledge and skills that principals are supposed to possess before they are actually
recruited. However, this information is limited in that it is difficult to predict the type of
leadership roles they will be taking on once they start their work at a school, unless we look at
the official documents that elaborate principals’ responsibilities. Given the selection criteria, the
type of knowledge they are supposed to have is known, but it is not clear what type of behaviors
principals will be required to practice. Therefore, I intend this part of the discussion to include an
analysis of official documents, such as the job description that expounds the expected roles of
principals.
As discussed earlier, due to the centralized control characteristic of the education system, it
is the Ministry of National Education that decides the responsibility of school principals in
Turkey. Looking at the scope of the principals’ job description as determined by the Ministry, we
see that it encompasses both managerial and instructional leadership, even though it is not
difficult to recognize that there is more emphasis on managerial responsibilities, such as

48

maintaining discipline, managing the budget, and ensuring the availability of school
infrastructures. It is stressed in the rules and regulations which define the principals’ job that
principals are also the instructional leader in their school, and they are required to take on
various instructional leadership behaviors, such as developing a school vision, improving the
quality of teaching, supporting professional development, and rewarding successful students
(MoNE, 2000). Given that definition, one would expect that Turkish principals develop a school
vision and establish specific goals, engage in activities to evaluate the instructional practices of
teachers, take initiative to respond to the needs of academic staff, have understanding of success
for students, and reward students based on accomplishments.
Although it is promising to see that principals are expected to assume the instructional
leadership role, the scope of instructional leadership responsibilities is usually abstract and
narrowly defined. For instance, one of the responsibilities of principals is defined as “taking
necessary steps to develop and improve school personnel” (MoNE, 2000). Giving this statement,
it is evident that principals are required to work on teacher improvement, yet it is up to principals
to decide what the necessary steps are. On the one hand, it is not always a disadvantage to have a
lack of clarity in a job description, since weak definition of a job responsibility in a context of a
strictly centralized education system might give principals a certain level of discretion in their
enactment of school and personnel development. On the other hand, professional discretion
might be problematic in the Turkish school context, where principals suffer from the paucity of
available resources and inadequate in-service and pre-service training opportunities, which
presumably hinders their capacity for instructional leadership (Gumuseli, 1996).
Abstract definitions of instructional leadership are not always the case. Recent regulations
by the Ministry regarding the job description of principals seem to be clearer, more directive, and

49

more supportive of principals’ involvement in instructional matters than they were before. For
instance, in 2010 the Ministry added two new items to the job description of principals, one of
which is directly related to instructional leadership. According to the recent regulations, it is now
mandated that the school principal “observes the classroom instruction of each teacher at least
once in each semester and provides guidance so as to improve teachers’ performance” (MoNE,
2010). Since rules and regulations produced at the ministry level are a must for schools to
implement, I now expect that the instructional behavior of principals, defined as direct
supervision of classroom instruction, presumably increased in quantity across the country after
2010. Based on the regulation, I also presume that principals are engaged more in the classroom
practices of teachers; they have a better sense of what good instruction looks like; and they are
involved more in conversations with teachers to give them feedback about teachers’ strengths
and weaknesses, and to make suggestions about the ways to improve or directly to provide
opportunities for teachers to promote practical skills.
School Inspection System
Annual school inspections by the Ministry constitute a substantial component of the
education system in Turkey. The duty of school inspection is carried out by official inspectors
assigned from the Ministry. They are responsible for inspecting the school in general, and for the
performance of principals and teachers specifically. According to the Ministry, inspection has a
wide variety of purposes, such as determining problems associated with teaching and learning;
making sure that the school is operated based on principles of national education, and that the
school uses time, materials, and human force effectively and efficiently; evaluating the
performance of school personnel such as teachers and administrators; contributing to the
communication and relationships among teachers, administrators and parents; increasing job

50

satisfaction and moral; and raising the outcome and effectiveness of the school to the highest
level. Based on these purposes, the inspector observes the physical environment of the school
and classrooms; engages in active communication with the principal and investigates documents
about the school activities and progress; and evaluates teachers’ performance by examining their
annual plan, observing instructional practice, and checking for student learning. The outcome of
inspection is a school inspection report that involves a summary of the strengths and needs of the
school, the performance of administrators and teachers, and a corresponding grade for each
personnel (MoNE, 2001).
School inspection includes considerable information concerning what the Ministry holds
principals responsible for. The principal evaluation form, one of the outcomes of school
inspection associated with the performance of principals, is the most helpful tool in order to
investigate the type of behaviors that they are more likely to perform. The form is divided into,
and therefore evaluates principals’ performance, in five categories: maintaining the physical
conditions of the school, maintaining and evaluating educational activities, carrying out
bureaucratic responsibilities, taking care of administration and community involvement, and
being involved in personal improvement activities. When the sub-components of each category
are further examined, it becomes clear that the only category that is directly related to
instructional leadership is maintaining and evaluating educational activities. This category
requires school principals to be involved in activities such as detecting instructional problems
and working on them for solutions; making sure that educational outcomes are aligned with
school goals; measuring and evaluating student achievement; securing the uniformity of
teachers’ planning, implementation, and evaluation strategies; searching for the reasons of lack
of student success; and developing strategies to deal with problems (MoNE, 2001). Given those

51

benchmarks on which principal evaluation is based, it makes sense to expect that school
principals establish school goals and manage instructional programs by monitoring student
progress, determining a clear process for planning and implementing instruction, evaluating
student achievement, monitoring student progress, and dealing with impediments to student
success.
School inspectors evaluate principals’ performance based on those five categories in the
principal evaluation form; they give a grade corresponding to each category, and they also give a
final grade that shows overall performance. Even though the inspection law does not provide
sufficient information regarding the significance of this grade, one clear point is that those who
acquire a high grade might be rewarded depending upon suggestions by the inspector. At the
same time, it is stressed that the purpose of inspection is not to judge but to provide
recommendations and inform the Ministry about the need of professional development for school
personnel. Therefore, the principal evaluation form serves as a tool for the Ministry to unveil
areas in which principals are in need of improvement. Corresponding professional development
topics and activities are determined based on reports provided by the Ministry. Professional
development activities are mostly carried out through seminars held at the state level and the city
level.
Overall, examining the principal recruitment system, the formal job description, and the
evaluations via school inspectors, it is evident that school principals are expected by the Ministry
to perform more managerial duties. However, as indicated above, there are also some
components in each system that require principals to conduct various instructional leadership
activities. These include developing a school vision, ensuring consistency among teachers in
their strategies to plan and implement instruction, evaluating student performance, taking

52

necessary steps to help teachers improve, observing instruction and giving feedback to teachers,
investigating problems associated with lack of student achievement and corresponding solutions,
and rewarding student success.
Although the analysis of the principalship in the Turkish context indicates that the
Ministry mandates school principals to get involved in instructional leadership activities in
addition to performing managerial tasks, quality is always a concern due to several reasons. One
of the very first problems is related to the Ministry’s principal selection process. The selection
criteria, including the principal evaluation form and the exam, do not take into account formal
training regarding the principals’ effectiveness in improving teaching and learning. Hence, it can
be argued that the criteria involved in the Ministry’s principal recruitment policy are not capable
of selecting effective instructional leaders (Ada & Gumus, 2012; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013).
Second, as mentioned in the beginning, because the system is too bureaucratic and deals with a
large number of bureaucratic issues that are everyday activities of principals, they might lack
sufficient time to get engaged in instructional leadership behaviors, such classroom observations,
in a systemic manner (Gumuseli, 1996). Third, it is always a concern that school principals may
simply get involved in instructional tasks, such as establishing goals, observing teaching, and
giving feedback, with the purpose of meeting the requirements mandated by the Ministry, instead
of seeing the process as an avenue for teacher improvement. Fourth, in order for principals to
conduct effective classroom observations and provide teachers with constructive feedback, it is
articulated in the literature that they need to acquire at least some level of content and
pedagogical knowledge in a variety of subject matters (Stein & Nelson, 2003). However, due to a
number of reasons, it is less likely that Turkish principals acquire such knowledge to become
effective instructional leaders.

53

First, university departments that prepare school administrators are critical sources for
principals to gain skills and knowledge regarding instructional leadership. However, most
leadership programs are theory-oriented and do not offer practice-based courses that can prepare
principals for actual school conditions (Ada & Gumus, 2013; Gumus & Bellibas, 2013).
Furthermore, Ada and Gumus (2012) compared educational administration programs in Turkish
universities to those in US universities, and they found that most programs in Turkish
universities do not offer courses aiming to teach the knowledge and skills pertaining to
instructional leadership. Second, as discussed above, professional development activities for
school principals involves only seminars that are organized by the Ministry, based on the reports
of school inspectors. Many researchers have pointed out that since the inspections depend mostly
on the subjective judgment of the inspector, are conducted once or twice a year, and are done in a
short period of time, they are not capable of determining the actual needs of principals (Gumus
& Akcaoglu, 2013; Memduhoglu & Zengin, 2012; Taymaz, 2002; Uysal, 2011). Therefore,
corresponding professional development is less likely to be effective in helping principals gain
knowledge and develop skills to become instructional leaders.
Tension in Educational Goals
Establishing consistent educational goals plays a deterministic role in producing an effective
education system which supports student success. Labaree (1997) identified the US education
system as driven by three major goals—democratic equality, social efficiency, and social
mobility. This way of classification also serves as a framework within which I discuss Turkish
national educational goals. He indicated that from the perspective of the democratic equality
goal, education serves the public benefit and is designed to prepare students for good citizenship
and political roles. From the viewpoint of the social efficiency goal, however, the role of

54

education is to help students gain skills required for the economic growth of the country. These
two goals are based on the notion that education should be a public good and should promote
society as a whole. By contrast, the social mobility goal considers education as a private good
which intends to provide individual students with credentials that will enable them to improve
their own social position.
In the Turkish education context, the primary goal of the national education system is
based on democratic equality. It is stressed in the main law of national education that the
purpose of primary schools is to raise citizens according to principles of the country, such as
democracy, to augment student awareness regarding their personal skills, and to help them learn
the national culture and become a member of the larger society, and so on (MoNE, 1973).
Similarly, at the secondary level, educational goals are also based on democratic equality. For
instance, the law on the secondary school describes the purpose of the school as “helping them
recognize the society by providing students with the basic cultural knowledge and by helping
them gain consciousness to search for solutions to the problems and to promote social and
cultural development of the country.” At the same time, there is also a particular emphasis on
social efficiency at the secondary level. The same law states that “the purpose of secondary
education is to prepare students for higher education or/and occupations, or/and for life and work
(MoNE).” It is evident that these types of goals are very abstract, and it is very difficult to
measure the extent to which they are accomplished (Erdogan, 2005). Because it is difficult to
measure, the primary concern of the Ministry has been about the processes of schooling rather
than the outcomes. As a consequence of the nature of national educational goals, I argue that at
the school level there is not any mechanism from the Ministry that pressures principals to
increase student achievement. That is, there is a lack of incentive for principals to increase

55

student achievement. In other words, principals will not be penalized due to student failure, or
awarded in the case of increased student success.
National exams, on the other hand, occupy an important part of students’ life in Turkey.
Students who desire to acquire esteemed social positions have to go through two critical exam
systems in their K-12 education experience: high school and university entrance exams (Ozoglu,
2011). As discussed above, the national educational goals are based predominantly on
democratic equality, and therefore an increase in test score is not a primary goal. Yet the
educational system is organized in a way that makes it unable for students to attend a good
quality high school unless they pass the high school entrance exam. It is also not possible for
students to attend college without earning a high score on the university entrance exam. Based on
the reality of exams, it could be argued that even though educational goals emphasize democratic
equality and social efficiency, the system that is organized around exams better fits the social
mobility goal. This presumably causes a tension between the interests of national education and
of parents: Most parents consider education as a credential for students to be eligible for taking
the university entrance test, in order to get a college degree for better social positions; by
contrast, according to the Ministry, it is a process to prepare good citizens for society and for the
job market. Therefore, increases in students’ test scores are the primary purpose of parents; yet
school personnel do not pay much attention to what students get on tests.
In this context, where the majority of school personnel such as principals do not care
much about student test scores, yet the national level exams are part of the education system that
parents and students care about the most (Aksit, 2007), the development of dersane (private
tutoring institutions) and private schools becomes inevitable. Most parents and students seek out
private tutoring institutions and private schools which are highly motivated to get students high

56

test scores on the national exams, rather than expecting public schools to prepare students for the
national exams (Ozoglu, 2011). In addition, owing to the nature of the centralized education
system, parents exert the least influence (if not none) on the decision-making mechanism of
public schools, such as curriculum and teacher selection. Therefore, it would make sense to
argue that parents put pressure on principals at the private schools, rather than on those working
at the public schools, so as to make necessary changes and improvement in the private school to
increase student test scores. Public school principals who do not receive pressure, either from the
Ministry or from parents, are less likely to engage in activities that promote student test scores,
simply because there is no pressure from parents or the Ministry for them to do so.
Unlike public schools, it is more likely that private schools and tutoring institutions
receive pressure from parents as well as the market of private schooling, particularly in regards
to student learning outcomes (Friedman, 1997). They receive pressure from parents because
parents want their children to get a high score on the national exam. They also receive pressure
from the market since there is a substantial competition among private schools in Turkey in
terms of getting the largest number of students either to the best high schools or to the best
colleges in the country. Teachers’ and principals’ performances are judged based on whether
student test scores increase. As a result, it is meaningful to expect that private school principals
have more concerns about classroom instruction and student test scores, and hence instructional
leadership is more salient among private school principals. Specifically, we expect that private
school principals establish academic goals and set high expectations for individual students to
get higher test scores; they monitor students’ academic progress to make sure that students’ trial
test scores are in a trend of constant increase; they supervise and evaluate teachers’ instructional
practices; and they provide incentives for teaching and learning to ensure that schools have good

57

quality teachers that help students get the highest possible score in the national exams. However,
these are exclusively based on an assumption. We do not really know whether or to what extent
principals in private schools actually do assume instructional leadership roles with higher
frequency than public school principals do, since there is a lack of research examining
instructional leadership in private schools in Turkey.
Taking into consideration all the factors I discussed above, I assert that it is less likely
that public school principals take on instructional leadership roles. In fact, most of the literature
in Turkey concurs with this argument. For example, investigating elementary school principals’
instructional leadership behaviors from the teachers’ perspective, Aksoy and Isik (2008) found
that the most frequent behavior of public school principals is to ensure that classes start and end
on time, yet visiting classrooms and observing teachers’ instructional practice is only done on an
occasional basis. Similarly, another study concluded that overall the instructional leadership
behaviors of public school principals are low in frequency, particularly in the sub-component of
making professional development opportunities available for teachers (Gumus & Akcaoglu,
2013). However, most studies of the instructional leadership capacity of school principals in
Turkey have focused on elementary school. The need for additional research that includes middle
and/or high schools is substantial so that a more complete understanding of instructional
leadership in Turkish context is possible.
Recent Educational Policies and Reforms
Despite the current situation, there is also some evidence which supports the development of
instructional leadership in Turkey. The first one is related to the abolishment of dersane(s),
private tutoring institutions. The dersane is usually seen as a threat to the prominent principle of
the education system—equal opportunity. Therefore, the current government is decisive in

58

abolishing the dersane and allowing those institutions to establish or shift to private schools. As
a consequence of this policy, a dramatic increase in the number of private schools is highly
likely. At the same time, it is predicted that students who cannot afford private education will
stay in public schools, and these schools will regain attention from students, parents, and the
community. Public school teachers and principals will presumably receive pressure from parents
to better prepare children for national exams.
International exam results such as PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) show that on average Turkish students are performing below the average of
students from OECD countries (OECD, 2004). Lack of success has made a significant impact on
national educational policy, particularly in the last eight years. In 2005, the Ministry of National
Education introduced a national curriculum reform that pays more attention to classroom
instruction and student achievement (Aksit, 2007). The reform aims at improving the national
curriculum by shifting classroom teaching from teacher-oriented to student-oriented instruction,
and implementing project-based student assessment (Talim Terbiye Kurulu, 2005). It is my
conviction that such changes will also affect the role of principals. As I discussed earlier,
principals are primary personnel responsible for implementing policy by the Ministry at the
school level. Because the nature of the policy change is related more to classroom instruction, as
a result of the new policy change principals should engage more in the classroom in order to
make sure that teaching and learning activities are consistent with the Ministry’s policy.
Similarly, recently the Ministry revealed another national project that aims to improve
classroom instruction, by expanding the availability of technological devices, including
projectors and interactive white boards. The project also involves distributing tablet computers to
each student and teacher (FATIH Project, 2012). The reform that attempts to improve teaching

59

and learning in schools in Turkey presumably puts significant pressure on school
administrations. Principals have to make sure that all devices are installed in the classrooms, and
that teachers are integrating them into their teaching style. They will presumably engage more in
discussions with teachers about the problems of technology integration into instruction and
possible solutions. This in turn will promote their understanding of classroom instruction and
their roles as instructional supervisors.
Teacher Committees
Teacher subject matter or grade level committees, known as zümre öğretmenler kurulu and şube
öğretmenler kurulu, are important structures for principals in Turkish schools to become more
involved in indirect instructional leadership activities. The Ministry mandates that teacher
committees should hold meetings at the beginning of the academic year, during the academic
year, at the end of academic year, and whenever is needed. The meeting consists of assistant
principals, teachers, and, in some cases, students as well. The purpose of the meetings is to
establish consistency among educational programs and courses; to manage effective use of
educational materials and labs; to prepare instructional techniques and materials for courses; to
discuss various educational and instructional problems and seek solutions to them; to investigate
the appropriateness of the school environment for student success; to discuss up-to-date issues
regarding education; to produce common measurement and assessment materials; and to seek
solutions to students’ problems.
In a hierarchical school system, where the establishment of informal relationships
between the teacher and the principal concerning instructional improvement may be difficult, it
is more convenient for teachers who teach the same subject matter to contribute to the
instructional improvement of each other in an informal way (Karaman, Yucel, & Donder, 2008).

60

Although the teacher committees also involve dealing with various managerial issues, they can
be a substantial opportunity for teachers to collaborate in conducting informal classroom
observations and to share instructional materials. Through subject matter committee meetings,
teachers can discuss instructional issues that emerge from their observations, and they can give
feedback to one another.
In 2006, the ministry also required teacher committees to provide a comprehensive report
regarding instructional techniques, materials, and student progress to the principal (MoNE,
2003). This involves opportunities for principals to enact the instructional leadership role.
Principals, for instance, can play an important role in contributing to the effective operation of
teacher communities. Research indicates that principal involvement in direct supervision of
teaching and the management of classroom instruction facilitates the development of
professional collaboration among teachers in the Turkish context (Gumus et al., 2013). Principals
can encourage and facilitate the learning of subject matter teachers, by joining teacher committee
meetings and listening to their ideas, providing necessary resources to make their work more
effective, and creating school-based professional development opportunities.
Implications
In this part of the proposal, I have provided a discussion of instructional leadership in the
Turkish context in order to understand the factors influencing its development. Specifically, I
discussed the principalship in Turkish schools, including their recruitment, job description,
evaluation, and professional development opportunities. In addition to the principalship, I also
examined the structure of the education system, national educational goals, the social context, the
Ministry’s contemporary policies, and their potential impact on the development of principals’
instructional leadership behaviors.

61

Overall, the analysis of the principalship suggests that there is more emphasis on the
managerial role of the principal in comparison to instructional leadership roles in Turkey.
Principals are recruited by the Ministry through exams and principal evaluation forms. When the
scope and content of the exams and evaluation forms are analyzed, it is clear that principals are
selected from those who are more familiar with the rules and regulations produced by the
Ministry, who are more capable of communicating with the upper authorities in the hierarchy of
the education system, and who possess more experience in administration and knowledge
concerning the school system. The formal description of the principals’ job is also consistent
with their recruitment policy, such that it also involves more tasks associated with managerial
roles. However, it is also the case that recent regulations have mandated principals to get
involved more in classroom instruction, by observing teaching and giving feedback to teachers.
This is more likely to make them become closer to the classroom, where teaching and learning
take place, and to influence the amount of time they spend on instructional tasks.
Lastly, the principal evaluation policy of the Ministry was analyzed. The analysis showed
that principal evaluation, which is done once or twice a year in a short period of time by the
inspectors sent from the Ministry, is less likely to assess principals’ actual performance.
Particularly because instructional leadership is a continuous process, inspectors can hardly judge
principals regarding their effectiveness in working with teachers to improve instruction.
Therefore, professional development offered to principals as a result of reports from inspectors is
presumed to be lacking in terms of a comprehensive focus on the instructional leadership roles of
principals. This situation is more likely to reduce the control of the Ministry on the principal’s
role as instructional leader, and therefore impair the accountability of principals to get involved
in instructional improvement activities.

62

Furthermore, the analysis suggested the conflict of school principals being more likely to
devote attention to the effective operation of the school instead of to the primary outcome—
student achievement due to the lack of incentives from the Ministry for student learning. It can
therefore be argued that public school principals’ primary concern is not to improve student test
scores, but rather to establish a school that runs smoothly. On the other hand, in an education
context where national exams are critical in determining students’ future academic endeavors,
private school principals who receive pressure from parents for better student test scores are
more likely to be concerned about the quality of teachers and classroom instruction. Therefore, it
is much more meaningful to expect that the instructional leadership occurring at private schools
is stronger, compared to public schools. As indicated earlier, this argument is only based on an
assumption; that is, there is lack of focus on private school principals in terms of what
instructional leadership roles they in fact often engage in, to what extent they engage in them,
and what they understand about instructional leadership.
However, I also mentioned significant educational reforms introduced by the Ministry
with the purpose of improving teaching and learning in schools. Aligned with such reforms,
regulations that require principals to engage in classroom observations and feedback to teachers
could be considered substantial factors that might contribute to the development of the
instructional leadership role of principals in public schools in Turkey. Therefore, additional
research is needed to examine whether and to what extent recent educational reforms and
legislation that mandate principals’ involvement in classroom instruction actually influence their
understanding and practices of instructional leadership.

63

CHAPTER 4: METHODS
The purpose of the research was to provide an extensive picture of the development of
instructional leadership in Turkey. More succinctly, the study aimed to illustrate the level of
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and the factors associated with that level of
leadership, by using a large-scale international survey (TALIS) data set. In addition, it aimed to
further the explanation of the quantitative findings by gathering qualitative data that focused on
principals’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding their understanding and enactment of
instructional leadership. Such a comprehensive study can hardly be done using a single method.
Therefore, I intended the study to gather data utilizing the elements of different methods—
qualitative and quantitative. In this chapter, I first present a discussion concerning why
incorporating a blend of methods might develop better understandings of instructional leadership
in schools. I then elaborate a mixed methods approach that best fit the nature of my research
questions. Finally, I sketch out the framework for my data collection and analysis process.
Mixed-Method Design
There are two research methodologies dominating educational research: quantitative and
qualitative. Each methodology has strengths and limitations that both attract and repel
researchers (Drew, Hardman, & Hosp, 2008; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). The way these
methodologies are employed in research demonstrates a tendency toward dichotomy; that is,
studies are usually dominated by either a qualitative or a quantitative method (Newman, 2000;
Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). Yet there is also an increasing number of cases that combine some
elements of both types to conduct more reliable, comprehensive, and extensive investigations of
a proposed problem. These combinations are called mixed method designs (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).

64

In contrast to the general inclination toward research based on one single methodology, a
growing number of researchers point out the capacity of mixed method designs to produce indepth answers to targeted research questions (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Johnson et al.,
2007; Lopez-Fernandez & Molina-Azorin, 2011; Newman, 2000; Siraj-Blatchford, Sammons,
Taggart, Sylva, & Melhuish, 2006; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010; Viadero, 2005). Mixed method
approaches were born as a response to the limitations of using one single methodology (Johnson
& Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Hence, the purpose of using mixed methods is to enhance the strength of
research findings and to lessen the limitations stemming from each approach alone (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007; Drew et al., 2008; Kopacsi & Walker, 2000).
Each of the three approaches has its own ontological assumptions; that is, each has a
different definition of reality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Quantitative researchers’ definition of
reality is based on the positivist viewpoint—they seek one unique reality that is objective and
undisputed (Johnson & Gray, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil,
2002; Schulenberg, 2007). According to their understanding, knowledge is free from the
researcher and context. Because of this, quantitative researchers ultimately want to produce
generalizable conclusions (Biesta, 2007). Although the sample size is limited compared to the
actual population, the participants are ideally randomly selected (Drew et al., 2008), in order to
provide more reliable information about the large number of people to whom the results can be
generalized (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011).
Quantitative design uses a limited sample to represent the population concerning a given
problem. Analyzing various variables by using quantitative methods enables researchers to test
differences while controlling for a number of factors that might affect the targeted variable
(Newman, 2000; Drew et al., 2008). Moreover, numerical scores are usually central to this type

65

of research. Results and conclusions derived from analyses are considered to be more objective
and are less likely to be manipulated (Newman, 2000). These are considerable advantages that
appeal to many researchers and policy makers who intend to influence government officials to
make substantial policy changes.
However, positivist-based quantitative methodology also involves a number of
limitations. The most conspicuous limitation of quantitative research is that the numerical
representation of the unit of measurement can only provide a superficial understanding of
performance, and it lacks the capability to provide a context-based understanding of the problem
(Drew et al., 2008). For instance, instructional leadership includes a wide range of practices that
vary, depending on school personnel and context. A quantitative design might give a sense as to
which dimensions of instructional leadership are more or less prevalent; however, more in-depth
investigation is required to uncover participants’ beliefs, understandings, and practices, and their
relationship to the context in which leadership occurs. The quantitative approach alone lacks the
elements and characteristics that could support such a type of research (Viadero, 2005).
In contrast to the quantitative method, the qualitative method depends predominantly on
constructivist and interpretist viewpoints that highlight the interpretable aspects of reality.
(Johnson & Gray, 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Sale et al., 2002). Reality is socially
constructed; that is, “there is more than one reality due to a process of interpretation whereby the
social actors negotiate meaning and understanding” (Schulenberg, 2007, p. 100). From this
perspective, positivism, which seeks one undisputable reality, is problematic because one reality
is not possible in a situation where different people understand the world from different
viewpoints (Schulenberg, 2007).

66

Qualitative research aims to describe a particular situation extensively, by conducting an
in-depth investigation of a problem in its natural settings, because the natural setting influences
the way social actors understand the world (Drew et al., 2008; Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011).
These characteristics of the qualitative approach are compatible with some of the research
questions that I investigated: How do principals and teachers explain sources of support and
constraints to instructional leadership behaviors in the Turkish school context? How is
instructional leadership understood and enacted by school principals? Due to the nature of these
goals, it is necessary to engage in deep conversation with principals and teachers to unveil their
understanding of the reasons behind their current behaviors of instructional leadership.
Although there is not one single definition of mixed methods research, the consensus is
that it aligns with a pragmatic orientation. The pragmatic approach rejects the dichotomy of
constructivism and positivism. According to the pragmatic viewpoint, the way to “truth” is the
method that is best suited to reaching research goals and purposes (Biesta, 2007; Howe, 1988).
Incorporating the elements of both methods is possible and acceptable if this provides better
answers to the proposed research questions (Biesta, 2007; Gorard & Taylor, 2004).
Depending on individual methods’ approach to “reality,” I was convinced that
instructional leadership could be better understood by combining both quantitative and
qualitative methods. I believed that each method alone could not provide convincing answers to
the questions in the current study. For example, understanding the instructional leadership
behaviors that Turkish principals are more frequently engaged in was possible through a
quantitative approach. However, providing persuasive answers to the extent to which principals
enact certain instructional leadership behaviors, how they enact them, and what factors influence

67

the way that they enact them required a method that brings together the components of both
quantitative and qualitative methods in a systematic manner.
It is well articulated in the literature that the best way to determine which method to
employ for a specific study depends on the research questions (Creswell & Clark, 2006; Gorard
& Taylor, 2004; Viadero, 2005). We know that there are quantitative questions, such as how
much of something is happening and where, that are amenable to quantitative methods, while
queries into the how and why of these things are much less so. A combination of such questions
in the same research requires a mixed method design.
The purpose of this study was not solely to examine factors that best explain the outcome
or to analyze the situation and context; it was indeed to incorporate various features of both
methods to provide a complete understanding of the research questions (Schulenberg, 2007). The
study was compatible with a mixed method approach since it involved quantitative and
qualitative questions. For instance, questions examining the influence of broad patterns of
teacher, school, and principal characteristics on instructional leadership perceptions and
behaviors were quantitative. These were more “what” and “to what extent” type of questions.
Other questions examined the reasons behind principals performing certain tasks less or more
frequently than others, and the way they understand and enact instructional leadership. These
were more “how” and “why” questions. When all these types of questions were asked and
answered in one single research project in a systemic cycle, a mixed method design was
required.
Type of Design
According to Drew et al. (2008), the mixed method approach can be used in three ways
depending on the research design—data accuracy and validity, enhancing explanation, and

68

extending the results. If the mixed method approach is preferred for the purpose of data accuracy
and validity, the researcher uses both qualitative and quantitative methods at the same time to
collect data corresponding to the question of interest. If the objective, on the other hand, is to
enhance the explanation of a situation or finding, the initial step involves collecting quantitative
data. The qualitative data, which constitutes the second step, is collected to further the
description of a practice or the explanation of a problem. This approach is also called
explanatory design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Finally, a study aimed at extending the
results requires the researcher first to collect qualitative data and then design a quantitative
approach based on the initial findings of the qualitative approach. Creswell and Plano Clark
(2007) refer to this type of research as exploratory design.
My goal was to enhance understanding and further explanation with regard to the
concept, scope, and practices of instructional leadership in the Turkish educational context. This
type of research could best be conducted by an enhancing explanation (explanatory) mixedmethod design. I first used a quantitative method to produce results regarding the extent to
which instructional leadership is practiced by principals in lower secondary Turkish schools, as
perceived by principals and teachers. I then used a qualitative method to deepen the
investigation for understanding how the concept was understood and enacted.
This process could, however, simply be carried out by analyzing quantitative data first
and then collecting and analyzing the qualitative data. Both methods should, however, be mixed
in a way that feeds into each other, so that drawing a more complete picture of the problem is
possible (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2007) referred to this
characteristic of mixed method research as an “iterative, cyclical approach to research, which
includes both deductive and inductive logic in the same study” (p. 10). This required effectively

69

demonstrating the relationships between the two data sets and their analyses, and to bring them
together in such a way that both parts interact with and inform each other in a systemic fashion.
In this research, I started the cycle with deductive logic, using quantitative methods. I
examined the frequency of instructional leadership behaviors by school principals, drawing upon
TALIS 2009, a large-scale international data set that measured teaching and learning conditions
in schools as reported by principals and teachers. This provided an opportunity to make general
conclusions regarding how often Turkish principals engage in each behavior associated with
instructional leadership.
The quantitative cycle also involved inferential analyses. I looked at various school and
personnel characteristics (of teachers and principals) to examine the association of these factors
with the principal’s instructional leadership behaviors. The results of these analyses informed the
sampling strategy for the qualitative part. I determined the participating schools, teachers, and
principals for the qualitative cycle, based on the results from the quantitative analyses. Moreover,
the quantitative cycle involved an analysis of consistency between what principals reported about
themselves as instructional leaders and what teachers reported about them. I then delved into the
results derived from the quantitative analyses by extensively analyzing a number of selected
cases through the inductive logic of qualitative research. In this second cycle of the research, I
tried to further the explanation and to go beyond the frequency of specific behaviors; I strived for
understanding why some behaviors seem to be more important to principals, while others
received less attention, by interviewing principals, assistant principals, and teachers. and by
investigating how principals enact specific behaviors of instructional leadership.
There are recent examples of studies in educational leadership which support the research
design used here. For example, a study by Barnes, Camburn, Sanders, and Sebastian (2010),

70

examining the degree to which principals attending a district-based professional development
program changed their practices, drew upon an explanatory, mixed method design. They used
quantitative data (such as logs that described principals’ daily involvement in leadership and
management activities) to investigate change in principals’ practices and qualitative sources
(including interviews, observations, and narrative responses to video simulation), and to analyze
the nature of these changes. Using a mixed methods approach enabled the researchers not only
to examine whether professional development made a difference in the practices of principals,
but also to shed light on the type and nature of changes and the process by which change
occurred. Using qualitative data also helped verify the results of the quantitative analysis.
The design used by Louis and Robinson (2012), whose purpose was to examine how
school principals understood external mandates and the way in which their understandings
influenced their work, also models an explanatory approach. Specifically, they first collected
quantitative data through teacher and principals surveys, and then they conducted a case study to
“flush out” primary findings from the surveys. In other words, drawing upon a quantitative
design, they used a large-scale data set to examine how principals’ perceptions of external
accountability affected their work. In addition to surveys, qualitative case analysis carried out
through interviews was helpful to understanding further the complexity of the issue. For
instance, the survey data showed that state and district policy mandates were more likely to
increase the likelihood of principals engaging in instructional leadership activities. The case
studies helped researchers unveil how principals situate the district and the state in their work,
and what emotional factors were involved in the process.

71

Secondary Data and Analysis – the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
The first cycle of this study involved analyses of a secondary data set, TALIS 2008, created by
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). TALIS provided a rich
set of data with regard to the teaching and learning conditions in lower secondary schools
(grades 6-8) in many countries. It aimed to help countries examine the conditions of teaching
and learning in their schools and to develop corresponding policies for the betterment of these
conditions. The first TALIS survey was conducted in 2008 and included 23 countries, including
Turkey (OECD, 2009). Data collection in Turkey involved 191 school principals and 3,637
teachers. The data was composed of principal and teacher survey responses about teachers’
professional development, their instructional attitudes, beliefs, and practices, teacher appraisal
and feedback, and principals’ beliefs, attitudes. and practices of school administration (OECD,
2009). For this research, I focused attention on the TALIS teacher and principal survey items and
indexes associated with instructional leadership.
The TALIS Principal Survey
The TALIS principal survey measured three dimensions that represent the construct of
instructional leadership as a whole. These are:
a. management of school goals;
b. instructional management;
c. direct supervision of instruction in the school,
Based on factor analysis and indexes done by OECD, instructional leadership constituted
14 items in total (see appendix 1). Six of them corresponded to the management of school goals
and involved working on school goals, aligning classroom instruction and professional
development activities with those goals, developing curriculum, and using data in the process of

72

setting goals and developing curriculum. Almost all instructional leadership models in the
literature started with a dimension in relation to the school goals. For instance, in the
instructional leadership model developed by Hallinger (2003) the management of school goals
corresponded to “defining the school’s mission.”
Four items in the principal survey were indexed as instructional management and
included discussing and solving classroom problems, paying attention to disruptive behaviors,
and informing teachers about professional development activities. In Hallinger’s model, those
items correspond to the dimension entitled “developing the school learning climate program.”
The final four items in the principal survey were indexed as direct supervision of
instruction in the school and included observing classroom instruction, making suggestions to
teachers about their practices, monitoring student work, and ensuring instruction to be consistent
with the academic goals. This is similar to Hallinger’s “managing the instructional program”
dimension, which involves supervising and evaluating teachers’ instruction, monitoring student
progress, and coordinating curriculum.
There are some differences between the instructional leadership model in the TALIS
principal survey and Hallinger’s model. For instance, while principals’ engagement in
curriculum activities is indexed under the dimension of “management of school goals” in the
TALIS principal survey, Hallinger listed development of curriculum under “managing the
instructional program.” Another difference is that the TALIS principal survey lacked some key
dimensions that existed in Hallinger’s model, such as providing incentives to teachers and
learning and communicating school goals (see Figure 3).

73

Instructional Leadership in TALIS
Principal Survey

Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership
Model

Management of School Goals
Teachers work according to goals
Use student performance to
determine goals
Working on school development plan
Making PD consistent with goals
Use exam results for curriculum
development
Coordinating curriculum

Defining the School’s Mission
Frames the school’s goals
Communicates the school’s goals

Developing the school learning
climate program
Protects instructional time
Provides incentives for teachers
Provides incentive for learning
Promotes professional development
Maintains high visibility

Management of Instruction
Discussing classroom matters
Informing teachers about
opportunities to grow
Solving classroom problem together
Paying attention to disruptive
behavior
Direct Supervision of Instruction
Observing instruction
Giving teachers suggestions
Monitoring students’ work
Ensuring classroom activities to be
consistent with goals

Managing the Instructional Program
Coordinates the curriculum
Supervises and evaluate instruction
Monitors student progress

Figure 3: Matching Instructional Leadership in the TALIS Principal Survey with Hallinger’s
Instructional Leadership Model

The TALIS principal survey instrument was given to 191 lower secondary school
principals in Turkey in 2008; it asked them to choose from four types of frequencies—never,
seldom, quite often, and very often— to indicate how often they perceived themselves as
performing specific behaviors identified as instructional leadership.
The TALIS principal data included school and principal characteristics that made it
possible to assess factors that might contribute to variations in instructional leadership. School

74

characteristics were (1) school type (public or private), (2) location (village, town, city, and large
city), (3) percentage of parents with high school degree, (4) percentage of parents with collage
degree, (5) number of students, and (6) number of teachers (see Table 2).
The school location variable was re-coded where categories included a very small number
of schools and also to align better to a wider literature. The original data set identified five
categories of location, including village, small town, town, city and large city. I combined the
category of small town with town, and the category of large city with city; this led to a new
location category system of simply village, town and city.

75

Table 2
Demographic Information for Schools in TALIS
Frequency
School Type
PUBLIC
PRIVATE
Total
Location
VILLAGE
TOWN
CITY
Total
Percent of Parental Education
(College)
LESS THAN 10%
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% OR MORE
Total
Percentage of Parental
Education (High School)
LESS THAN 10%
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% OR MORE
Total

Percentage

140
47
187

74.9
25.1
100

7
66
112
185

3.8
35.7
60.5
100

74
36
32
23
19
184

40.2
19.6
17.4
12.5
10.3
100

29
34
45
45
31
184

15.7
18.5
24.5
24.5
16.8
100

Principal characteristics were (1) gender, (2) highest level of education, (3) total
principalship experience, and (4) experience in their current school (see Table 3).
Principals' and teachers’ experience categories were also re-coded. The TALIS data set
included seven categories of principal and teacher experience, both in their current school and in
total: 0-1 years, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, and 20 years and
76

more. For the teacher data set, I combined the first two categories to create a 0-2 year category
and the last two categories to create a 20 years and more category and, for reasons explained
below, combined all other data into a 3-20 years category. The categorization of principal data
was similar with one exception: I created “a 16 years and more” category due to the small
number of principals in the last two categories.
The combinations were based on sample sizes and the educational context in Turkey. In
Turkey, teachers are supposed to be supervised by a more experienced teacher or the principal
during their first year of teaching. In fact, in their first year teachers are considered as trainees
who are provided with extensive professional development by the Ministry. The second year
then can be considered the year when these teachers actually start teaching. Therefore, the first
two years represent an apprenticeship where new teachers receive a substantial amount of
support from either the school's principal or an experienced teacher. The second category of data
corresponds to teachers and principals with 3-20 years of experience. These teachers and
principals are the mainstream and there is not much difference among them in the eyes of the
Ministry, except for the fact that those with more experience are paid little more. The last
categories—16 years or more for principals and 20 years or more for teachers, respectively—
represent principals and teachers who are either at the age of or close to retirement. They are
considered to be sources of feedback and support. A large number of new teachers are advised
by these educators; therefore, their ideas, thoughts and relations developed as a result of many
years of experience might positively or negatively affect instructional leadership activities in
their schools.

77

Table 3
Demographic Information for Principals in TALIS
Frequency

Percentage

Gender
FEMALE
MALE
Total

16
169
185

8.6
91.4
100

Educational Level
COLLEGE
GRADUATE
Total

178
7
185

96.2
3.8
100

Experience in Their Current
School
0-2 YEARS
3-15 YEARS
16 and MORE YEARS
Total

56
121
7
184

30.4
65.8
3.8
100

Total Principalship Experience
0-2 YEARS
3-15 YEARS
16 and MORE
Total

20
111
55
186

10.8
59.7
29.5
100

The TALIS Teacher Survey
Part 32 in the official teacher survey consisted of nine items through which teachers
assessed their principal’s management style (see Appendix 1). These teachers were selected
from the same 191 schools as the principals. Since two sets of data (the principal and the
teachers) had a school ID for each school, it was possible to link teachers to their principal.
Two of nine items were associated with school goals: “principals define goals to be
accomplished by the staff of the school” and “principals discuss educational goals with teachers”
(OECD, 2009). A number of items in the teacher survey, such as defining school goals, ensuring
that teachers work according to these goals, and working on school improvement, also existed in
78

the principal survey. An analysis of these items could bring considerable information about
principals’ capacity in managing school goals according to teachers’ perceptions. Similarly, two
items in the teacher survey (part 32)—“when a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, the
principal takes the initiative to discuss the matter” and “inform teachers about possibilities for
updating their knowledge and skills”— matched items in the principal survey factored as
instructional management. However, two other items that constituted instructional management
in the principal survey, including solving instructional problems and paying attention to
disruptive classroom behaviors, did not exist in the teacher survey and unfortunately prevented
comparisons.
The teacher survey also possessed a number of items indexed in the principal survey as
direct supervision of instruction in the school. For example, just like the principal survey,
teachers were asked to evaluate the principals’ effectiveness in observing teachers’ instructional
practice and in making suggestions about the ways to improve. The teacher survey also included
an item that is an important sub-component of instructional leadership: “complimenting teachers
for special effort and accomplishments.” This item was consistent with providing incentives for
teachers, as defined by Hallinger (2001, 2012).

79

Instructional Leadership in the
TALIS Teacher Survey

Hallinger’s Instructional Leadership
Model

Development Plan
Defines Goals
Educational Goals
Work According to Goals

Defining the School’s Mission
Frames the school’s goals
Communicate the school’s goals
Developing the school learning
climate program
Protects instructional time
Provides incentives for teachers
Provides incentive for learning
Promotes professional development
Maintains high visibility
Managing the Instructional
Program
Coordinates the curriculum
Supervises and evaluates instruction
Monitors student progress

Initiative Problems
Updating Knowledge
Complimenting Special

Classroom Observations
Suggestions Improve

Figure 4: Matching Instructional Leadership in the TALIS Teacher Survey with Hallinger’s
Instructional Leadership Model

The TALIS teacher survey instrument was given to 3,637 lower secondary school
teachers in 191 Turkish schools in 2008; it asked them to choose one from four responses of
frequencies—never, seldom, quite often, and very often—that indicated the extent to which they
perceived their principals performing specific school management behaviors (MoNE, 2010).
Based on the literature, I considered 9 items as representing instructional leadership behaviors.
The teacher data set also involved a number of teachers’ characteristics: (1) gender, (2)
educational level, and (3) total teaching experience (see Table 4).

80

Table 4
Demographic Information for Teachers in TALIS
Frequency

Percentage

Gender
FEMALE
MALE
Total

1,755
1,405
3,160

55.5
44.5
100

Educational Level
COLLEGE
GRADUATE
Total

2,928
220
3,148

93.0
7.0
100

Total Teaching Experience
0-2 YEARS
3-20 YEARS
20 and MORE YEARS
Total

366
2,254
512
3,132

11.7
72.0
16.3
100

81

Quantitative Data Analysis
Table 5
Research Questions, Corresponding Sources of Data and Analysis of Data
Research Questions
1. How do principals in Turkey perceive and report their
own instructional leadership?

Source of Data

a. Which behaviors of instructional leadership
are more or less prevalent in schools,
according to principals?
b. How are schools’ characteristics associated
with principals’ perceptions of instructional
leadership?

TALIS
Principal
Survey

c. How are principals’ personal characteristics
associated with their perception of
instructional leadership?
2. How do teachers in Turkey perceive and report the
instructional leadership of their principal?

SPSS
Descriptive
Statistics

TALIS
Teacher
Survey

c. How are principals’ personal characteristics
associated with teachers’ perceptions of their
principals’ instructional leadership?

82

SPSS
ANOVA
Regression and
Correlation

SPSS
ANOVA and
Regression

d. How are teachers’ personal characteristics
associated with teachers’ perception of their
principals’ instructional leadership?
3. How do the reports of teachers compare to the reports
of principals with regard to principals’ instructional
leadership in the Turkish school context?

SPSS
ANOVA
Correlation and
Regression

SPSS ANOVA
and
Regression

a. In which behaviors of instructional leadership
are the principals strong or weak, according to
teachers?
b. How are schools’ characteristics associated
with teachers’ perceptions of their principals’
instructional leadership?

Data Analysis
SPSS
Descriptive
Statistics

TALIS
Principal and
Teacher
Survey

SPSS
T-test and
Multiple
Regression

The quantitative analyses of study data involved three main questions that aimed to
investigate lower secondary school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors in Turkey,
according to principals’ and teachers’ perception (see Table 5). Each of first two questions was
composed of three sub-questions. While the three sub-questions under the first main question
examined principals’ reports of their instructional leadership behaviors and their association with
a number of school and principal characteristics, the three sub-questions of the second main
question investigated teachers’ reports of principals’ instructional leadership and its relationship
to a number of school and teacher characteristics. The purpose of the third question was to
compare the principals’ and teachers’ reports.
Descriptive Statistics
I produced the mean and standard deviation of each instructional leadership item in the
principal and teacher data sets, sorting by school type to separate the analysis of public and
private schools. In general, these analyses provided an understanding of how principals rated
themselves and how teachers rated principals as instructional leaders, and to what extent their
rating differed between public and private schools.
T-Test
For question 3, I used a T-test to examine the difference between principals’ report of
themselves and teachers’ report of their principals.
One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
For questions 1b and 1c, I used one-way ANOVA statistics to test for mean differences in
the principal instructional leadership indexes between and among categories of school and
principals characteristics. For questions 2b, 2c, and 2d, I used the same method to test for mean

83

difference on instructional leadership items in the teacher survey between and among categories
of teacher, school, and principal characteristics.
Correlation (r)
I used this analytical method for questions 1b and 2b, to examine the relationship between
school size and principals’ and teachers’ perceived instructional leadership. My purpose was to
test whether the perceived instructional leadership of principals changed with changes in the
number of students in the school.
Multiple Regressions
I utilized multiple regression analyses for questions 1b, 1c, 2b, 2c, and 2d, to test the
potential influences of teacher, school, and principal characteristics. Independent variables that
were found to be significantly related to instructional leadership were included in the regression
model. I used TALIS indexes of instructional leadership, including school goals and management
of instruction and supervision, as dependent variables in the analyses of the principal survey data.
With the teacher survey data I created a dependent variable of instructional leadership by
aggregating nine items. For question 3, I employed multiple regression models to test the
relationship between principals’ self-reports and teachers’ reports of their principals, using five
instructional leadership items used in both surveys. The regression was run at the teacher level,
with teachers in a school matched with their principal.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
The nature of research questions 4, 5, and 6 is qualitative, hence these questions required
investigation of instructional leadership beyond descriptive survey analysis. Below, I articulate
the design of the qualitative research, including selection of sites, schools, and participants, the
sources of data, and the procedures to collect and analyze the data.

84

Table 6
Qualitative Research Questions, Corresponding Sources of Data and Analysis of Data
Research Questions
4. How is principals’ instructional leadership understood
by administrative and academic staff?
5. How is instructional leadership enacted by principals
in lower secondary schools in Turkey?

Source of Data

Data Analysis

Interviews and
Documents

Qualitative
Data Analysis

6. How do principals and teachers explain sources of

support and constraints to instructional leadership
behaviors?

In the case of question 5, I used interview data triangulated with documents to investigate
principals’ enactment of instructional leadership. Note that the data gathered involved principals'
and teachers' reports and perceptions of enactment, and not direct observations of behavior.
Participants
The method used to select participants was purposive sampling. Purposive sampling
selects participants most able to inform the study’s key questions (Maxwell, 2005; Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2010). In this way, a deeper understanding of the proposed questions was possible
(Patton, 2002). I selected principals among those who were known as “effective school leaders”
by many people, including teachers and principals, working at various schools. Because my
purpose for the qualitative section was to understand principals’ understanding and enactment of
leadership, a purposive sample helped me to include principals that had some level of knowledge
or practice regarding instructional leadership. They were among the principals who strived for
making a difference in terms of student achievement. This provided me with a chance to engage
in meaningful communication with principals regarding how they thought of principals’
involvement in the processes of improving teaching and learning, through which practices they

85

were involved, and finally what constrained their involvement. A principal who did not show
interest in improving teaching and learning would not reveal the type of knowledge I wanted to
acquire through this study.
I selected principals, assistant principals, teachers, and counselors in lower secondary
schools (grades 4-8), in order to make the qualitative data consistent with the TALIS survey data.
All sampled schools were located in the province of Istanbul, Turkey. Because Istanbul is the
most populated and diverse province of Turkey, it provided the opportunity to select the most
appropriate sample.
Selection of schools and participants was based on the quantitative findings. The
quantitative analyses showed that school type (public vs. private) and principal genders were
factors with significantly different means for principals and teachers’ perceived instructional
leadership. Therefore, I selected both public and private schools with a mix of male and female
principals. In total, I chose six schools (two private and four public) and six participants in each
school. Eventually, the qualitative sample involved 36 participants, composed of one principal,
one vice principal, three teachers and one counselor in each of six schools.
It was not in my initial plan to interview school counselors. However, when I went to the
first school to schedule interviews with the principal, I had a chance to meet the school counselor
and explain the purpose and content of my research. He provided information about his work
with the principal and teachers on student achievement, and he recommended I include school
counselors in the research. He stated that school counselors play a critical role in the processes of
helping students learn: counselors are involved in the teacher committee meetings, they
frequently discussed with teachers concerning students’ learning problems, and they determine
student needs and teach parents and teachers about how they might address those needs.

86

Therefore, I decided that having a counselor’s view on instructional leadership might provide a
useful perspective, so I added them to the sample.
To identify schools, I first focused on school principals. I made contact with officers at
the branch of Ministry of Education in Istanbul, and with several principals and teachers whom I
was acquainted with, to find principals who were considered to be effective instructional leaders.
(A challenge I encountered was that few people were familiar with the formal concept of
instructional leadership, requiring me to explain what instructional leadership was, how it was
defined, and what dimensions it involved. I created a pool of 30 schools based on their
suggestions. I then decreased the list to 10 schools, considering their comments and the mix of
school types and leaders that I sought. I made contact with principals working at those schools
through school visits. After visiting eight schools, I had six wiling principals in the desired mix
of schools. Demographic information of the schools and participants is provided below.

87

Table 7
Demographic Information for Schools in the Qualitative Sample
Schools
A
B
C
D
E
F

Type
Public
Public
Public
Public
Private
Private

Size (students)
940
2230
780
350
540
470

Socio-Economic Status (SES
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High
High

Table 8
Demographic Information for Principals in the Qualitative Sample
School

Code

Gender

Major

A
B
C
D
E
F

A1
K1
E1
M1
D1
F1

Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female

Elementary
Social Studies
Geography
Elementary
History Teacher
Elementary

Teaching
Experience
3
4
5
0
6
6

88

Experience in
Current School
4
4
3
4
3
4

Total
Experience
4
4
10
4
3
4

Table 9
Demographic Information for Other Participants in the Qualitative Sample
Code

Gender

Status

A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
K2
K3
K4
K5
K6
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6

Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male

Math
Social Studies
Counseling
Assistant Principal
Turkish
Assistant Principal
Math
Turkish
Science
Counseling
Counseling
Social Studies
Turkish
English
Assistant Principal
Counseling
Social Studies
Math
Social Studies
Assistant Principal
Science
Counseling
Turkish
Social Studies
Assistant Principal
Counseling
English
Assistant Principal
Math
Social Studies

Experience in the
Current School
3
2
4
3
4
5
7
5
6
3
2
4
2
2
3
2
10
2
8
2
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
2

89

Total Experience
20
19
5
11
9
14
13
12
16
5
4
21
14
10
13
5
33
13
12
4
14
12
5
8
4
4
12
18
16
8

Sources of Qualitative Data and Procedures
Data for the qualitative study were gathered through interviews and documents.
Interviewing is the most commonly used method in qualitative research (Rogers & Bouey, 1996).
I conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers, principals, vice principals, and counselors.
The face-to face interview protocol consisted of two sets of open-ended questions that asked
participants about their understandings of the concept of instructional leadership, and about either
their own practices (if principals) or their perceptions of their principal’s practices (if otherwise).
I prepared both sets of questions, assuming that Turkish principals and teachers may not be
familiar with the formalized concept of instructional leadership but would understand many of
the behaviors associated with it. Therefore, I attached a document to the consent form which
provided a general definition and purpose of instructional leadership. I did not elaborate specific
behaviors or practices associated with it, in order to reduce the bias due to the definition (see
Appendix 3). The problem was that they were not familiar with the terminology. However, they
understood and knew various behaviors associated with instructional leadership as a matter of
professional awareness and practice.
I provided each participant with the consent form a day or two before each interview (see
Appendix 3). Most interviews took place in teacher meeting rooms or offices in schools.
Because the interviews were face-to face, confidentiality concerns were expected to emerge.
Before starting the actual interview, I tried to establish a warm-up conversation. Conversations
often started with introducing myself and letting the participant talk about his or her background.
Many participants were interested in the education system and schools in the U.S., and in
comparisons between the U.S. and Turkey. Other participants wanted to know more about the

90

importance of the research. For instance, two teachers asked me why I wanted to investigate
instructional leadership and why instructional leadership is important.
After warm-up conversation, I showed participants the voice recording device I planned
to use. Some participants seemed not to care much, but others had some concerns about the
purpose of tape-recording. I explained that it was very important for me to catch every sentence
they used for the sake of effective data analysis and to focus more on what the participant was
talking about during the interview instead of spending my whole attention on note-taking.
Apart from interviews, other sources of data were documents. I asked principals to share
with me any documents that might reveal information concerning the instructional leadership
activities of principals. Principals in each school shared various documents, including the
strategic plan of the school, decisions of grade level teacher meetings, classroom observation
materials, and professional development provided to teachers.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed in their original Turkish. I
started data analysis right after the first interview, and I continued analysis as I interviewed the
participants. Early data analysis was important since it enabled me to “focus and shape the study
as it proceed(ed)” (Glesne, 2011). I used memo writing to refresh my mind and open it to new
ideas and perspectives (Glesne, 2011), and I used rudimentary coding schemes to foresee where
the study was going. In this way, it was possible for me to modify the interview questions to stay
focused or to reveal additional information that seemed important (Glesne, 2011). The early data
analyses also provided me with an opportunity to reflect on individual interviews and to figure
out whether there were points that needed to be clarified.

91

I conducted the final interview data analysis after I completed all interviews and
transcriptions. Final data analyses involved coding and displaying the data. I reflected and
worked on coding schemes that I developed during early data analysis by further classifying and
categorizing. This was a cycle of defining and sorting the data, which helped me to recognize the
relationships of one code to others. By combining codes or dividing them into different codes,
based on the relationships between them, I organized these codes into categories and subcategories (Glesne, 2011).
Trustworthiness (Reliability and Validity Issues)
TALIS items have been validated by OECD, with reliability and validity analyses conducted for
each country (MoNE, 2010; OECD, 2009). Promoting the trustworthiness of qualitative data,
findings and interpretations are most commonly promoted through triangulation (Merriam,
2002), which can be carried out in multiple ways. In this research, I used two strategies of
triangulation: multiple sources of data (such as documents and interviews with teachers and
principals) and multiple methods (by using an enhancing or explanatory design to investigate the
TALIS data through the qualitative study).
Another strategy to ensure validity is member checks. After I finished the analysis of the
interviews and documents, I asked eight participants to comment on the findings, to make sure
that the way I had categorized their views accurately represented their perceptions. (Glesne,
2011; Merriam, 2002). In addition, I included other researchers in the process of qualitative data
analysis, by having two volunteer researchers reflect on my interpretations of the raw data.
A third issue is external reliability, which is usually interpreted as generalizability. As
the TALIS data included a relatively large set of data from randomly selected schools all over the
country, it may be possible to make generalizable conclusions. In the case of qualitative

92

research on its own, it is the reader who, based on the presented data and interpretations, decides
whether findings might apply beyond their immediate context (Merriam, 2002). Therefore, I
provide information of the context and empirical data (direct quotations and text) to let the reader
decide whether findings might transfer to other contexts.
This study brings two data sets together, and it may explain and enhance what specific
meanings we assigned to the TALIS data. TALIS data is an important source of information
regarding principals’ instructional leadership in Turkey. It provides a substantial amount of data
that enables us to examine the extent to which principals are involved in certain tasks associated
with instructional leadership, and the factors that explain principals’ involvement in these tasks.
But it is also important to point out that the information we can acquire using TALIS survey is
limited in the sense that it does not allow an understanding of the way that principals carry out
instructional leadership tasks that they are good at. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize TALIS
findings without a qualitative inquiry that reveals their knowledge regarding how they interpret
specific behaviors of instructional leadership and how they enact such leadership. A qualitative
study supporting the TALIS data gives us more confidence in the generalization of findings.
Limitations and Threats to Validity and Reliability
Conducting a mixed method design was not straightforward. Cameron (2011) identified five
challenges to mixed method research; some of those challenges applied here. This research was
my first attempt to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods, so it presented a number of
stretches and challenges.
An effective strategy of conducting mixed method research is to a select qualitative
sample from the participants who take part in the quantitative study. As the survey participants
were not identified, this was not possible, and a purposeful sampling method was used instead.

93

However, the purposeful sampling enabled me to select participants that fitted the results of the
survey. For instance, I selected principals from of both genders and school types, since these two
factors significantly explained the level of principals’ involvement in instructional leadership
tasks.
Another sampling problem is about the teacher samples. When I made initial contact
with school principals and explained the purpose of my research, most of them wanted to pick
the participants in the school. Even though principals did not pick all participants, I had to accept
their suggestions in several cases, due to teachers’ inflexible job schedule. Principals tended to
suggest those whom they were acquainted with for many years. Although this way of sampling
involved some bias, it was helpful and meaningful to include these teachers in the study, since
they provided deeper information about their principal than others did.
I paid specific attention to the place for the interviews, and picked the most appropriate
one for the highest level of confidentiality. Nevertheless, some teachers were very cautious when
they talked about their principals. Despite my considerable effort to explain the confidentiality of
the study, some of them told me that they did not want to say things that the principal would not
like to hear. For instance, a number of teacher participants complained about the type of formal
leadership in Turkey, while stressing that their principals were not among those that they
complained about. However, they provided me with more generalizable information about the
type of instructional leadership that the principals they had been acquainted with carried out.
An important proportion of this study depended on self-reported data, which involves a
high risk of bias. To reduce the bias due to self-reported data in the qualitative study, I used
multiple sources of information, such as documents and interviews. In addition to that, I had to
visit each school many times to conduct the interviews, owing to the inflexible schedules of

94

teachers and principals. During my visits, I had many chances to observe various activities. For
instance, I spend several days with different principals, attending meetings with them and
observing their formal and informal conversations with teachers. I also had an opportunity to
participate in various subject matter and grade level meetings. I considered and used this process
as a chance to ask additional questions and compare observational data with self-reported data.
The process was useful to check the reliability and validity of self-reported data to an important
extent.
Although it may not cause any bias, a limitation of the study was due to the difference
between the teacher and principal survey items. In the principal survey, items were structured
around sub-dimensions of an instructional leadership model. This enabled me to use subdimensions instead of using items to analyze the TALIS principal survey. However, the teacher
survey items were not designed in a way that constituted a well-structured instructional
leadership model. I compared a number of teacher survey items with those of Hallinger’s
instructional leadership model and the model developed for the principal survey, to create a list
of items that corresponds to instructional leadership. The result was that not all items in both
surveys were the same. There were only a few items in both teacher and principal surveys that
were created to measure the same instructional leadership behaviors. I still used the teacher
survey data to reduce the bias that arose from the self-reported data of the principal survey.

95

CHAPTER 5: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
The main focus of this chapter involves the analyses of the study’s quantitative questions. My
purpose in this chapter is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of principals in terms of
instructional leadership, and to detect context factors that explain the variation in principals’
behaviors by examining a secondary data set (TALIS) that included both teachers’ and
principals’ perceptions. The findings presented in this chapter provide the sampling rationale for
the qualitative field study. This chapter is divided into four sections.
Drawing upon the TALIS principal data set, the first section explores how principals
consider themselves as an instructional leader, which behaviors are more or less prevalent, and
what school context and principals’ characteristics are related to the extent that they are engaged
in instructional leadership as a main construct, as well as in each dimension that constitutes the
construct of instructional leadership. I address each quantitative question (1a, 1b, and 1c) in
sequence.
The second section uses the TALIS principal data set to show how teachers perceive their
principal as an instructional leader. Specifically, questions here were designed to reveal
information regarding what behaviors of instructional leadership are more or less prevalent
among principals, and what school contexts and teachers’ and principals’ personal
characteristics, are related to each item associated with instructional leadership. In this part I
addressed each question 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d in sequence.
The third section corresponds to the third quantitative question. It was designed to
compare and contrast similar items in the teacher and principal data sets, in order to examine
whether there were any significant differences between teachers’ and principals’ responses with
regard to the extent to which principals demonstrate a specific leadership behavior.

96

The last section involves a summary discussion of findings of this chapter and the
implications for the design of the qualitative component of this study.
Principals’ Perceptions of Their Instructional Leadership
Question 1a: Which Behaviors of Instructional Leadership are More or Less Prevalent in
Schools, According to Principals?
Question 1a inquired into principals’ specific behaviors related to instructional
leadership; it was designed to examine the frequency of behaviors being practiced as perceived
by principals. This helps us understand which behaviors principals think they demonstrate more
or less frequently. In order to answer the question, I developed descriptive statistics, including
the mean and standard deviation, for each item of the principal data set, sorting by school type
(public vs. private)
Descriptive analyses given in Table 10 below show that principals in public schools had
the lowest means in the items “taking exam results into account in decisions regarding
curriculum development (  = 2.62)” and observing instruction in classrooms (  = 2.82), and
the highest means in the items “paying attention to disruptive behavior in classrooms (  =
3.52)” and “solves problems together (  = 3.41).” Principals in private schools, on the other
hand, got the lowest means in the items “conducts classroom observations (  = 3.02)” and
“takes initiative to discuss problems (  = 3.09),” and the highest means in the items “pays
attention to disruptive behavior (  = 3.76)” and “ensures that teachers work according to the
school’s educational goals (  = 3.68).”

97

Table 10
Descriptive Statistics for Items Associated with Instructional Leadership in the Principal Survey

Management of Goals
Ensures PD Activity Consistent
with Goals
Ensures Teachers Work
According to Goals
Uses Student Results to
Determine Goals
Uses Exam Results for
Curriculum Development
Ensures Clarity for Curriculum
Responsibilities
Development Plan
Management of Instruction
Take Initiative to Discuss
Classroom Issues
Informs about Opportunities to
Update Knowledge
Solves Problems Together
Pays Attention to Disruptive
Behavior
Direct Supervision of
Instruction
Observes Classrooms
Gives Suggestions to Improve
Monitors Student Work
Ensures Classroom Activities
Consistent with Goals

Public School

Private School





N

SD

N

SD.

Total


N

SD

3.07 139 .491

3.45

47 .503

3.17 186 .519

3.32 137 .484

3.68

47 .471

3.41 184 .505

3.07 136 .533

3.38

47 .534

3.15 183 .550

2.62 136 .799

3.30

46 .726

2.79 182 .835

3.04 137 .534

3.36

47 .605

3.12 184 .570

3.32 135 .581

3.50

46 .624

3.36 181 .596

3.20 136 .630

3.09

47 .620

3.17 183 .628

3.15 137 .588

3.38

47 .573

3.21 184 .592

3.41 136 .614

3.57

47 .617

3.45 183 .617

3.52 137 .570

3.76

46 .480

3.58 183 .558

2.82 137 .678

3.02

47 .737

2.87 184 .697

2.93 137 .584
3.12 137 .635

3.34
3.45

47 .600
47 .503

3.04 184 .613
3.21 184 .619

3.02 137 .492

3.40

47 .614

3.12 184 .550

These results suggest that in general principals paid more attention to school goals and
management of instruction, and they were less involved in activities corresponding to direct
supervision of instruction. Also, there were two items that implied collaboration between the
principal and teachers; these were “the principal and teachers work on a school development
98

plan” and “when a teacher brings up a classroom problem, we solve the problem together.” Both
items had relatively high means compared to other items. This suggests an inquiry into
instructional leadership in the Turkish context that is based on collaboration.
Question 1b: How are Schools’ Characteristics Associated with Principals’ Perceptions of
Their Own Instructional Leadership?
Question 1b inquired into how school context characteristics were related to the
instructional leadership of principals, as perceived by principals. I conducted a one-way ANOVA
for each independent categorical variable, including school type (public vs. private), location
(city, town and village), percentage of parents with high school degree (less than 10%, 10%20%, 20%-40%, 40%-60% and 60% and higher) and percentage of parents with bachelor degree
(less than 10%, 10%-20%, 20%-40%, 40%-60%and 60% and higher) to answer the question. As
for the continuous variable (school size), I conducted a Pearson’s Correlation analysis. I used
three indexes of instructional leadership (management of school goals, instructional
management, and direct supervision of instruction) and the main construct of instructional
leadership as dependent variables. I only include here tables for the independent variables that
were significantly associated with instructional leadership. Other tables are provided in the
Appendix section.
Table 11
ANOVA Table for the School Type (Public vs. Private)

Management of Goals
Instructional Management
Supervision of Instruction
Instructional Leadership

School
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private

N
139
47
137
47
137
47
137
47
99



-0.629
0.172
0.379
0.602
0.225
0.794
-0.015
0.703

SD
.806
.892
.952
.783
.650
.753
.895
.884

df
1
184
1
182
1
182
1
182

F
32.884

p
.000

2.084

.151

24.670

.000

22.675

.000

Table 11 displays ANOVA analysis for the difference between public and private
schools. The descriptive data in the table show that private schools had higher means in all
indexes than the means of public schools. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) table shows
a statistically significant difference at the p< .05 level in the management of school goal
index for the school type (public vs. private): F (1, 184) = 32.9, p = .000, and in the direct
supervision of instruction index: F (1, 182) =24.7, p = .000. This result suggests that there was a
statistically significant difference between public and private schools with respect to principals’
engagement in the management of school goals and the direct supervision of instruction. Also,
the overall instructional leadership index was significant at the p < .05 level:
F (1, 182) = 22.7, p = .000. However, there was not any statistically significant difference
between public and private schools in the index of instructional management.

100

Table 12
One-Way ANOVA for Percentage of Parents with a Bachelor Degree

Management of Goals Less Than 10%
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% Or More
Total
Instructional
Less Than 10%
Management
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% Or More
Total
Direct Supervision of Less Than 10%
Instruction
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% Or More
Total
Instructional
Less Than 10%
Leadership
10% -20%
20% -40%
40% -60%
60% Or More
Total

N
74
36
32
23
19
184
73
36
31
23
19
182
73
36
31
23
19
182
73
36
31
23
19
182

X
-0.646
-0.574
-0.347
-0.153
0.171
-0.434
0.471
0.259
0.367
0.421
0.572
0.416
0.217
0.323
0.296
0.601
0.858
0.367
0.010
0.004
0.147
0.390
0.718
0.154

SD
.830
.806
.762
1.048
1.034
.898
.885
1.073
.785
.956
.851
.910
.654
.732
.629
.737
.831
.719
.845
.991
.784
1.032
1.111
.939

df
4
179

F
4.342

p
.002

4
177

.490

.743

4
177

3.974

.004

4
177

2.849

.025

Another important school context characteristic analyzed here is the percentage of parents
with a bachelor degree. The descriptive statistics table above suggests that, with a few
exceptions, as the percentage of parents with a bachelor degree increased, so did some item
means. The ANOVA (Table 12) indicates that the difference between at least two categories of
101

percentage of parents with bachelor degree was significant at the p<0.05 level for the
management of school goals index: F (4, 179) = 4.3, p = .002; the direct supervision of
instruction index: F (4, 177) =3.97, p = .004; and the instructional leadership index: F (4, 177)
=2.8, p = .002. Similarly, the difference among groups for the instructional management index
was not significant. These results suggest that the higher number of parents with a bachelor
degree was significantly related to principals’ perception of their own instructional leadership.
Table 13
Pearson-Product Moment Correlation between School Size and Instructional Leadership in the
Principal Survey

Management of Goals

Instructional Management

Direct Supervision Of Instruction

Instructional Leadership

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Current School
Enrolment
-.264**
.000
184
-.083
.263
182
-.234**
.001
182
-.229**
.000
182

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

Table 13 displays the correlation between school size and instructional leadership
indexes. The table suggests that there was a negative relationship between school size and
management of school goals (r=-.264), instructional management (r= -.083), direct supervision of
instruction(r=-.234), and instructional leadership (r=-.264). Also, the correlation was significant
102

at p< 0.001 level for all indexes except instructional management. It can be concluded that as the
school size increased, principals’ perceived overall instructional leadership went down. That is,
principals in bigger schools were less likely to engage in instructional leadership activities.
Question 1c: How are Principals’ Personal Characteristics Associated with Their
Perception of Instructional Leadership?
This question required an analysis of the relationship between a number of principals’
personal characteristics and their perceived instructional leadership. To answer this question, I
conducted an ANOVA analysis for each independent variable, including gender (male and
female), level of education (bachelor or lower and masters or higher), total experience (0-2 years,
3-16 years and 16 years and more) and experience in the current school (0-2 years, 3-16 years
and 16 years and more). The dependent variables used here are indexes of instructional
leadership, including management of school goals, instructional management and direct
supervision of instruction, and an overall construct of instructional leadership. Tables for only the
significant independent variables are included here.
Table 14
One –Way ANOVA for Principals’ Gender (Male and Female)

Management of Goals
Instructional Management
Supervision of Instruction
Instructional Leadership

Gender
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male

N
16
168
16
166
16
166
16
166



0.434
-0.491
0.761
0.400
1.120
0.306
1.037
0.093

SD
.964
.852
.736
.928
.698
.689
.955
.908

df
1
182
1
180
1
180
1
180

F
16.823

p
.000

2.280

.000

20.365

.000

15.656

.000

The descriptive statistics displayed in Table 14 show that female principals had higher
means in all indexes than the means of male principals. To understand whether this difference

103

was significant, I produced an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table. The ANOVA result
shows a statistically significant difference at the p< .05 level in the management of school goal
index: F (1, 182) = 16.8, p = .000; and in the direct supervision of instruction index:
F (1, 182) =20.4, p = .000. This result suggests that there was a statistically significant difference
between male and female principals’ perceptions with respect to their engagement in the
management of school goals and the direct supervision of instruction, in favor of female
principals. Also, the overall instructional leadership index was significant at the p < .05 level:
F (1, 182) = 22.7, p = .000. However, the mean difference between female and male principals
was not significant for the index of instructional management.
Overall, the one-way ANOVA results indicate that principals’ gender was the
characteristic of school leaders that was most significantly related to their perceived instructional
leadership. Other characteristics, including the principal’s level of education, total experience,
and experience in the current school were not found to be significantly associated with
instructional leadership (see Appendix 5). Among school characteristics, the type of school, the
percentage of parents with a bachelor degree, and school size were all found to be significantly
related to principals’ perceived leadership behaviors. On the other hand, school location did not
seem to be significant (see Appendix 4).
Given these ANOVA results, I conducted a multiple regression analysis for each
significant dependent variable, regressing each on the independent variables that were found to
be statistically related to each dimension of instructional leadership. This allowed me to control
for the impact of each significant predictor on the dependent variable.

104

Table 15
Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting Management of School Goals
Dependent Variable: Management of School Goals
Variables
(Constant)
Gender
Parents with Bachelor
Public or Private School
School Size

B
.043
-.588
-.005
.604
-8.370E-5

SE
.588
.231
.061
.221
.000

β
-.187
-.008
.296
-.074

t
.073
-2.546
-.083
2.736
-.899

p
.942
.012
.934
.007
.370

R=0.437, R2 =0.191, Adjusted R2 =0.173, F(4,174)= 10.278,p<0.05
Table 15 displays a multiple regression analysis for the relationship of various factors to
the management of school goal index. It shows that gender was a significant predictor of the
management of school goals. Controlling for parents’ education, school type, and size, male
principals on average had means 0.588 points lower than female principals did in their perception
of the management of school goals. The difference was significant at the 0.05 level (p=0.012).
Also, on average principals at private schools had a mean that was 0.604 points higher than what
principals at public schools had, in regard to perceived management of school goals, controlling
for gender, parental education, and school size. The difference was significant at the 0.05 level
(p=0.007). All factors together accounted for 19% of the total variation in the management of
school goal index (R2 =0.191, F (4,174) = 10.278, p<0.05).

105

Table 16
Multiple Regression for Variables Prediction Direct Supervision of Instruction
Dependent Variable: Direct Supervision of Instruction
Variables
(Constant)
Gender
Parents with Bachelor
Public or Private School
School Size

B
1.050
-.595
-.002
.406
-5.049E-5

SE
.476
.187
.050
.179
.000

β
-.236
-.004
.248
-.056

t
2.207
-3.187
-.047
2.262
-.670

p
.029
.002
.963
.025
.504

R=0.423, R2 =0.179, Adjusted R2 =0.160, F (4,172) = 9.387, p<0.05
When the same independent variables were regressed on the direct supervision of
instruction index, the results (Table 16) showed that on average female principals had a mean
that was 0.595 points higher than what male principals had, controlling for other factors in the
regression. The difference was significant at the 0.05 level (p=0.002). Similarly, on average
private schools had a mean that was 0.406 points higher than what public schools had, and the
difference was significant at the 0.05 level (p=0.025). All factors in the regression accounted for
18% of the total variation in the direct supervision of instruction index (R2 =0.179, F (4,172) =
9.387, p<0.05).
Table 17
Regression Results for Variables Predicting Instructional leadership
Dependent Variable: Instructional Leadership
Variables
(Constant)
Gender
Parents with Bachelor
Public or Private School
School Size

B
.868
-.671
-.039
.595
-7.386E-5

SE
.631
.248
.066
.238
.000

β
-.204
-.057
.278
-.063

R=0.397, R2 =0.158, Adjusted R2 =0.138, F (4,172) = 8.056, p<0.05
106

t
1.375
-2.711
-.593
2.501
-.740

p
.171
.007
.554
.013
.461

Finally, when all variables that turned out to be significant according to the ANOVA
results were regressed on the overall instructional leadership index, gender and school type
factors were found to be significantly associated with principals’ perceived instructional
leadership (see Table 17). Controlling for other variables, on average female principals had a
mean that was 0.67 points higher than what male principals had, and this difference was
statistically significant at the 0.05 level (p=0.007). Similarly, principals in private schools had a
mean that was 0.595 points higher than what principals in public schools had, and the difference
was statistically significant at the 0.05 level (p=0.013). Other factors, including parental
education and school size, were found not to be significantly related to instructional leadership
when principals’ gender and school type were controlled. It was found that all variables in the
regression accounted for 16% of the total variation in the overall instructional leadership index
(R2 =0.158, F (4,172) = 8.056, p<0.05)
Teachers’ Perception of Principals’ Instructional Leadership
Question 2a: In Which Behaviors of Instructional Leadership are The Principals Strong or
Weak, According To Teachers?
Question 2a inquired into principals’ specific behaviors associated with instructional
leadership, and it was designed to examine the frequency of those behaviors practiced, as
perceived by teachers, using the TALIS teacher data set. This helped understand which behaviors
teachers thought their principals demonstrated more or less frequently. In order to answer the
question, I developed descriptive statistics, including the mean and standard deviation of each
item for the teacher data set, sorting by the school type (public vs. private).

107

Table 18
Descriptive Statistics for Items Associated with Instructional Leadership in Teacher Survey
Public School


Works on Development
Plan
Defines Staff Goals
Discusses Educational Goals
Works According Goals
Takes Initiative to discuss
Problems
Informs about Opportunities
to Update Knowledge
Compliments Special Effort
Observes Classrooms
Give Suggestions to
Improve

N

Private School

SD



N

SD

Total


N

SD

2.50 2313 .769

3.05 706 .735

2.63 3019 .794

2.61 2308 .761
2.78 2321 .725
2.82 2319 .713

3.06 700 .686
3.11 708 .707
3.24 706 .627

2.71 3008 .768
2.86 3029 .735
2.92 3025 .715

2.42 2309 .818

2.65 703 .799

2.48 3012 .819

2.24 2305 .837

2.73 704 .822

2.35 3009 .858

2.44 2309 .836
2.00 2306 .690

2.76 708 .841
2.47 705 .799

2.52 3017 .848
2.11 3011 .744

2.15 2310 .772

2.64 706 .786

2.27 3016 .802

When teachers’ perceptions of their principals were considered, the lowest means in
public schools were in “conducts classroom observations (  = 2.00)” and “gives teachers
suggestions to improve (  = 2.15),” and the highest means of public schools were in “ensures
that teachers work according to the school’s educational goals (  = 2.82)” and “discusses
educational goals with teachers (  = 2.78).” Similarly, in private schools the lowest means were
in “conducts classroom observations (  = 2.47)” and “gives teachers suggestions as to how they
can improve their teaching (  = 2.64),” and the highest means were in “ensures that teachers
work according to the school’s educational goals (  = 3.24)” and “discusses educational goals
with teachers (  = 3.11).”
One conspicuous result was that items with the lowest and highest means were the same
in the two types of schools. On average, teachers indicated that their principal was less involved
108

in conducting classroom observations and in providing suggestions as to how to improve
themselves based on observations.
The question 2b, 2c and 2d below inquired into the relationships between school context
factors and principal and teacher characteristics, and the teachers’ perception of the extent to
which principals perform specific behavior associated with instructional leadership, drawing on
the TALIS teacher data set. I conducted one-way ANOVA statistics to examine how each school
and principal and teacher characteristics were related to each survey item. The table below
indicates items that were found to be significantly different between at least two sub-groups of
each factor. ANOVA tables for each factor are provided in the Appendix.
Question 2b: How are Schools’ Characteristics Associated with Teachers’ Perceptions of
Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership?
Table 19
One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of School Related Factors to Teachers’ Perceived
Instructional Leadership
Level

Characteristic
School type (Public and
Private)
Location (Village, Town
and City)

School

Significant items (p<0.05)
All items are significant
Works on Development Plan
Informs about Opportunities to Update
Knowledge
Compliments Special Efforts
Observes Classrooms

Percentage of Parents
with High School
Diploma

All items except take initiative to discuss
problems

Percentage of Parents
with a Bachelor Degree

All items are significant

School Size (Current
number of students)

All items are significant

109

When the relationship between school characteristics and leadership items as perceived
by teachers was considered, the ANOVA results (see Table 19) showed that school type and
location, the percentage of parents with a high school diploma, and the percentage of parents
with a bachelor degree were significantly related to at least several instructional leadership items.
First, the difference between school types was significant for all items. Private schools had
higher means in all leadership items (see Appendix 7). Second, schools located in villages had
higher means than those located in town or cities. However, the difference was significant only
for the items “works on development plan, informs about opportunities to update knowledge
compliments special efforts” and “conducts classroom observations” (see Appendix 7). Third,
the difference in the percentage of parents with a high school degree was significant for at least
two categories for each item, except for the item “take initiative to discuss problems.” Yet there
was not any consistent pattern across items. On the other hand, parental education (bachelor
degree) showed a consistent pattern: a higher percentage of parents with a bachelor degree was
related to a higher frequency of perceived instructional leadership. The difference between at
least two categories was significantly related to all items. Moreover, Pearson’s Correlation
analysis revealed that school size was negatively correlated with all teacher survey items. This
means that as the number of student increased, the frequency of items decreased, as perceived by
teachers.

110

Question 2c: How are Principals’ Personal Characteristics Associated with Teachers’
Perceptions of Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership?
Table 20
One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of Factors Related to Principal Characteristics to
Teachers’ Perceived Instructional Leadership

Principal

Gender (Male and
Female)

All items are significant

Educational level
(Bachelor or Less and
Masters or Higher)

Take initiative to discuss problems
Observes Classrooms

Total experience (0-2
years, 3-16 years, 16 and
more years)

All except “Observes Classrooms”

Experience in the Current
school (0-2 years, 3-16
years, 16 and more years

All items are significant

When principals’ characteristics were taken into account, principals’ gender, total
experience, and experience in the current school seemed to be important in regard to teachers’
perception of their principal as engaging in instructional leadership behaviors. First of all, the
results of ANOVA (Table 20) indicated that female principals had a higher mean than male
principals had on all leadership items, and the difference between genders was significant for all
items (see Appendix 8). Second, principals’ educational level was only important for the items
“conducts classroom observation” and “takes initiative to discuss problems.” While principals
with a masters’ degree or higher education got a higher mean on classroom observation activities,
principals with a bachelor degree or less had a higher mean in discussing teachers’ problems.
Third, principals’ total experience was an important factor in explaining variation in all items
except classroom observation. Interestingly, the mean difference among three categories of

111

experience indicated that more experience was associated with lower item means. Finally,
principals’ experience in their current school was also significantly related to all leadership items
in the teacher survey. In general, principals with 16 years and more experience had a higher
mean on all teacher survey items (see Appendix 8).
Question 2d: How are Teachers’ Personal Characteristics Associated with Teachers’
Perception of Their Principals’ Instructional Leadership?
Table 21
One-Way ANOVA Results for Relationship of Factors Related to Teacher Characteristics to
Teachers’ Perceived Instructional Leadership
Level

Characteristics

Gender (Male and
Female)

Teacher

Experience (0-2 years, 320 years, 20 and more
years)
Educational level
(bachelor or less and
masters or higher)

Significant items (p<0.05)
Discusses Educational Goals
Defines Staff Goals
Works on Development Plan
Works According Goals
Compliments Special Efforts
Observes Classrooms
Discusses Educational Goals
Defines Staff Goals
Works According to Goals
Takes initiative to discuss problems
Informs about Opportunities to Update Knowledge
No significant item

Question 2d inquired into the relationship between teacher characteristics and their
perceptions regarding the instructional leadership of principals. The ANOVA analyses (Table 21)
showed that there was a significant difference between female and male teachers’ perceptions in
the six items of teacher data. For the first four items (discusses educational goals, defines staff
goals, works on development plan, and works according to goals), female teachers had higher
means; for the other two items (compliments special efforts and observes classrooms), male
teachers had higher means (see Appendix 6). The results also showed that teacher experience
112

mattered for the items “discusses educational goals, defines staff goals, works according goals,
takes initiative to discuss problems” and “informs about opportunities to update knowledge.”
Teachers with 0-2 years of experience had a more positive view of their principal as an
instructional leader. On the other hand, differences in the educational level of teachers were not
found to be associated with any item (see Appendix 6).
Given the one-way ANOVA results from the analyses of the teacher survey, among all
school characteristics (school type, parental education, and school size), principals’
characteristics (gender, total experience, and experience in the current school), and teacher
characteristics (gender and teaching experience) seemed to be significantly associated with the
variation in leadership items (or at least more than half of nine items). For the multiple regression
analysis to control for the effect of each independent variable, I aggregated the collection of these
nine items into one item and regressed that on all significant independent variables (school,
principal, and teacher characteristics). This helped to measure the significance of each factor by
controlling for the other factors.
Table 22
Multiple Regression for Variables Predicting the Aggregated Item (Instructional Leadership)
Dependent Variable: Instructional Leadership
Variables
B
(Constant)
2.485
School Type
.304
Parents With High School
.017
Parents With Bachelor
.005
School Size
-5.495E-5
Principal Gender
-.173
Principal Total Experience
-.017
Principal Experience In the current
.011
School
Teacher Gender
-.005
Teacher Experience
.022

SE
.126
.044
.010
.014
.000
.043
.009

.216
.037
.011
-.072
-.083
-.046

t
19.681
6.859
1.794
.370
-3.144
-3.990
-1.943

p
.000
.000
.073
.712
.002
.000
.052

.010

.023

1.076

.282

.023
.022

-.004
.019

-.217
.993

.828
.321

R=0.332, R2 =0.110, Adjusted R2 =0.107, F (9, 2704) = 37.248, p<0.05
113

β

The multiple regression analysis (Table 22) indicated that the school type (public vs.
private), the principals’ gender (female vs. male), and school size were statistically significant in
explaining the variation in the overall instructional leadership item. To be specific, the mean
difference between female and male principals was 0.173 in favor of females, and the difference
was significant at the 0.001 level (p=0.000), controlling for all other factors. Second, the mean
difference between public and private schools was 0.307 in favor of private schools, and the
difference was significant at the 0.001 level (p=0,000), controlling for all other factors. Last but
not least, there was a significant negative association between school size and instructional
leadership as perceived by teachers, controlling for all other factors (B=-5.495E-5, p=0.002).
That is, as the school size increased, the frequency of principals’ engagement in instructional
leadership decreased, according to teachers. Other factors, including teacher gender and
experience, principals’ experience, and parents’ educational level, were not significant when
school type and principals’ gender were controlled. All factors in the regression accounted for
11% of the total variation in teachers’ perceived instructional leadership (R2 =0.110, F (9, 2704)
= 37.248, p<0.05).
Relationships between Teachers’ Assessment of Their Principals and Principal SelfAssessment
Question 3: How do the Reports of Teachers Compare to the Reports of Principals with
Regard to Principals’ Instructional Leadership in the Turkish School Context?
The third quantitative question inquired into the relationships between teacher and
principal perceptions of the principals’ instructional leadership. First, I employed a t-test for each
item to investigate whether teachers and principals significantly differed in their rating of
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors.

114

Table 23
T-Test for Relationship between Responses of Teachers and Principals to Each Item

Classroom
Observations
Suggestion to Improve
Working According to
Goals
Discussing Matters
Updating Knowledge

Sample
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal

N
3044
3093
3049
3093
3058
3093
3045
3073
3042
3093



2.11
2.89
2.27
3.04
2.92
3.39
2.47
3.15
2.35
3.20

SD
.74
.68
.80
.62
.72
.51
.82
.63
.86
.58

df
3043
3092
3048
3092
3057
3092
3044
3072
3041
3092

t
156.84
236.70
155.75
274.11
225.33
372.37
166.24
278.36
151.03
309.29

p
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

Table 23 demonstrates t-test results for the relationship between the responses of teachers
and principals to each instructional leadership item that exists in both data sets. The result
showed that there was a statistically significant difference between teachers' and principals'
responses in their perception of principals’ instructional leadership. Overall, principals had
higher perceptions of themselves than teachers had for principals across all items of instructional
leadership.
Although the t-test suggested that principals perceived themselves as stronger or more
active instructional leaders than teachers perceived them to be, the test does not provide any
information on how principal and teacher perceptions might influence one another. To
investigate whether and how principals' and teachers' perceptions are related, I employed two
types of multiple regression analyses.

115

Table 24
Multiple Regression Analysis for the Relations of Principals to Teachers
Independent Variables (Principals)
Dependent Variables
(Teachers)
1. Classroom
Observations
2. Suggestion to
Improve
3. Working According
to Goals
4. Discussing Matters
5. Updating
Knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

.097
.024
.016
.020
.073

Male

Private

Size

-.227

.325

-2.775E-5

-.084

.302

-6.348E-5

-.128

.278

-6.190E-5

-.152

-.016

000

-.030

.190

000

Table 24 displays outcomes of a multiple regression analysis in which items in the
principal data were used as predictor variables for corresponding items in the teacher data,
controlling for school level variables (type and size) and principals’ characteristics (gender). I
repeated the same regression for each item. This first model worked on a top-down perspective in
which teachers’ perceptions are shaped by the principal (Bass, 1998). The values represent
coefficients, and a bolded coefficient indicates a significant relationship.
The results showed a positive and significant relationship between principals’ and teachers’
reports of classroom observation activity. The coefficient (0.098) indicates that a 1-point increase
in principals’ self-assessment corresponds to 0.098 points increase in teachers’ assessment of
their principals, controlling for school type, size, and principals’ gender. Outside of this
classroom observation data, however, no items in the principal data reliably predicted the
corresponding item in the teacher data. Overall, only school level context factors seemed to
predict teachers’ perceptions of their principal.

116

Table 25
Multiple Regression Analysis for the Relationship of Principals to Teachers
Independent Variables (Teachers)
Dependent Variables
(Principals)
1. Classroom
Observations
2. Suggestion to
Improve
3. Working According
to Goals
4. Discussing Matters
5. Updating
Knowledge

1

2

3

4

5

.084
.012
.007
.012
.030

Male

Private

Size

-.315

-.027

000

-.372

.205

000

-.414

.272

-9.698E-5

-.202

-.040

1.205E-5

-.080

.0.85

000

Table 25 demonstrates the second regression analysis, in which I used teacher data as
independent variables regressed to corresponding items in the principal data, controlling again
for school and principal variables significantly related to overall instructional leadership levels. I
repeated the same regression for each item. This second model considered how teachers’
perceptions might influence principals’ perceptions’ and/or how they might mutually interact.
Results of this second model were similar to the first. That is, the only significant
relationship between teacher and principal responses was in principals’ engagement in classroom
observation. A 1-point increase in teachers’ perception of whether principals observed teaching
was associated with .084 points increase in principals’ self-assessment, controlling for all other
factors. There was no relationship between any other items. Variations in principal perceptions
were more related to gender and school type than to teacher perceptions.
Summary of Quantitative Findings and Implications for Qualitative Research
The purpose of the quantitative analyses was to examine Turkish school principals’ involvement
in instructional leadership behaviors; to understand the extent to which school, principal, and

117

teacher level factors explained variations in their involvement; and to compare how principals
and teachers perceived principal behaviors.
The analyses consistently showed that principals’ perceptions of their instructional
leadership were largely positive: on most items principals rated themselves above a 3 ("quite
often") on the 4-point scale. The differences between the perceptions of teachers and principals
were statistically significant.
Within this profile, principals saw themselves as engaging more frequently in solving
teachers’ problems and paying attention to student behaviors than in observing classrooms,
giving suggestions to teachers regarding how they can improve their skills, or taking exam results
into account to make decisions. Although teachers perceived principals as engaging in all of
these activities less frequently, their perceptions of the relative frequency of particular actions
followed the same patterns as the principals.
These patterns were also similar across public and private schools. Principals rated
themselves more highly than teachers, and teachers and principals concurred that principals were
involved less in direct supervision of instruction and more in behaviors related to instructional
management and management of school goals, but disagreed on the frequency of these behaviors.
On the question of what factors might explain variation in principals’ leadership
behaviors, ANOVA results showed consistently stronger results among private schools and
schools with a female principal. In both cases principals and teachers reported higher levels of
instructional leadership activity.
Analysis indicated that the percentage of parents with a bachelor's degree and school size
explained some variation in leadership indices. However, once the school type was controlled,

118

these factors were no longer significant; most likely because of the overlap of private school
enrollment by parents with a bachelor's degree, and also the smaller size of private schools.
Many ANOVA results from the teacher data set were consistent with results from the
principal data: on average, female principals and private school principals were perceived to
demonstrate more frequent instructional leadership behaviors. Several factors showed initial
differences, including school size, principal level of experience, and the educational level of the
school community. However, these factors were no longer significant when other factors were
controlled. Overall, the teacher data suggested that instructional leadership was more likely to be
higher in a private school, in a school with a female principal, and in a school with a smaller
number of students.
The descriptive analyses of the teacher and principal data suggest relatively low principal
engagement in leadership behaviors directly related to the core of teaching and learning. These
behaviors include taking into account student results, observing teaching, giving feedback to
teachers, and monitoring student work. It is therefore important to inquire into why principals
paid more attention to the management of instruction than they did to the direct supervision of
instruction. I centered the qualitative study of schools around questioning principals' and
teachers' perceptions and understandings of instructional leadership in order to explore this
question.
The quantitative analyses also indicated some substantial variations between and within
teacher and principal responses. The most consistent variations in the teacher data reflected
differences between public and private schools. In the principal data, most of the variation
seemed to be a consequence of gender and school type.

119

In this research I found that the isolation between teacher and principal in the practices of
instructional leadership was the case both in public and private schools, yet in different ways.
Principals in private schools seemed to isolate themselves from many activities of instructional
leadership, particularly teacher observation, feedback and professional development. Principals
in public schools however indicated that they engaged in many activities in-person in such a way
that did not include any teacher in the process of improving teaching and learning. It is well
known among educational researchers and practitioners that “isolation is the enemy of
improvement” (Jamentz, 2002).
If Turkish principals in both public and private schools desire to make a difference in the
quality of education provided to students, they are to work collaboratively with teachers. While
public school principals can collaborate with teachers by including them in their effort to help
teachers grow, private school principals can collaborate by joining in and contributing to efforts
exerted by subject matter teacher committees. To this end, the following chapter provides more
insight into how instructional leadership is understood and enacted depending on the perceptions
and reports of principals and teachers.

120

CHAPTER 6: QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

The quantitative chapter concluded that principals in Turkey were more engaged in the
management of instruction, such as discipline and classroom problems, and less engaged in
practices related to the supervision of instruction, such as observing teaching and providing
teachers with constructive feedback regarding classroom performance. In addition, most
variations in the sample were related to school size, public and private school status, and
principal gender. On average, principals in private schools and in schools with smaller numbers
of students, as well as female principals, were more likely to be engaged in instructional
leadership activities. I drew on the quantitative analyses to determine the sample for the
qualitative study. Because the TALIS data suggested statically significant differences between
female and male principals, and between private and public school principals, I sampled private
and public schools and a male and a female principal in each school type.
My purpose was to investigate principals’ and teachers’ (and counselors’) perceptions of
principal instructional leadership to examine their consistency with the quantitative findings, as
well as to investigate patterns of engagement with particular activities.
It is important to point out that the data that shape the finding of this chapter are a
measure of principals’ and teachers’ beliefs, assumptions and values about instructional
leadership and about their environments and not measures of observed practices. Although in
various points of this chapter I report on actions and behaviors these are based on participants
reports and reflections.
The data for this qualitative chapter were collected through semi-structured interviews
and documents that revealed principals’ involvement in instructional issues. I selected six middle
schools from the largest and the most cosmopolitan city of Turkey, Istanbul, based on the
121

quantitative findings. This allowed me to bring some level of variation to the qualitative data.
The sample included two public and four private schools. The principals in one private and one
public school were female. I also drew on the perception of other school members by
interviewing three teachers, one assistant principal, and one school consoler in each school.
Qualitative Themes
Before presenting the main qualitative themes, I would like to point out that during my
interviews I heard considerable complaints, particularly from principals, regarding schools being
too large and limited financial recourses. Principals listed those two problems as significant
challenges to their instructional leadership. They often acknowledged the importance of working
on instructional improvement, yet they also stressed that it was impossible for them to devote
time to the classroom where teaching and learning take place, due to the fact that the efforts to
find money and deal with a large number of students were substantial and overwhelming, which
consequently caused frustration and diminished motivation to deal with issues surrounding
instruction and student learning.
Well, (as principals) we are dealing with monetary issues more than we do educational
issues. Otherwise, how can we afford servants’ salaries, painting, cleaning and so on?
Now, all administrators have the same concern: what we going to do next month, how we
will find money. For instance, we have nine servants working in the school. The state
pays the salary of only two. So we need an additional amount of 13-14 thousand liras
(about 6,500 dollars). We have a canteen that makes 4,800 liras every month but still I
need to find another 9,000 liras. So what? Our job should have been providing good
education and good instruction to students. I should have discussed with teachers about

122

student success and progress. But what I am doing instead is trying to find money and
unfortunately this is not something good. (K1)
Two years ago we used to have a very few number of students compared to what we have
now. The number almost doubled, but the school is the same school in terms of building
and resources… Now, this brings a lot of problems. How am I going to accommodate
such a huge number of students? The only way I can do is basically to double the class
size. But then it becomes difficult to avoid classroom discipline issues… I have never
seen such a big number of discipline issues before. You saw what happened just today
(referring to the incident of a student being stabbed). Now I have to deal with police
officers and the parent…Two years ago, we used to talk about student success (and)
European Union projects but now we are focusing on what we can do in order to prevent
discipline problems… (A1)
Although some researchers acknowledge that large school size and limited financial
resources are important challenges to instructional leadership (Leithwood, 1994), it is also
stressed that this should not be an excuse for principals not to invest time in working on
instructional improvement (Brewer,1993; Grissolm & Loeb, 2011; Kleine-Kracht, 1993:
Rosenblatt & Somech, 1998). School leaders can work on and create conditions in the school
through which teachers can receive sufficient support to enhance their knowledge and skills and
to improve the overall quality of instruction (Horng & Loeb, 2010).
With this in mind, during my interviews I tried to investigate how instructional leadership
was understood and enacted. Analyzing the responses of participants and documents, I developed
several main themes that summarize the qualitative data.

123

Theme 1: Teachers’ Understanding of Effective Schools and Principals Has Limited Focus
On Instruction and Principals’ Instructional Leadership
I started interviews with broader questions that I prepared to provide an understanding of
principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective principals and schools. Specifically, I asked
them how they think of an effective principal, what effective principals do, and what
characteristics define an effective school. My primary purpose with these questions was to make
sense of whether and how they situate the instructional roles of principals in their depiction of
effective leadership and schools.
One response from a teacher successfully summarizes what the other participants pointed
out:
A good school is the one that have higher student achievement. By the achievement I
mean how many students passed the high school entrance exam and placed a Science or
Anatolian high school. This is the first thing I look at. Then there are other things…. For
instance, the physical appearance; is it clean? Is there sufficient resources? In addition,
the extent to which school is connected to the community and specifically parents…(E3)
Based on responses from participants in public schools, the description of an effective
school can be categorized into five themes:
1. high student achievement measured by number of students who enter a prominent
high school;
2. adequate infrastructure;
3. presence of socio-cultural activities;
4. high parental involvement;
5. acknowledgement from the surrounding community,

124

In private schools, the description of participants’ understanding of an effective school
focused mostly on physical appearance, the quality of infrastructure, and student test scores. The
reason these factors were emphasized was explained by a principal who described what a private
school is like:
This is not a public school, it is private. So, the way it operates is different. At the end,
you are providing service and in return you get money from parents. Of course, when
money is involved, things become different. As a principal, in addition to educational
issues I need to think like a salesman. Advertisement is not an important thing in public
schools but it is very critical in private schools. For instance, cleanness is very important.
We have to satisfy people. (F1)
Based on interviews, I found that student achievement was the most frequently mentioned
characteristic of the effective school. Almost all participants stated that student achievement was
their first priority. Adequate infrastructure and parental involvement was described by 25
participants as prerequisite for accomplishing higher student achievement rates. Being
acknowledged by the surrounding community was described by 13 participants as a consequence
of the school being prominent in student achievement rates. Finally, socio-cultural activities,
such as organizing picnics and cultural dance events, were considered as a means to bring the
school community together to socialize people. The majority of the teachers (23) believed that
this is essential since the purpose of schooling is not solely to increase student test scores but also
to prepare them for their social life.
Unfortunately, nowadays if you ask people what is the purpose of the school, 99% will
tell you it is high school exam. That is right, we want our students to win the best high
schools. But this is just one goal, it is not everything… Students are our future. We are

125

educating our future. We need to teach them our culture. We need to give them the
mission to contribute to the community. So, I think a good school should be able to
socialize people, integrate the school with the community by bringing people together, by
organizing cultural events...(A3)
In general there is a tendency to associate effective schools with concrete student outcomes more
than leadership behaviors or instructional practices. The results of high school entrance exams,
including average scores, and the number of students placed at a desirable high school, indicate
to many whether a school is good or bad, effective or ineffective. (M2)
One of the female principals complained about schools being too filled with pragmatic
purposes and ideas about instructional leadership being so narrow that it lacked a spirit of
learning.
There is lack of spirit (in instructional leadership), I mean as if there is lack of creativity
in the theory of instructional leadership. It does not involve any emotions raised from
creativity of other stakeholders. I do not know how to explain. There is a wish tree
outside this room. That is a very emotional thing. It does not fit any principles of
instructional leadership. From a pragmatic perspective, it might not benefit a lot to
education and instruction. That tree brought a lot of spirit to this school. That is what I
call spirit. That is what instructional leadership lacks. (M1)
The interviews showed that the school personnel were interested in increasing student
learning, yet their description of the effective principal was not directly related to achievement. It
was rather related to the means that might lead to achievement. When teachers and principals
were asked to describe their understanding of an effective principal, they mostly referred to
relationships and characteristics that have considerable potential to remove barriers to an

126

effective school represented by high student achievement rates. In terms of characteristics, the
effective principal was considered to be the one who has technical and theoretical knowledge of
school administration and who is open to new ideas and willing to take risks (see Figure 5). The
innovation aspect of leadership was desirable because teachers thought that principals did not
possess sufficient courage to take initiative to make substantial changes, due to the centralized
control of the Ministry.
I think the very first thing is being an innovative person. The school principals should be
open to new ideas. Because a lot of time let say you have an idea and want to talk with
the principal. He would probably discourage you. Why? Because anything beyond the
regular operation of the school is too risky, and they do not want to take risk. But
sometimes you should be able to take risk otherwise how can you change things right?
(M5)
The second important aspect of effective principals was related to relations. Teachers
indicated that effective principals should have good communication, be trusted, treat all
personnel equally, be well acquainted with and develop good relationships with students,
teachers, and parents, and involve parents and teachers in decision making processes.
The most important thing for me and I think my colleagues would agree is
communication. How does the principal communicate with teachers? This is important.
The way that he/she asks you to do things, the type of language he/she uses makes a
difference…(M5)

127

Characteristics
Open to new ideas
Willing to take risk
Have technical and
theoretical
knowledge
Effective
Principals

Removes
barriers to
create
High student
achievement

Relationships
Trusted
Treat people equally

Effective
Schools

Good relationships

Adequate
infrastructure
Presence of sociocultural activities
High parental
involvement

Collaboration

Being
acknowledged by
community

Ongoing
communication

Figure 5: Participants’ Description of the Effective School and Principal

Despite the general view that did not associate effective leadership with principals
dealing with instruction, a few teachers (3) indicated that effective principals cannot be isolated
from teaching. For instance, one teacher said,
First of all, the principal should be equipped with sufficient knowledge of teaching. So
far I have not work with those kinds of principals…My philosophy is this; a person who
does not like teaching cannot be a good principal. Okay, a principal is an administrator,
but he/she should not give up (focusing on) teaching. Otherwise, there is always

128

disconnect between the principal and teaching, and consequently principals start
becoming managers running a business. (A2)
Those teachers described effective principals as those who should have concerns about
good education, effective teaching, and student learning. However, they also indicated that there
were very few principals who paid attention to the extent to which teachers were effective in
instruction and student learning:
I think effective principal is the one who is also an effective teacher. You cannot be a
good principal without being a good teacher. I do not agree with the idea of principals not
caring about what teachers are doing in classroom and whether students are learning but a
lot of principals do not do these things… Our principal, for instance. He is a very nice
person, he has good relationship with all teachers, he tries his best to provide us with
whatever we need. But is he a type of principal who pays attention to teaching, No…(K5)
Overall, it became evident through my interviews that teachers’ and principals’
perceptions of an effective school elaborate the need to focus on student learning, adequate
infrastructures, socio-cultural activities, parental involvement, and community
acknowledgement, and their perception of effective leadership is influenced by their expectation
of good relationships, communication, innovation, and risk taking. Many teachers also
emphasized the importance of collaboration between principals and teachers to create an
effective school. The way that they explained collaboration was, however, quite different from a
traditional U.S. understanding of collaboration. Their concept of collaboration referred more to a
principal’s willingness to communicate, to support teachers, and to include them in the decisionmaking processes than working together on problems of instruction.

129

None of the teachers or principals mentioned a type of effective school in which
instructional improvement is a goal, and only a few teachers indicated that the leader should be
engaged in activities related to the improvement of the instructional capabilities of the teaching
staff. It can therefore be concluded that high achievement rate was desirable among the school
staff, since this was an indication of the school being effective, yet there seemed to be a lack of
vision regarding the fact that instructional improvement is key to increased student learning and
success. This brought me to the question of whether and how principals were involved in
instructional matters despite limited understanding of effective principals as instructional leaders.
Theme 2: Principals Influence Classroom Instruction and Student Outcomes by Creating
Conditions in Which Teaching and Learning Is Possible and by Providing Material and
Motivational Support to Teachers
In the second part of the interview I focused attention on whether and how principals
influence classroom instruction, because this is essential to instruction leadership. I asked
teachers questions, including whether and how principals might help teachers to improve their
instructional quality and increase student achievement.
Principals, particularly those in low-SES and crowded schools, considered dealing with
discipline to be an important aspect of instructional leadership. Although it was not directly
related to classroom instruction, school level discipline was thought to be a way to create a safe
school environment where teachers and student can be engaged in teaching and learning
activities without any fear or concern about security:
To be honest, teachers do not like someone intervening in their classroom because they
are expert in what they teach. They do not talk directly to me about this (fact), but I know
they do not like it. But it makes sense. As a principal, I cannot know as much they know
about what they teach…But this does not mean that I am not important for what is going

130

on in classroom. I do my best to reduce discipline problems. Whether it is about the
school or classroom, I and my assistant we spend a lot of time to deal with discipline
problems in order to make the school and classrooms safe places for teachers and
students. (F1)
According to the interview data, principals can also influence classrooms by dealing with
teacher and student absenteeism and hence protecting instructional time. The frequency of
student and teacher absenteeism seemed to vary, depending on the SES of the school. There
were more complaints about student and teacher absenteeism in low SES schools than in high
SES schools, where school size was relatively smaller.
It was indicated by leader and teacher participants that school principals paid
considerable attention to absenteeism and wanted to make sure that students were not left behind
due to either the student or teacher being absent. However, they did not deal with absenteeism by
themselves. The interview data suggested that the responsibility of principals for dealing with
absenteeism was shared among assistant principals and teachers. The principal may get involved
if there is a chronic issue. The responsibility was primarily given to assistant principals, who
worked closely with teachers to diminish the impact of absenteeism on teaching and learning. For
instance, if a teacher was absent, assistant principals first attempted to assign an available
teacher. In case of a teacher shortage, assistant principals took the responsibility for substituting
for the absent teacher.
Several teachers pointed out that principals play a critical role in providing support to
teachers. The type of support included monetary and motivational factors. Teachers seemed to
be satisfied if these types of support were provided:

131

You may know that since last several years we had a new type of curriculum that asks us
to engage students in various projects, called project-based learning. The idea is to teach
them while doing. I think principal is important at this point. If he/she supports what you
are doing and encourages teachers to do more projects with students, we have the
motivation for coming up with more projects. (M3)
For instance, I am math teacher and I had a project about “Pi Value”…In order for me to
do this project, I need some money to buy materials. Now it is difficult or not possible to
ask students for the money. That is the law. So what do you do? You ask your principals
right?... And he is a great principal. So far, he provided me with whatever I needed to
complete the project. (K3)
It was also indicated that principals provided support to teachers in their efforts to
increase the number of students passing the high school entrance exam and to place them in
prominent high schools across the country. Throughout the school year, students took several
trial tests, including national and local exams organized by the Ministry that revealed students’
current achievement. If the school personnel wanted to have additional exams, school principals
sought external resources, which were usually private tutoring institutions.
Last summer for instance I requested help from a private tutoring institution. I wanted
them to provide us with some tests that they were giving to their students. We gave
several (tests) to our students last year in addition to what the Ministry gave. This tests
are important for us to learn the level (score) of our students. (K1)
Overall, participants indicated that even though principals may not directly influence
teaching in the classroom, they can contribute to teaching and learning by creating a safe
environment represented by one being free from discipline issues, by dealing with absenteeism,

132

by informing about opportunities for professional development, and by providing necessary
material support to teachers. Responses also showed that principals influenced student outcomes
by encouraging teachers to work with students on projects and by providing necessary monetary
support to teachers (Figure 6).

Keeping discipline
Creating a safe school and
classroom
Providing instructional
materials
Dealing with student and
teacher absenteeism

Principals

To contribute
to / influence
classroom
instruction

Informing teachers about
professional development
opportunities

Encouraging teachers to
organize projects
Providing monetary
support

Teachers
organize
projects with
students

Figure 6: Participants’ Description of How Principals Influence Classroom Instruction and
Student Achievement
Theme 3: Principals Enactment of Instructional Leadership and a Focus on the
Improvement of Teaching
After several questions inquiring into principals’ and teachers’ understandings of
effective schools and principals, and how principals might influence classroom instruction, I
asked more targeted questions that directed attention to principals and teachers thoughts on
specific leadership behaviors, including school goals, instructional problems, and supervision of
133

classroom instruction. These questions were important to bring out how instructional leadership
was understood and enacted, and to explain the reasons behind the type of instructional
leadership enacted.
School goals. During my interviews, I asked several questions regarding school goals,
including what they involve, and how they are determined and operated. Based on teachers’
responses to these questions, I grouped school goals into two categories: formal and informal
goals. Formal goals were written and known by the entire school personnel, but informal goals
were more related to what people personally wanted to see as a consequence of their work.
Both interview and document data suggested that formal goals in both public and private
schools involved similar characteristics. Formal goals corresponded to those that were
determined once every four years through a formal meeting by the strategic planning committee
composed of the principal, assistant principal, teachers, and the head of school-family
collaboration. According to my analysis of strategic plans, goals were very similar across the
four schools (including two private schools). They were usually grouped into four categories:
educational goals, instructional goals, infrastructural goals, and socio-cultural goals. For the
purpose of my research, I focused only on educational and instructional goals that involved
various topics, including classroom infrastructure, counseling, professional development for
teachers, and student achievement.
In two public schools goals related to instruction were too broad and were not
strategically planned in a way that could be put into practice. That is, there was no clear
explanation of how these goals would be accomplished, who would accomplish them, and how
principals could make sure that the goals were accomplished. Examples of instructional goals
included “encouraging teachers to participate in seminars and instructional programs organized

134

in the city, adopting a student oriented instructional approach, working on students to help them
gain a reading habit, evaluating the effectiveness of instruction through trial exams held in the
city, carrying out necessary improvement, and applying a reward system.”
In other schools, however, the school strategic planning committees were able to establish
more specific goals and a general action plan that determined several steps and the staff who
were responsible for each step. One public school, for instance, established four goals. The goal
that focused on student learning was “making the school among the top two public schools in the
average test score gained through SBS (nation high school entrance exam). The action plan
corresponding to the goal included “(1) testing student achievement level through trial tests twice
a year and extensively analyzing the data gained from the test, (2) subject matter teachers will
assess student performance through exams at the end of each subject unit, (3) seminars will be
given to students in order to increase their motivation, and (4) unsuccessful students will be
determined and the reasons for student failure will be investigated.”
It can be seen that the student achievement goal was demanding and specific. The school
community wanted the school to be among the best. The operational steps to the achievement of
the goal focused more on the assessment of students’ current learning. It is obvious that the
schools wanted to analyze data and investigate reasons for failure. Yet there was not much
information regarding the extent to which the focus would be instructional improvement, since
student achievement goals were not elaborated in a way that linked student learning to classroom
teaching.
The second type of goal, which I referred to as informal goals, was significantly stressed
by almost all participants, that is, to increase student achievement measured by the number of
students entering a prestigious high school. It was also possible to include this goal in the

135

strategic plan, but I observed that teachers were more enthusiastic about test scores than about
the way this goal was expressed in the formal plans.
A small number of teachers, however, were against the idea of associating student
achievement with the high school entrance exam. In their understanding, this was a very limited
vision, because the purpose of school should not be constrained by student test scores that did not
give any information regarding important outcomes such as creativity. Nevertheless, the high
school entrance exam dominated schooling since stakeholders were aware of the fact that a good
high school was a means to university entrance, which was usually associated with a good job
and life.
The important issue here is to understand how schools work on student achievement and
help students accomplish better test scores on the high school entrance exam. I mentioned before
that principals collaborated with private tutoring institutions to get students more trial tests, and
they used that data to determine what students needed. Principals were much more interested in
the ranking of the school, and they did not seem to pay attention to patterns in student test results
as much as teachers did. One teacher said,
We use exam (trial tests) results to see how our students are doing… Initially, results go
to the principal and he looks at what is going with the student achievement scores. He
compares new results with previous test results to see if there is any increase in the
average scores… In terms of local exams (that many schools take at the same time), he
looks at how the school is doing compare to other schools…(E5)
This suggested that principals did not show concern about developing strategies to
address issues that arose from the data. However, teachers played an important role in using this
data to bring out student needs. Teachers received an analysis of their students’ test scores, and

136

they interpreted them. It is important to point out here that it was not mandatory for teachers to
work on student achievement using student data. As a consequence, it was emphasized that not
all teachers were interested in spending time on the interpretation of test results. Other teachers
seemed to be eager to understand problems and to work through them:
When I receive student test scores I try to understand who are failing and why? Where (in
which subject) are my students strong and where they are not. This is helpful for me to
decide what to focus more, what to teach more. Then, I sometimes give an additional
hour of instruction to students in the subject that they are weak. (E4)
I think I tried hard for eight graders last year. That is why I am feeling very comfortable
to speak out. I cannot say the same thing for all teachers. But there are some teachers who
are really doing hard work and want to help these kids enter better high schools by giving
more instruction, giving more homework, checking whether students are working at
home and collaborating with parents. (E3)
It is evident from these statements that some teachers were interested in using data to
identify problems. However, problems were often referred to students’ personal or parental
issues. In this case, corresponding efforts to deal with problems did not involve a focus on
teachers or teaching:
I first try to do my responsibility in case of student failure. I open an additional course for
students to take and improve their achievement. If the student still failing, I talk with the
school counselor and try to understand the problem. They are very helpful for us to deal
with problematic students. (M4)
A school counselor: when students come to us, the first thing we try to understand is
whether students have any personal or parental problem because there are a lot of things

137

that can affect student learning…. If there is no problem, then we provide these students
with some information about studying strategies (how to study effectively)...Also, we do
some activities that can increase student motivation. (E2)
Overall, the data suggested that schools had different types of school goals, including
formal and informal. How these goals operated in schools is a question. I found that principals
set formal goals that emphasized the importance of instructional quality, yet they were not able to
develop operational goals to take steps to improve instruction. This limited principals’
involvement in instructional improvement, because how the principal would work on classroom
instruction was not clarified through operational goals.
The second type of goal, which is informal and involves helping students get a better high
school education, is a strong motivation for teachers to focus on achievement problems. This led
to some level of communication among teachers beyond grade level and subject matter
committee meetings. However, the discourse among teachers regarding student test results did
not exceed the barrier of judging students rather than working on their own teaching. Principals
at this point had a very limited involvement in the processes. The belief that teachers were
expert constrained principals’ willingness to facilitate teachers’ discussion on how to improve
student learning and to help teachers focus on improving their teaching, rather than just judging
students and their families.
Instructional problems. According to the quantitative data analyses presented in the
previous chapter, both principals’ self-reports and teachers’ assessment of their principal
indicated that school leaders were engaged in solving the problems of teachers at the classroom
level with relatively higher frequency than they were involved in activities associated with direct

138

supervision of instruction. To further that knowledge through my interviews, I asked participants
questions about the type of problems that they discuss with their principals:
So, if I am talking with my principals, that is probably because of a discipline issue or it
could be an issue about official work that I have to deal with or like if I need some
materials for my classroom, I would go and talk to my principal…If I feel like I have an
issue about my instructional techniques, I would not go to my principal. That does not
make sense. I am a math teacher and his major is classroom teacher. (F5)
-Sometimes it happens… That is right… Sometimes you think you need to ask something
about what you teach that day. Or you recognize a student having learning difficulties… I
talk these issues with my colleagues…But I do not talk to the principal. I think my
friends go to principals for such issues neither.
-Why do you think they do not talk?
-Well, you can talk but you would not get the type of support you wanted because the
principal is not expert in your field…(A2)
Teachers indicated that most of the classroom level problems that they directed to the
principal were related to either a discipline issue or the need for instructional materials. When
they had an issue regarding instructional strategies or techniques, they chose to talk with a
colleague who had the same area of expertise as themselves. Therefore, it was less likely that
teachers and principals got engaged in the type of conversation that intended to improve teaching
in the classroom.
The way classroom problems were understood by teachers and principals in both public
and private schools were similar: that is, their understanding of classroom problems was
associated with discipline issues or lack of materials. None of the participants referred to any

139

problem that was related to instructional practices or techniques. The difference between public
and private schools was in the frequency of principals’ involvement in discipline issues. Public
school principals stated that they were regularly asked by teachers to engage with and resolve
issues of students’ misbehaviors. Private school principals indicated that they did not receive
many complaints from teachers, and that their involvement in classroom discipline was rare since
most issues were minor and teachers managed to resolve them without requiring additional
assistance.
Supervision of instruction. According to my interviews, principals in public schools
(with a few exceptions) tried to observe all teachers once a year. In private schools, however, this
responsibility was given to the heads of teacher committees for each subject matter; that is, while
private school principals did not observe or give feedback to teachers at all, public school
principals were directly engaged in classroom observations.
Principals in public schools had a list of benchmarks to check during their observations.
The list can be categorized into several groups, including readiness of the physical environment,
effective use of instructional materials, time management, communication skills, giving and
checking homework, effective lesson plans and effective use of teaching techniques. Teachers
were not informed concerning what principals look for during classroom observation. The
processes of observation were supposed to involve several steps, including letting the teacher
know about the time that the observation would take place, observing the instruction, and giving
feedback to teachers regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their instruction.
Although classroom observations were mandated so that principals and teachers could
work on instructional improvement, my interviews suggested that observations were done in a

140

very mechanical way that missed the most important point—to help teachers identify their
strengths and weaknesses. Two teachers said,
I am a math teacher and therefore teaching math. But my principal is a former elementary
teacher. Yes, he comes and observes my classroom every year but then after the class, he
thanks me and goes. That’s it. I do not expect him to give me feedback. I do not even
think he knows what I teach and whether the way I teach is right or not right. (K3)
She did not come to my classroom this year but yes, she came last year. She sat on a seat
in the back and took notes for a while. Then after the class, she said she enjoyed my
lesson but I should have done better job organizing the board. This was only thing that
she told me…(M3)
Principals made similar comments:
Well, I am not an English teacher and I do not have any knowledge of English either. But
I have to observe teaching because I am the principal in this school…I look at the lesson
plan, I look at the classroom materials like how they are used and also I look at how the
teacher interacts with students and things like these…(K1)
According to the female principal working in a public school, observations had value but
could not predict the quality of teaching or the teacher. She asserted that there should be other
sources of information for uncovering problems of instruction. For example, she considered
students’ feedback on teachers, since students had the most exposure to teachers and hence a
good sense of whether a teacher was effective. This allowed her to incorporate the voice of
students in her effort to diagnose and resolve issues associated with teaching in the school.
The way that supervision, including classroom observations and feedback, was conducted
in private schools was not the same as in public schools, according to teachers and principals

141

alike. In private schools, principals were less involved in the process of teacher observation and
feedback. Instead, they delegated this responsibility to teacher leaders within each specific
subject area. Members or heads of subject matter committees visited classrooms, observed
teaching and feedback, determined the type of professional development teachers needed, and
offered necessary assistance. Thus, in private schools principals were not held as directly
accountable for investigating and addressing issues related to teaching and learning. The reason
given for this system was that principals lacked the necessary knowledge to comprehend teaching
a specific subject matter. One principal in a private school stated:
I sometimes visit classroom but this should not be considered as academic involvement.
Then, what happens is that we ask the head teacher of subject matter committee to
observe teaching. Indeed he/she is the expert. These friends (head teacher of subject
matter committee) enter classrooms and they have some standards: as you know, before
starting the lesson teachers should first prepare students. Whether it is through a tale or
anything else, they need to make children ready for the lesson and increase their
motivation…For instance, how the teacher is using the board. His voice is also important,
so how the teacher is using his voice… How is the teaching? Does the teacher clearly
express what he/she wants to say? (D1)
These comments from public and private school participants suggested low expectations
for principals’ capacity to help teachers improve teaching. The leading reason, as expressed by
teachers and principals, was principals’ limited content knowledge of subject matter taught by
specialized teachers. If this was the case, it might follow that teachers were eager to collaborate
with each other to improve their instructional skills. However, responses from teachers indicated
that teacher collaboration was limited to informal conversations with colleagues during breaks:

142

We usually discuss issues about instruction and specific students with each other during
breaks at the teachers’ room. That is very common. But I do not know anyone (teacher)
who observe other teachers to learn from them. To me it is a good idea but unfortunately
does not happen too often. Perhaps, if a novice teacher asks an experienced teacher to go
and observe, that is possible and it happened in the past…
-Why do you think it does not happen?
-Well, everybody is expert in their field (laughing!). They do not feel the need. And to be
honest, I am not different. (K5)
These statements suggest that limited collaboration could not be explained solely through
principals’ lack of content knowledge. There was also evidence for the existence of strong
teacher privacy and therefore lack of internal accountability. There were a few exceptions,
however. Two teachers who were close friends for a long time mentioned that they sometimes
observed and learned from each other, despite the fact that they taught different subjects:
I have a friend here (in the school), he is a math teacher. We have been close friends for
many years. It is very common between me and him to enter each other’s classroom to
learn something from each other…Last time when I was in his class again, an inspector
from the Ministry came to observe classroom. When he saw me, he was very confused.
Then, he asked me who I was. I said I am the social studies teacher in the school but
sometimes I and my friend observe each other and try to see if we can learn from each
other. The inspector was very pleased, he congratulated me and my friend, and he said he
would tell that story to the Ministry and teachers in other schools. (A3)
The analyses of the interview data on if and how principals enacted instructional
leadership activities—such as setting goals for schools, solving instructional problems, and

143

supervising teachers—suggested that activities enacted by principals did not touch the
fundamental purposes of instructional leadership: to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
During interviews, I probed to understand the reasons behind the limited focus on instructional
improvement. Some of the responses from teachers and principals provided an understanding of
the factors limiting principals’ focus on teaching.
First, teaching was understood in terms of delivering content knowledge to students. As a
consequence, most teachers and principals in public schools indicated that principals did not
possess the relevant knowledge and expertise to help them improve their instructional skills. This
belief seemed sufficient for teachers to argue that observations conducted by principals, for
instance, were a waste of time. Principals also acknowledged the subject expertise of teachers
and stressed that they paid more attention to lesson plans and teachers’ skills in classroom
management when observing. The general belief was that teachers would be more satisfied with
instructional supervision carried out by members of subject matter committee, just as it was done
in private schools.
Second, a number of teachers in public schools expressed that classroom observations
were meaningless because there was no tangible outcome; that is, their principals did not provide
feedback on their instructional practices. Although the purpose of observation stated in the
Ministry documents is to help teachers diagnose their weaknesses and improve them, principals
did not really do so. Teachers saw classroom observation as part of an inspection, instead of a
means to help teachers enhance their skills in teaching.
Theme 4: A Lack of Coherence among Activities Associated with Principals’ Instructional
Leadership
Another theme that emerged was a lack of coherence among the instructional leadership
activities enacted by principals working in public schools. This partly explains the previous
144

theme—a type of instructional leadership that did not focus exclusively on instructional
improvement.
Data showed that principals had some involvement in developing goals, creating a safe
school environment, informing teachers about possible opportunities for professional growth, and
observing teaching. However, most of these practices were independent of each other in the
sense that they did not inform one another. For instance, public school principals lead strategic
planning committees to specify the goals to be accomplished within a period of four years, but
the committees were not seen as very important or valued:
Normally, in order to establish school goals we are supposed to gather together to discuss
what we have, what we do not have, what our problems are, what needs to be improved
and so on. But, to be honest with you, it never happens this way… A lot of people
consider goal setting process as a mandate by the Ministry. So it is a kind of burden for
principals. So usually what happens is that the responsibility (of determining or writing
school goals) is given to one teacher or assistant principal. This person usually takes a
look at what other schools wrote and then he/she writes a list of school goals. (K2)
This suggests that the process of goal setting was weakly aligned with identified
instructional needs and/or student achievement problems. Principals observed instruction and
provided opportunities for students to take several exams, but they did not appear to take into
account data from these processes when determining goals.
A similar pattern emerged in conversations about professional development:
Professional development activities are basically seminars and they are very boring
except one that was given by Marmara University. I really enjoyed that one because it
was about what I needed. Other than that, I do not remember… Most of them are theory
145

based, they are not practical. They do not give me the practical knowledge I need. For
instance, I would like them to show me how a good teacher teaches a class. (M2)
This is a very good school and that is why I am here for so many years. Our principal is
very helpful to us. He lets us know about all type of professional learning opportunities
such as seminars. Sometimes, if there are a lot of teachers who want to participate in the
same seminar, he would hold the seminars here in the school or he would hold an online
seminar for us to make the participation easier. But the seminar is not determined based
on what we want. It is like here is a seminar, join if you think it is beneficial to you. You
can decide whether you want or not. I mean it is not mandatory. (E3)
Seminars are the same for all teachers with different years of experience. Also, in the last
10 years the content is again the same. I think this is not an appropriate way to provide
seminars. As a teacher with 20 years of experience, seminars are becoming so boring.
They should provide different seminars for different teachers because not all teachers
have the same experience or needs. (M5)
Most teachers expressed concern that the professional development activities they
engaged in so far did not possess the potential to provide them with the knowledge and skills that
are relevant to what they need. The problem again is related to the way instructional leadership
is performed. Principals enter classrooms and observe teaching, yet they do not, and perhaps
cannot use the data they collected to make decisions regarding professional development
opportunities for teachers. This reduces the potential to diagnose instructional problems, develop
a strategic plan, and replace ineffective instructional techniques with effective ones.
The lack of coherence did not appear to be as major problem in private schools. As
indicated earlier, most instructional leadership responsibilities, including observing teaching,
146

giving feedback to teachers, and providing them with professional development, were carried out
by subject matter committees. Just as teachers in public schools, private school teachers indicated
that they were more comfortable to work with teachers who share the same area of expertise than
working with the principal. Members of subject matter committees worked together with a head
teacher to identify common instructional problems of teachers and student achievement
problems, by using data that come from classroom observations and student trial tests.
Additionally, professional development was more decentralized in private schools with the
content and type of determined by the head teacher of the committees, who seemed to draw more
on data collected from students and teachers. Each committee organized professional
development aligned to the needs perceived by teachers’ constituting the committee. In this way,
instructional leadership activities in private schools were more coherent and more relevant to
teachers, compared to those in public schools.

147

CHAPTER 7: INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Over the last decade, international comparisons of student exam outcomes have influenced
expectations of effectiveness in education. The performance of Turkish students in these exams
has caused considerable criticism of the quality of Turkish education and school systems. In
response to poor performances, the Turkish Ministry of Education introduced numerous reform
packages, including a curriculum emphasizing project-based and student-oriented instruction,
and technology in classrooms,
These reforms are substantial, but lack explicit attention to the quality of teaching.
Reform literature underscores the idea that the teacher is the most important school-related factor
influencing student learning outcomes (Ingersoll, 2001; Rockoff, 2004). It is hardly possible to
create effective schools without high quality teaching that addresses the academic needs of
students, particularly those with low socio-economic status (Aaronson et al., 2007; Elmore,
2004).
The literature also emphasizes that developing high quality teaching is not a
straightforward task, but can be gained through continuous reflection and work on classroom
teaching (Elmore, 2004). Principals play a critical role in this. Effective school studies indicate
that schools should have principals who work closely with teachers with the purpose of
improving classroom instruction (Brieve, 1972; Duke & Stiggins, 1985). Acknowledging the
importance of principals taking responsibility for increasing the quality of teaching, the Turkish
Ministry of Education has now stated that school principals should become instructional leaders,
and mandated them to enter classrooms, observe teaching, and provide feedback to teachers.
However, little was known about how Turkish principals were responding to these new demands.

148

In this study, my purpose was to provide a comprehensive understanding of middle
school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and actions by investigating the extent to
which principals are engaged in instructional leadership activities, which factors explain the
variation in their engagement in instructional leadership, how they understand and enact
instructional leadership tasks, and what challenges surface as they take the instructional
leadership role. I used the explanatory approach of mixed method research to accomplish my
purpose. Specifically, I started with a quantitative data analysis, drawing on TALIS teacher and
principal survey data. Then I used the findings from the quantitative analysis to determine the
sample and research focus for the qualitative part.
Quantitative Results
The first cycle of this research started with the analysis of TALIS data, where I examined the
extent of instructional leadership practiced by principals. The results indicated that principals
engaged in the management of instruction, such as discussing classroom problems and solving
them, as well as paying attention to student misbehavior more frequently than any other
behaviors. Principals observed instruction and provided feedback to teachers with the least
frequency. The results were similar across principal and teacher reports: both indicated that
principals are involved in the supervision of teaching with less frequency than they are in
discussing and solving teachers’ classroom problems and paying attention to student
misbehaviors. This finding is consistent with prior studies finding that Turkish principals were
less likely to engage in activities aimed at the direct improvement of teaching. (Aksoy & Isik,
2008; Gumus & Akcaoglu, 2013)
Principals on average had more positive perceptions of their instructional leadership in
comparison to teacher’s views of them. This finding is consistent with prior Turkish studies

149

(Gumuseli, 1996) and others. Finding similar results, Hallinger (2013) stressed that teachers’
perceptions provide more valid and reliable information concerning the extent of principals’
participation in instructional leadership processes.
In the second part of the quantitative chapter, I looked for factors that might explain
variations in principals’ instructional leadership. I found that principals in private schools had
significantly higher means in instructional leadership items than principals in public schools and
explored this further in the qualitative study of middle school principals and teachers. I provide
further reflection on them in the following section.
Female principals had significantly higher means than male principals. Other scholars
have found a positive relationship between instructional leadership and female principals
(Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). The current research failed to provide a
extensive explanation for this result. Leithwood, Bergley and Cousins explained this through the
differences in the socialization experience of men and women. This difference influences their
career aspirations and perception of school leadership. Since male principals start their
administrative careers early because they have a desire to take managerial positions
(superintendency), they consequently are inclined to managerial issues. However, female
principals start their administrative careers later and consider themselves to be involved more in
activities related to curriculum and instruction (as cited in Hallinger at al., 1996).
The quantitative survey analysis found no significant relationship between principals’
educational level and teachers’ and principals’ perceived instructional leadership. One possible
explanation might be the quality and content of graduate programs. Ada and Gumus (2012)
found that most universities in Turkey did not have courses in their educational administration

150

master's programs that equip learners with theoretical and practical knowledge for instructional
leadership. It is not possible to expect principals to practice what they have no knowledge of.
Principals’ experience levels had no significant relationship to principals’ and teachers’
perceived instructional leadership. This finding is also consistent with what Hallinger et al.
(1996) found. This data here may reflect the state of expectations from the Ministry, which has
not pressed principals to develop skills in this area. For instance, principals are expected to
observe each teacher once a year. Principals have not shown much independent willingness to
observe teaching more as they gain experience, and teachers are not enthusiastic about
principals’ presence in their classrooms.
Some literature has found that the overall the socio-economic status (SES) of a
community is a significant predictor of instructional leadership (Hallinger et al., 1996). However,
I did not find any significant relationship between SES and instructional leadership in the
principal or teacher data, after using public vs. private school status as a proxy for SES. A related
context variable—location, whether a school is located in an urban or rural area—was also not
found to be significant. This may also reflect the centralized structure of education in Turkey,
where school operations are dictated by the Ministry. Parents do not possess much authority for
how their children’s (public) school operates. Although it is true that parental involvement is
higher in schools located in affluent environments, strict centralization may limit parents' impact
on the administration of the school.
In the TALIS data, school size was not found to be significantly related to the extent of
instructional leadership reported by principals. This finding is contradicted by prior studies
showing a negative and significant relationship between school size and leadership (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985). It was further contradicted by the teacher data set, where the frequency of

151

principal involvement in instructional leadership decreased as the number of students enrolled
increased (this was the only item in which responses between principals and teachers varied
significantly). School size and high enrollments were also perceived as a major constraint by the
interviewed middle school principals. In large, crowded schools it may not be possible for
principals to allocate much time to teaching and learning, where larger numbers of teachers
imply more supervision and observation demands (Lambert, 1998) and more managerial issues,
including discipline and budget. The difference makes sense if the same amount of time must be
allocated across a larger number of people and issues. Conversely, in less crowded schools,
teachers may feel more interaction with their principal and vice versa even though principals may
spend the same amount of time, overall, on instructional leadership activities.
Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
The second cycle of this research involved studies of principal and teacher perceptions in a
sample of schools. I inquired into how principals’ instructional leadership was understood and
enacted and what issues might explain the way that they selected and enacted instructional
leadership behaviors.
The quantitative data analysis indicated that principals did relatively better in the
management of school goals. However, the qualitative analysis indicated that the way
participants perceived goals was not consistent with what goals mean in instructional leadership
theories. I found that the idea of setting and communicating school goals was understood by
participants from a broader perspective. Goal setting referred to broad school goals that were set
once every four years. Therefore, the goals were too broad and not vibrant; that is, they were not
operational goals that addressed or adapted to short-term instructional and student learning
problems. The second problem about goal setting was that there was a very limited focus on

152

improving teaching. The most important goal that came out of documents and the interviews was
increasing student achievement. The principals, however, failed to link student achievement to
the quality of classroom instruction by setting clear goals and expectations concerning teacher
improvement.
In the quantitative phase of my study, I found that principals were mostly involved in
activities discussing and solving teachers’ classroom problems. The qualitative field study,
however, revealed that most of the classroom related problems that teachers took to their
principals were about student discipline issues. Teachers preferred not to talk to their principals
regarding their instructional issues; rather, they talked to a colleague whose expertise in the same
subject matter was acknowledged. It can therefore be concluded that teachers and principals got
involved in a type of discourse to address classroom problems, yet these problems were not
directly related to the improvement of instruction.
In the quantitative data, I found that supervision of instruction was done by principals
with the least frequency. When the issue was further investigated through the qualitative field
study, I ended up with the understanding that observations were done in a way that did not
contribute to teacher learning based on perceptions. There was a sense among participants that
observations were done in order to fulfill the basic requirements mandated by the Ministry. A
substantial number of teachers either got little or no feedback regarding their teaching after
observations.
The qualitative and quantitative data contradicted concerning the degree to which private
and public school principals differed in their engagement in instructional leadership behaviors. In
opposition to the quantitative results, which showed higher involvement by private school
principals, perception based qualitative data revealed evidence that public school principals were

153

involved in many behaviors, whereas private school principals delegated these instructional
leadership tasks to subject matter committees. One possible explanation why the survey might
favor private school principals might be that private school teachers were pleased with having a
principal who provided them with substantial discretion to work with and influence each other.
Similarly, being supervised by a principal with no discretion shared with teachers might bring
about dissatisfaction with the practices of principals among public school teachers.
Besides the differences between public and private schools, the analysis of quantitative
data showed gender as a significant factor that determined the extent of principals’ involvement
in instructional leadership activities. This is consistent with what Gokyer (2010) found while
investigating the relationship of several factors to the instructional leadership of primary school
principals. The qualitative data supported this result. Several pieces of evidence surfaced from
the analysis of interview data, including the fact that female principals in this study tended to
emphasize giving feedback to teachers. Unlike male teachers, they worked closely with students,
parents and teachers to improve their students’ academic experiences, to identify academic
problems of students, and to investigate ways for resolving these issues. Their descriptions of
relationships transcended the traditional top-down relations between the leaders and subordinates
embedded in the theory of instructional leadership. This supports Leithwood’s explanation that
differences between men and women in instructional leadership might be due to differences in
their socialization experiences (as cited in Hallinger et al., 1996).
The expectations, beliefs and assumptions of teachers and principals seemed to play a
critical role in shaping the current state of principals’ instructional leadership. Although scholars
associated effective schools with the principals who assumed multifaceted roles for promoting
effective teaching, the image of an ideal principal in the eye of teachers was not the one who is

154

involved in instructional matters. When teachers described effective principals, they focused
largely on the knowledge of theory and practice in the field of leadership, as well as social capital
including trust, respect, communication and collaboration. This definition concurred with the
literature, in which it was overwhelmingly supported that social capital, and leadership skills and
knowledge are prerequisites for leaders to engage in effective leadership practices (Glickman et
al., 2001). Desire to have such principals, however, did not mean that those principals should be
associated with instructional matters. Teachers did not seem to be willing to have a principal in
the school who is engaged in teaching. Some issues emerged as significant barriers to the idea of
linking principals with teaching and learning.
Challenges to Instructional Leadership
Gumuseli (1996) identified a wide range of issues that could possibly make it difficult for
principals to assume instructional leadership roles. The list included bureaucratic barriers,
inadequate time and education, lack of a strong vision, and deficiency in the sense of courage and
resolution. According to the qualitative data in my study, the most pressing constraints were
more about principals’ limited leadership content knowledge, teachers’ sense of privacy, poor
internal accountability and lack of coherence among instructional leadership activities. These
factors were substantial in shaping principals’ and teachers’ perception of what a principal should
look like and do.
School personnel, including teachers, principals, and counselors, had a strong belief in
teachers’ expertise, and they therefore would avoid intervening in their classrooms. Consistently,
the sense of teachers being experts in their field created an environment where classrooms were
considered the private domain of teachers (Marshall, 2004). The idea of teaching being a private
issue of teachers was justified and sustained by principals through the prevailing assumption that

155

all teachers in their school were effective. Teachers seemed to have similar assumptions and
tended not to intervene in other teachers’ private entities—their classrooms.
Given these conditions, schools failed to create an internal accountability mechanism that
helped the personnel feel responsible for the instructional improvement of each other, and for
student achievement. Teachers were largely isolated from one another, except for a few examples
of pairs of teachers who were very close friends for many years. Principals also failed to create
opportunities and conditions for teachers though which they benefit from each other's expertise.
Teachers’ and principals’ understanding of instructional leadership was mostly influenced
and shaped by principals’ direct involvement in the classroom, such as observing teaching and
giving feedback to teachers. According to teachers, such involvement requires an extensive
knowledge of the content and pedagogy of a given subject matter. Possessing a similar
perception, principals who acknowledged the limited content knowledge they had in specific
subject matters were not willing to create tension with teachers by intervening in classrooms.
Although they visited classrooms since observations were mandatory, they avoided the type of
discourse that showed teachers how to improve.
What participants in the study predominantly stressed about leadership knowledge of
subject matter actually reflects the ideas of the preexisting literature that indicate that expecting
secondary school principals to work directly on the improvement in teachers’ instructional
capacity is not practically possible, given their limited expertise in specific subject matters and
their numerous managerial responsibilities due to larger student populations (Lambert, 1998;
Leithwood, 1994). These scholars therefore provide a different definition of instructional
leadership that focuses on improvement in the organizational aspects of the school. It has been
indicated that leaders should recruit effective teachers and improve their capacity by creating

156

environments in which teachers acquire the support they need, instead of directly getting engaged
in classroom instruction (Horng & Loeb, 2010).
However, several problems may arise if such ideas are to be applied to the Turkish school
context. First of all, principals’ autonomy is so limited in this particular context that such a type
of leadership is constrained. For instance, principals do not have sufficient discretion to
determine the teachers with whom they want to work, nor to decide the type of professional
development to be provided to teachers. Therefore, it may not be practically possible to limit
principals’ autonomy and to expect them to improve teaching and learning. Second, there is
already some level of isolation between principals and classrooms. Such arguments might even
deepen the current level of isolation.
A more practical and sound way of dealing with issue is to convince principals and
teachers that not all aspects of instruction are related to the content of the subject matter. Rather,
many subject matters share similar characteristics of what is considered to be effective
instruction (Morzano, 2007). For instance, using effective incentives and sanctions to motivate
students, checking for student learning through regular assessments, linking current materials
with the previous ones, and helping students transfer classroom learning into real life experiences
are some common components of good teaching. Effective teachers are apt at putting these
strategies into practice as they teach. A principal, presumably as an effective former teacher who
possesses comprehensive knowledge of one subject matter, can further that expertise to observe
teaching and determine the needs of teachers and students (Stein & Neilson, 2003).
Learning various subjects has substantial implications for principals, but it may not be
sufficient for them to become better instructional leaders. Principals seemed to lack not only
knowledge but also professional experience to work with teachers on instructional improvement.

157

They did not have any experience of working with an effective instructional leader. In this
context, I indicated that graduate programs at the universities in Turkey do not include sufficient
number of courses that teach principals how to become effective instructional leaders. Even if
principals acquire some knowledge of instructional leadership by taking courses at universities,
these courses do not offer and hence would not be able to provide the practical skills that
principals need. Principals need to have models or mentors at the school to teach and
demonstrate to them how to act in ways that make teaching better satisfy students’ academic
needs.
My study also suggested that there was an issue of lack of coherence among essential
components of instructional leadership. The quantitative research showed that principals were
involved in instructional leadership activities more than "quite often” (a score of three on a fourpoints scale); however, the qualitative field research indicated that the way these activities were
understood and carried out by principals did not touch the basic purpose of instructional
leadership—improving instruction and enhancing student learning. In fact, there was either little
or no connection among activities constituting instructional leadership. These practices seemed
to be independent of one another and lacked a focus on improvement of teaching and learning.
For instance, principals observed teaching, analyzed student achievement data, and set goals, but
none of these activities were aligned with one another in a way that addressed the learning needs
of students or teachers. Hence, it is possible to conclude that the presence of a range of
instructional leadership practices by school principals in Turkey is evident, but the quality of
these activities—the extent to which they promoted teacher improvement—seems to be a serious
problem.

158

Implications for Policy, Practice and Research
Instructional leadership has received significant attention by the Ministry in Turkey, which has
required principals to work on improving classroom instruction. In this study, I found that
principals were mostly engaged in a limited set of instructional leadership tasks that lacked an
intentional focus on improving teaching. The main issues that influenced the current state of
principals' instructional leadership were limited leadership content knowledge, a strong sense of
privacy among teachers, lack of internal accountability and lack of coherence among components
of instructional leadership.
Taking into account the findings in this study, there are implications for policymakers at
the Ministry level, for practice of both principals and teachers, and for future research.
Implications for Policymakers
One of the most substantial steps that can be taken by the Ministry is to make sure that
principals are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to work with teachers on their
professional development and instructional improvement. Many principals in this study were
former elementary teachers who did not possess deep knowledge within any particular subject
matter. The research, however, asserted that school leaders should have extensive knowledge of
teaching in a particular subject matter and how that subject matter is taught by teachers and
learned by students. School leaders can then use that knowledge to further their understanding of
other subject matters by learning how they are taught and learned. This was presented as an
essential feature that an effective instructional leader should possess (Stein & Nelson, 2003). It is
therefore important for Turkish principals at the secondary level to develop leadership content
knowledge. This might be possible in several ways. First, I recommend that the Ministry recruits
secondary school principals among effective teachers at the secondary school level. These

159

principals would have more of the skills and knowledge in teaching one particular subject matter,
and they could further work to increase their understanding of the practice of fellow teachers in
their own areas. Although this may still not make the principal equal to the teacher in a particular
subject matter, the principals will have adequate confidence to engage in a meaningful
conversation concerning the instructional performance of the teacher.
Second, I recommend that the Ministry provides secondary level school principals with
in-service training that helps them increase their knowledge regarding the content and pedagogy
of various subject matters. There are examples that support this idea. For instance, a number of
secondary school principals in Michigan (USA) were provided with algebra-intensive courses by
the university staff in order to develop principals’ leadership content knowledge in algebra. The
purpose was to help principals gain the necessary knowledge to help them feel confident in
working with algebra teachers toward improving their practice of teaching (Carver, 2010). Since
the Ministry in Turkey has already had in-service training opportunities available to principals, it
would be relatively easy to incorporate teaching leadership content knowledge in their trainings.
The third way to develop leadership content knowledge and to help principals at the
secondary level enhance their understanding of how to improve teaching is to establish graduate
programs at universities that incorporate both theory and practice regarding the teaching of
various important subject matters, including math, science, and social studies. A large number of
educational administration departments in Turkish universities are research and theory-focused,
and therefore they lack programs that provide principals with practice-based knowledge
regarding how to improve instruction (Ada & Gumus, 2012). I recommend that prospective
practice-oriented graduate programs offer courses that intend to improve the leadership content

160

knowledge of principals working in secondary schools, including some knowledge about the
subject, as well as how teachers teach and students learn that subject.
Offering teachers professional development opportunities is an important component of
instructional leadership. Yet the fact that professional development is determined and provided
by a centralized mechanism contradicts the basic tenets of instructional leadership. The Ministry
requires principals to observe teaching and provide teachers with necessary feedback to address
issues. However, due to the hierarchical structure of the system, principals lack the power to
determine the type of professional development to be offered to teachers based on the issues that
they encounter during classroom visits. Consequently, it was seen in this study that professional
development activities provided by the Ministry are not based on teachers’ classroom practices,
and therefore they do not satisfy the needs of teachers. In response to this problem, I recommend
that the Ministry decentralizes the organization and delivery of professional development by
giving more discretion to principals and teachers so that they can determine the content and type
of professional development necessary in their classrooms and schools. This would give teachers
and principals the opportunity to determine professional development based on what they
actually need.
The purpose of the Ministry is to improve the quality of teaching by extending the
presence of principals in the classrooms. According to both sets of data in this research,
principals are involved in a range of instructional leadership activities, yet the influence on
instruction is not perceived by teachers and principals to be significant. This suggests that when
it is mandated, principals might engage in some activities associated with instructional
leadership. However, this does not guarantee that these activities or practices will contribute to
instructional change toward improvement. It is indicated that external accountability does not

161

bring out desired outcomes unless it is also supported by internal accountability (Elmore &
Fuhrman, 2001). The principals should believe in the value of what they do as instructional
leaders, and show desire and have a sense of efficacy in improving teaching and learning.
Teachers should believe the power of working with the principal and other teachers and be
willing to open their doors. The Ministry might not have much influence to create internal
accountability in schools, but it can work on the reduction of school size to diminish isolation
between the principal and teachers, as well as among teachers within the same school. This
would also increase practices of instructional leadership, since school size has been found to be
significantly related to leadership behaviors.
Implications for Practice
My research also has implications for practitioners, including teachers and principals. In
this study, I found that principals and teachers were skeptical about the usefulness of classroom
observation done by principals and its influence on teaching. This perception was influenced and
shaped by teachers' understanding of knowledge in subject matters. They believed that principals
cannot conduct meaningful and valuable observations in a class that requires in-depth knowledge
of that subject. In practice, such assumptions and beliefs may not be accurate. Teaching takes
place through the interaction of three entities: the teacher, students, and materials. The definition
of effective teaching involves productive relations among these three entities. Understanding of
these relations does not always require a comprehensive knowledge of the subject matter.
Effective interactions of these entities often represent common characteristics of effective
teaching in all subject matters (Danielson, 2007). Principals can be important sources in helping
teachers to address issues associated with these interactions.

162

Given the common perception among practitioners in Turkey, principals having
leadership content knowledge in various subject matters can convince teachers that they are
capable of engaging in a type of conversation that can contribute to classroom teaching.
Therefore, I recommend that principals work to learn various subject matters by developing an
understanding of what is it like to teach those subject matters, how students learn them, and best
instructional strategies for teaching them. They can then use that knowledge to lead teachers
(Stein & Neilson, 2003).
This research indicates that principals were engaged in various instructional leadership
activities, yet there was a lack of coherence among those activities. An effectively implemented
data-driven decision-making strategy can be an important means to solve this problem. I
recommend principals actively become involved in the analysis of data derived from the
observation of instruction and student test results, in order to determine student and teacher
needs. This would help them determine focused instructional goals and make meaningful
decisions that address issues regarding teaching and learning (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006).
Finally, it is important for teachers and principals to know that principals’ influence on
instruction does not only take place though their direct involvement in classroom, such as
classroom observations. Many practices that require indirect involvement have significant
potential to make a difference in the improvement of teaching and learning. For example,
principals can create conditions and structures for teachers to interact with each other. Creating a
community in which teachers learn from one another, for instance, is a substantial way through
which principals can indirectly contribute to classroom instruction (Printy, 2008). Therefore, I
recommend that principals not only depend on actions that are require direct involvement in the
classroom, but also use indirect means, such as creating communities for learning, using data,

163

developing structures for communities to collaborate and linking teachers to outside learning
opportunities.
Implications for Future Research
The ultimate purpose of instructional leadership is to involve principals in the process of
improving teaching and teacher quality as a means to enhance student learning. In order for
instructional leadership practices to achieve this purpose, they should change the way that
teachers teach. In my research, many teachers did not perceive instructional leadership performed
by the principal as a means to influence their teaching. To address this, there needs to be further
research investigating which practices of principals are more or less likely to stimulate change in
the instructional strategies of teachers.
The qualitative data suggest some level of leadership distribution among the school
community, including the principal, assistant principals, and teachers. For instance, the school
principal is the formal leader who deals with most of the community outreach activities, such as
collaborating with municipalities and private tutoring institutions to get resources that the school
needs. Assistant principals, who are second to principals in the formal hierarchy, deal with most
of the classroom and some of the school discipline issues, as well as lead teacher committee
meetings. Although these activities are not directly related to teaching and learning, it might be
helpful to remove some of the workload that principals spend time on.
I also recognize that teachers meet with each other for several times and discuss
curriculum, exams, and struggling students. I did not extensively inquire into the extent and
nature of such distribution, since my purpose was to investigate the practices of principals
relevant to instructional leadership. Further research might concern itself with what the

164

distribution of instructional leadership looks like and what specific instructional leadership
practices are distributed in Turkish school contexts.

165

CLOSING SUMMARY
The research stresses the substantial influence of the teacher on student learning, and it
recommends that schools and national education systems should focus on building teachers’
capacity toward effective instructional techniques that possess high potential to address each
student’s needs. But it is not the teacher alone who makes a difference. School improvement
research over the last three decades has elaborated the importance of formal leaders, and it has
found that they are second to teachers in contributing to enhancing student learning.
Through a substantial amount of research, we know that formal leaders do not directly
influence student learning; rather, they can improve student achievement by taking a significant
role to create an environment in which principals and teachers work together to help teachers
acquire the knowledge and skills that are necessary for instructional change. Principals’
instructional leadership practices are keystone to teachers’ instructional improvement. Based on
the instructional leadership perspective, effective school leaders are those who are involved in
activities such as setting goals and expectations, working on instructional improvement by
observing teaching and giving feedback to teachers, and creating school environments where
teachers can learn from each other, monitor student achievement progress, and use data to make
curricular and instructional decisions.
These skills are important for principals who want to improve teaching and learning in
their schools. The Turkish Ministry of Education has also mandated some of these behaviors. In
this research, I found that teachers and principals did not agree on the frequency of principals’
involvement in instructional leadership, but they seemed to concur on what principals carry out,
more or less. More importantly, the field study showed that the principals carried out certain
tasks associated with instructional leadership, including setting goals, observing instruction and

166

dealing with classroom problems. However, the most fundamental purpose of instructional
leadership was missing—to improve teaching. Instructional leadership activities of principals
were not coherent, and therefore they lacked the potential to bring about and influence change in
teachers’ instructional practices.
There is a list that involves various reasons why the instructional leadership of formal
leaders in Turkey does not carry out its purpose. The list includes limited resources, large school
size, teacher privacy, limited internal accountability, and centralized control of teachers’
professional development. However, the most substantial one, as stressed by teachers and
principals alike, is that principals lack the necessary content knowledge that would enable them
to provide teachers with assistance to determine instructional needs and corresponding actions
for addressing these needs.
If the Turkish Ministry of Education is to catch up with top nations in international
exams, there is a substantial need for them to fill schools with principals who possess knowledge
and skills to help teachers and students to improve. This calls for a change in the Ministry’s
strategy for the selection and education of school principals. Future principals should be selected
from those who are familiar with best practices, and current principals should be educated to get
the type of expertise needed to help teachers improve their classroom practices for better student
outcomes.

167

APPENDICES

168

APPENDIX 1:
TALIS Principal and Teacher Survey Instructional Leadership Items

169

TALIS Principal Survey Instructional Leadership Items
Indices
1.
2.
3.
ManagementSchool Goals

4.
5.
6.
1.

Instructional
Management

2.
3.
4.
1.
2.

Direct Supervision
of Instruction

3.
4.

Items
I make sure that the professional development activities of
teachers are in accordance with the teaching goals of the school.
I ensure that teachers work according to the school’s educational
goals.
I use student performance results to develop the school’s
educational goals.
I take exam results into account in decisions regarding
curriculum development.
I ensure that there is clarity concerning the responsibility for
coordinating the curriculum.
In this school, we work on goals and/or a school development
plan.
When a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, I take the
initiative to discuss matters.
I inform teachers about possibilities for updating their knowledge
and skills.
When a teacher brings up a classroom problem, we solve the
problem together.
I pay attention to disruptive behavior in classrooms.
I observe instruction in classrooms.
I give teachers suggestions as to how they can improve their
teaching.
I monitor students’ work.
I check to see whether classroom activities are in keeping with
our educational goals.

170

Instructional Leadership Items in the TALIS Teacher Survey
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

In meetings, the principal discusses educational goals with teachers.
The principal ensures that teachers work according to the school’s educational goals.
The principal or someone else in the management team observes teaching in classes.
The principal gives teachers suggestions as to how they can improve their teaching.
When a teacher has problems in his/her classroom, the principal takes the initiative to
discuss the matter.
The principal ensures that teachers are informed about possibilities for updating their
knowledge and skills.
The principal compliments teachers for special effort or accomplishments.
In this school, the principal and teachers work on a school development plan.
The principal defines goals to be accomplished by the staff of this school

171

APPENDIX 2:
Principal and Teacher Interview Protocols

172

Principal Interview Protocol
1. When you think of a principal in Turkey, who do you think they are and what they do in
school?
2. As a principal, how would you define the effective school? What characteristics do you
think a good school involves? What would be your contribution as a principal to the
effective school that you define?
3. What do you think about instructional leadership? Does it have any value in improving
school and supporting student learning in Turkish schools? How?
4. How do you think of yourself as an instructional leader? What strategies do you use to
support teachers and instructional improvement? What strategies do you think you might
be neglecting because of the nature of your job?
5. Do you feel any pressure or support from teachers or parents to become an instructional
leader? (If yes, what type of pressure? Who? And How?) (if no, why do you think they
do not? Is it about school culture, traditions, values, expectations or relationships?)
6. What changed in your understanding and practice of leadership after the 2010 regulation
that mandates classroom observations and feedback to teachers? How do you feel about
your new role? What challenges has it brought about? What strategies have you used to
deal with challenges?
7. How did it affect your relationship with teachers? How do you think teachers might feel
about your role? Have they talked you about it or have you encountered any type of
resistance from teachers? How do you deal with problems related to relationships
particularly with teachers?
8. What kind of academic goals do you have? How do you determine these goals? How do
you use these goals? Do you feel need for becoming a better instructional leader due to
the nature of school goals?
9. Do teachers get involved in the process of improving teaching and learning activities?
How do you work together? What are challenges of working with teachers? Does
working collaboratively with teachers change your perception of yourself as a leader?
How do you feel?
10. Do you have teacher committees in your school who work on improving teaching and
learning? What do they do? To what extent are you connected to them? How do you
contribute to their work?
11. Have you ever felt that you do not have sufficient knowledge or experience to help
teachers become better instructors? What did you do in that case? (External resources or
help)
12. To what extent do you discuss instructional problems with teachers? What type of
classroom problems do they bring the most (instructional, behavioral or resource
problems)? What strategies do you use to help them (observing classrooms, mentoring,
educational conversations, guiding inquiry, setting direction, offering advice, modelling,
focusing teacher talk on student learning, and giving feedback)?
13. What do you think the concept of student achievement involves? To what extent it is
important for you? Do you use them for decision making purposes? How? Is there any
mechanism in the school or education system that encourages you to spend effort for
increasing student achievement? How?

173

14. Do you have discipline and safety problems in your schools? Do you think this affect
teaching and learning activities in classroom? How do you deal with those problems?
15. What sort of environment do you think would (or does) support you in bringing the
educational aspects of leadership to the forefront of your work in the school?

174

Teacher Interview Protocol
1. When you think of a principal in Turkey, who do you think they are and what they do in
school?
2. As a teacher, how would you define the effective school? What characteristics do you
think a good school involves? What would be your contribution as a teacher to the
effective school that you define?
3. What do you think about instructional leadership? Does it have any value in improving
school and supporting student learning in Turkish schools? How?
4. How do you think of yourself as an instructional leader? Have you ever been engaged in
activities to support teachers and instruction?
5. How do you think your principal as an instructional leader? Do you think he/she can help
you to become a better teacher? How does he/she help you to improve your teaching and
learning?
6. Do you feel any pressure or support from the principal, other teachers or parents to work
collaboratively on student learning and teacher improvement? (If yes, what type of
pressure? Who? And How?) (if no, why do you think they do not? Is it about school
culture, traditions, values, expectations or relationships?)
7. You probably have information regarding the 2010 regulation that mandates principals to
observe classroom and give feedback to teachers? Does this regulation change anything
in the school? How do you feel about principals’ new role?
8. How did the 2010 regulation affect you as a teacher and your relationship with the
principal and other teachers? Do you have a different perception of principalship now?
9. How do you feel when a principal come to your classroom to observe your instruction?
10. What kind of academic goals do you have? How do you determine these goals? How do
you use these goals? Do you feel need for becoming a better instructor/teacher due to the
nature of school goals?
11. When you have an instructional problem, who would be the person that you ask help
from? Why? How about your principal? Why?
12. Do teachers get involved in the process of improving teaching and learning activities in
the school? How do you work together? What is your role? What are challenges of
working with other teachers? Does working collaboratively with teachers change your
perception of yourself as a teacher? How do you feel?
13. Do you have teacher committees in your school who work on improving teaching and
learning? What do they do? To what extent are you connected to them? How do you
contribute to their work as a teacher?
14. To what extent do you discuss instructional problems with the principal or other
teachers? What type of classroom problems do teachers bring the most (instructional,
behavioral or resource problems)? What strategies do you use to help them (observing
classrooms, mentoring, educational conversations, guiding inquiry, setting direction,
offering advice, modelling, focusing teacher talk on student learning, and giving
feedback)?
15. Do you participate in any activities outside the school that help you improve your
teaching? Which? How are you informed about these opportunities?

175

16. What do you think the concept of student achievement involves? To what extent it is
important for you? Do you discuss student achievement with principals and teachers?
How? Do you use them for decision making purposes (e.g. changing instructional
strategy)? How?
17. Do you have discipline and safety problems in your schools? Do you think this affect
teaching and learning activities in classroom? How do you deal with those problems?
18. As a teacher, what sort of environment do you think would (or does) support you in
bringing the educational aspects to the forefront of your work in the school?

176

APPENDIX 3:
Consent Forms for Teachers and Principals

177

Consent Form for Teachers
08/20/2013
TEACHER CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS AND AUDIO-TAPING
Dear Teacher,
The interview questions I am asking you to answer are part of my doctoral dissertation which
aims to better understand the concept and practices of instructional leadership in Turkey. Audiorecording will help us to focus more on the essence of questions rather than note-taking. In a
broad definition instructional leadership is a term used for principals who gives priority to
academic aspect of the school such as school goals, instructional quality, teacher improvement,
and student achievement. If you have time, I would be interested in any comments you may have
about your thoughts, experience with and feelings with regard to instructional leadership
practices of your principals.
 You will be asked to answer our questions during the interview time yet you will be able to
see questions in advance. The interview will last about 30-50 minutes.
 I want to clearly state that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can
refuse to answer any question as well as stop participating in the study at any time. If at any
point during the study you wish to discontinue, the information collected will not be used in
the analysis and results of this project.
 To ensure confidentiality, your name will not be collected and any identifying information
about you will not be exposed in any way. Data will only be reported in the aggregate so no
individual information will be singled out. Every effort will also be made to protect the
confidentiality of the information provided. All materials will be kept in a secure and locked
location. In case individual data is needed pseudonyms will be used to disguise personal
identifiers in any written reports, publications, and presentations.
 You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by participating in the interviews and
audio-taping of the interviews.
If you have questions about your participation in this research project, you may contact me
through (bellibas@msu.edu), Phone Turkey: (x) or US (x) or my advisor Prof. BetsAnn Smith at
Michigan State University (x). If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact anonymously, if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
(HRPP) at: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the research.
Sincerely,
Mehmet Sukru Bellibas
Doctoral Student at Michigan State University
178

Consent Form for Principals
08/20/2013
TEACHER CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS AND AUDIO-TAPING
Dear Principal,
The interview questions I am asking you to answer are part of my doctoral dissertation which
aims to better understand the concept and practices of instructional leadership in Turkey. Audiorecording will help us to focus more on the essence of questions rather than note-taking. In a
broad definition instructional leadership is a term used for principals who gives priority to the
academic aspect of the school such as school goals, instructional quality, teacher improvement,
and student achievement. If you have time, I would be interested in any comments you may have
about your thoughts, experience with and feelings with regard to your instructional leadership
practices.
 You will be asked to answer our questions during the interview time yet you will be able to
see questions in advance. The interview will last about 30-50 minutes.
 I want to clearly state that your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can
refuse to answer any question as well as stop participating in the study at any time. If at any
point during the study you wish to discontinue, the information collected will not be used in
the analysis and results of this project.
 To ensure confidentiality, your name will not be collected and any identifying information
about you will not be exposed in any way. Data will only be reported in the aggregate so no
individual information will be singled out. Every effort will also be made to protect the
confidentiality of the information provided. All materials will be kept in a secure and locked
location. In case individual data is needed pseudonyms will be used to disguise personal
identifiers in any written reports, publications, and presentations.
 You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by participating in the interviews and
audio-taping of the interviews.
If you have questions about your participation in this research project, you may contact me
through (bellibas@msu.edu), Phone Turkey: (x) or US:(x) or my advisor Prof. BetsAnn Smith at
Michigan State University (x). If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a
study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact anonymously, if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program
(HRPP) at: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 207 Olds
Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the research.
Sincerely,
Mehmet Sukru Bellibas
Doctoral Student at Michigan State University
179

APPENDIX 4:
ANOVA Tables for Principal Survey Analyses: School Factors

180

Table 26
One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Categories of School Location (City,
Town and Village)

Management Of School Goals

Instructional Management

Supervision of Instruction

Instructional Leadership

N
7
66
112
185
7
66
110
183
7
66
110
183
7
66
110
183

Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total

181



-0.499
-0.445
-0.400
-0.420
0.542
0.354
0.476
0.434
0.394
0.260
0.449
0.378
0.196
0.076
0.231
0.174

SD
1.161
.812
.941
.901
.956
.929
.912
.917
.926
.631
.760
.724
1.227
.846
.985
.945

df
2
182

F
Sig.
2.032 .092

184
2
180

.290

.884

182
2
180

1.407

.233

182
2
180

.794

.530

182

APPENDIX 5:
ANOVA Tables for Principal Survey Analyses: Principals’ Characteristics

182

Table 27
One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference between principals with bachelor and Masters’
Degree

Management of Goals

Instructional Management

Supervision of Instruction

Instructional Leadership

Bachelor
Masters
Total
Bachelor
Masters
Total
Bachelor
Masters
Total
Bachelor
Masters
Total

N
177
7
184
176
7
183
176
7
183
176
7
183

183



-0.435
-0.151
-0.424
0.442
0.314
0.438
0.369
0.531
0.375
0.169
0.311
0.175

SD
.900
.878
.898
.930
.526
.917
.729
.615
.724
.952
.822
.945

df
1
182
183
1
181
182
1
181
182
1
181
182

F
.671

Sig.
.414

.131

.718

.337

.562

.151

.698

Table 28
One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Principals according to Principals’
Total Year of Experience

Management of Goals

Instructional Management

Supervision of Instruction

Instructional Leadership

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

N
20
111
54
185
20
111
52
183
20
111
52
183
20
111
52
183

184



-0.484
-0.383
-0.478
-0.422
0.411
0.448
0.394
0.429
0.496
0.345
0.401
0.377
0.190
0.184
0.133
0.170

SD
.831
.946
.836
.900
.946
.891
.958
.912
.744
.702
.773
.725
.925
.922
1.011
.943

df
2
182

F
Sig.
.253 .777

184
2
180

.065

.937

182
2
180

.407

.666

182
2
180

.057

.945

182

Table 29
One Way ANOVA Table for the Mean Difference among Principals according to the Year of
Experience in the Current School

Management of Goals

Instructional Management

Supervision of Instruction

Instructional Leadership

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

185

N
56
120
7
183
55
119
7
181
55
119
7
181
55
119
7
181



-0.457
-0.416
0.226
-0.404
0.396
0.447
0.535
0.435
0.314
0.403
0.775
0.390
0.116
0.190
0.688
0.187

SD
.840
.911
.739
.889
.905
.921
1.011
.915
.665
.726
.929
.717
.895
.950
.950
.935

df
2
180

F
Sig.
1.888 .154

184
2
178

.100 .905

180
2
178

1.340 .264

180
2
178

1.169 .313

180

APPENDIX 6:
ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: Factors Related To Teachers’ Characteristics

186

Table 30
One Way ANOVA Table for Mean Difference between Female and Male Teachers’
Understanding of Principals Instructional Leadership

N
1705
1356
3061
1690
1349
3039
1698
1353
3051
1703
1354
3057
1693
1351
3044
1694
1347
3041
1699
1349
3048
1694
1349
3043
1698
1350
3048

Discusses Educational Goals

Female
Male
Total
Defines Staff Goals
Female
Male
Total
Works on Development Plan
Female
Male
Total
Works According Goals
Female
Male
Total
Takes Initiative to Problems
Female
Male
Total
Informs about opportunities to Update Female
Knowledge
Male
Total
Compliments Special
Female
Efforts
Male
Total
Observes Classrooms
Female
Male
Total
Gives Suggestions to Improve
Female
Male
Total

187



2.91
2.79
2.86
2.76
2.65
2.71
2.67
2.58
2.63
2.97
2.86
2.92
2.48
2.47
2.47
2.38
2.33
2.35
2.47
2.58
2.52
2.08
2.15
2.11
2.27
2.27
2.27

SD
.714
.759
.736
.756
.781
.769
.790
.801
.796
.704
.727
.716
.836
.803
.821
.861
.859
.860
.844
.851
.848
.760
.722
.744
.801
.807
.804

df
1
3059
3060
1
3037
3038
1
3049
3050
1
3055
3056
1
3042
3043
1
3039
3040
1
3046
3047
1
3041
3042
1
3046
3047

F
Sig.
19.885 .000

17.077 .000

9.186 .002

18.793 .000

.068 .794

2.535 .111

11.231 .001

5.805 .016

.006 .940

Table 31
One Way ANOVA Table for Mean Difference between Bachelor and Graduate Teachers’
Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership

Discusses Educational Goals

College
Graduate
Total
Defines Staff Goals
College
Graduate
Total
Works on Development Plan
College
Graduate
Total
Works According Goals
College
Graduate
Total
Takes Initiative to Problems
College
Graduate
Total
Informs about opportunities to Update College
Knowledge
Graduate
Total
Compliments Special
College
Efforts
Graduate
Total
Observes Classrooms
College
Graduate
Total
Gives Suggestions to Improve
College
Graduate
Total

188

N
2838
213
3051
2815
214
3029
2828
213
3041
2836
212
3048
2825
210
3035
2818
213
3031
2824
214
3038
2819
214
3033
2825
213
3038



2.85
2.88
2.86
2.71
2.74
2.71
2.63
2.63
2.63
2.92
2.96
2.92
2.48
2.43
2.47
2.35
2.42
2.35
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.11
2.19
2.11
2.26
2.33
2.27

SD
.731
.813
.737
.764
.830
.769
.791
.857
.796
.710
.802
.716
.819
.852
.821
.855
.921
.860
.845
.881
.848
.739
.791
.743
.795
.903
.803

df F
Sig.
1 .289 .591
3049
3050
1 .420 .517
3027
3028
1 .001 .981
3039
3040
1 .820 .365
3046
3047
1 .566 .452
3033
3034
1 1.275 .259
3029
3030
1 .001 .973
3036
3037
1 2.614 .106
3031
3032
1 1.409 .235
3036
3037

APPENDIX 7:
ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: School Factors

189

Table 32
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to School Type (Public and Private)

Discusses Educational Goals

Public
Private
Total
Defines Staff Goals
Public
Private
Total
Works on Development Plan
Public
Private
Total
Works According Goals
Public
Private
Total
Takes Initiative to Problems
Public
Private
Total
Informs about opportunities to Update Public
Knowledge
Private
Total
Compliments Special
Public
Efforts
Private
Total
Observes Classrooms
Public
Private
Total
Gives Suggestions to Improve
Public
Private
Total

190

N
2321
708
3029
2308
700
3008
2313
706
3019
2319
706
3025
2309
703
3012
2305
704
3009
2309
708
3017
2306
705
3011
2310
706
3016



2.78
3.11
2.86
2.61
3.06
2.71
2.50
3.05
2.63
2.82
3.24
2.92
2.42
2.65
2.48
2.24
2.73
2.35
2.44
2.76
2.52
2.00
2.47
2.11
2.15
2.64
2.27

SD
.725
.707
.735
.761
.686
.768
.769
.735
.794
.713
.627
.715
.818
.799
.819
.837
.822
.858
.836
.841
.848
.690
.799
.744
.772
.786
.802

df
1
3027
3028
1
3006
3007
1
3017
3018
1
3023
3024
1
3010
3011
1
3007
3008
1
3015
3016
1
3009
3010
1
3014
3015

F
Sig.
118.63 .000

196.23 .000

272.78 .000

190.30 .000

41.91 .000

185.21 .000

76.05 .000

226.63 .000

210.83 .000

Table 33
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to School Location

Discusses Educational Goals

Defines Staff Goals

Works Development Plan

Work According To Goals

Take Initiative To Discuss Problems

Informs about opportunities to Update
Knowledge

Compliments Special Effort

Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total

191

N
74
979
1938
2991
74
966
1932
2972
74
977
1930
2981
74
977
1936
2987
74
973
1927
2974
73
972
1926
2971
73
976
1929
2978



2.93
2.86
2.85
2.86
2.84
2.67
2.73
2.71
2.91
2.59
2.65
2.63
3.05
2.89
2.93
2.92
2.51
2.48
2.48
2.48
2.62
2.29
2.38
2.36
2.79
2.49
2.53
2.52

SD
df F Sig.
.709
2 .433 .649
.742 2988
.733
.735 2990
.777
2 2.678 .069
.768 2969
.768
.768 . 2971
.814
2 6.200 .002
.782 2978
.796
.793 2980
.660
2 2.464 .085
.711 2984
.721
.717 2986
.745
2 .072 .931
.799 2971
.830
.818 2973
.860
2 7.087 .001
.846 2968
.859
.856 2970
.833
2 4.372 .013
.853 2975
.840
.845 2977

Table 33 (cont’d)

Observes Classrooms

Gives Suggestions to Improve

Village
Town
City
Total
Village
Town
City
Total

192

74
972
1928
2974
74
973
1931
2978

2.22
2.07
2.13
2.12
2.39
2.23
2.28
2.27

.727
.721
.754
.743
.825
.789
.805
.801

2 3.079 .046
2971
2973
2 2.277 .103
2975
2977

Table 34
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to Percentile of Parents with a High School Diploma



SD

df

436

2.85

.728

4

573
702
748
527
2986

2.77
2.95
2.81
2.86
2.85

.737 2981
.730
.730
.755
.738 2985

433

2.66

.815

569
698
743
524
2967

2.55
2.80
2.71
2.79
2.71

.783 2962
.751
.767
.722
.771 2966

433

2.54

.846

570
701
745
527
2976

2.46
2.70
2.61
2.80
2.63

.779 2971
.767
.793
.774
.797 2975

434

2.52

.902

569
698
743
525
2969

2.43
2.52
2.46
2.42
2.47

.836 2964
.771
.826
.793
.822 2968

N
Discusses Educational Goals

Defines Staff Goals

Works On Development Plan

Takes Initiative To Discuss
Problems

Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total

193

F

Sig.

5.651

.000

4 10.261

.000

4 16.414

4

2.006

.000

.091

Table 34 (cont’d)
Informs About Opportunities To Less Than
Update Knowledge
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Compliments Special Efforts
Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Observes Classrooms
Less Than
10%
Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Gives Suggestions To Improve Less Than
10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total

433

2.24

.874

569
695
745
524
2966

2.23
2.45
2.34
2.46
2.35

.870 2961
.842
.863
.830
.860 2965

436

2.50

.854

571
697
745
525
2974

2.39
2.54
2.53
2.61
2.51

.864 2969
.833
.836
.855
.849 2973

436

2.10

.752

570

2.06

.707 2964

698
740
525
2969

2.12
2,08
2,22
2,11

.765
,739
,765
,747 2968

436

2.23

.805

568
699
745
526
2974

2.18
2.32
2.21
2.38
2.26

.764 2969
.828
.795
.804
.803 2973

194

4

4

4

4

9.149

.000

4.945

.001

3.458

.008

6.157

.000

Table 35
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to Percentile of Parents with Bachelor Degree

Discusses Educational Goals

Defines Staff Goals

Works On Development Plan

Works According Goals

Take Initiative To Discuss
Problems

Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
195

N
1164
575
552
366
334
2991
1158
569
551
363
331
2972
1154
576
553
366
332
2981
1160
574
553
366
334
2987
1157
570
553
362
332
2974



2.78
2.82
2.83
2.91
3.12
2.85
2.57
2.67
2.71
2.88
3.05
2.71
2.46
2.59
2.65
2.85
3.00
2.63
2.79
2.88
2.92
3.07
3.24
2.92
2.46
2.45
2.37
2.48
2.65
2.47

SD
.717
.753
.725
.789
.687
.738
.772
.759
.729
.758
.723
.769
.775
.773
.761
.812
.762
.796
.724
.704
.700
.691
.656
.719
.827
.792
.813
.846
.795
.819

df
F
Sig.
4 14.977 .000
2986

2990
4 30.717
2967

.000

2971
4 40.874
2976

.000

2980
4 32.191
2982

.000

2986
4
2969

.000

2973

6.274

Table 35 (cont’d)
Informs About Opportunities
To Update Knowledge

Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Compliments Special Efforts
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Observes Classrooms
Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total
Gives Suggestions To Improve Less Than 10%
10% - 20%
20% - 40%
40% - 60%
60% Or More
Total

196

1153
572
551
365
331
2972
1156
572
552
365
334
2979
1154
573
549
363
335
2974
1156
571
553
365
333
2978

2.23
2.30
2.33
2.55
2.69
2.35
2.42
2.55
2.47
2.60
2.73
2.51
2.04
2.03
2.03
2.34
2.41
2.11
2.17
2.21
2.20
2.45
2.57
2.26

.834
.865
.834
.868
.847
.859
.826
.832
.856
.841
.896
.848
.714
.709
.723
.799
.771
.745
.768
.815
.776
.816
.824
.803

4 24.944
2967

.000

2971
4 10.659
2974

.000

2978
4 28.425
2969

.000

2973
4 23.383
2973

.000

2977

APPENDIX 8:
ANOVA Tables for Teacher Survey Analyses: Factors Related to Principals’ Characteristics

197

Table 36
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to Principals’ Gender

Discusses Educational Goals

Defines Staff Goals

Works on Development Plan

Works According Goals

Takes Initiative to Problems

Informs about opportunities to
Update Knowledge
Compliments Special
Efforts
Observes Classrooms

Gives Suggestions to Improve

Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total

N
275
2718
2993
273
2698
2971
275
2709
2984
275
2714
2989
272
2704
2976
274
2700
2974
275
2705
2980
275
2699
2974
273
2706
2979

198



3.16
2.82
2.85
3.07
2.67
2.71
2.99
2.59
2.63
3.24
2.88
2.92
2.75
2.44
2.47
2.68
2.32
2.35
2.80
2.49
2.51
2.58
2.06
2.11
2.62
2.22
2.26

SD
.691
.735
.737
.730
.765
.770
.824
.784
.796
.709
.710
.717
.804
.819
.822
.868
.851
.859
.900
.840
.851
.804
.721
.744
.859
.786
.801

df F
Sig.
1 54.007 .000
2991
2992
1 66.995 .000
2969
2970
1 63.439 .000
2982
2983
1 61.413 .000
2987
2988
1 34.608 .000
2974
2975
1 44.794 .000
2972
2973
1 34.515 .000
2978
2979
1 125.922 .000
2972
2973
1 60.396 .000
2977
2978

Table 37
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to Principals’ Educational Level

Discusses Educational Goals Bachelor
Masters
Total
Defines Staff Goals
Bachelor
Masters
Total
Works on Development Plan Bachelor
Masters
Total
Works According Goals
Bachelor
Masters
Total
Takes Initiative to Problems Bachelor
Masters
Total
Informs about opportunities Bachelor
to Update Knowledge
Masters
Total
Compliments Special
Bachelor
Efforts
Masters
Total
Observes Classrooms
Bachelor
Masters
Total
Gives Suggestions to Improve Bachelor
Masters
Total

N
2853
137
2990
2832
137
2969
2844
137
2981
2849
137
2986
2836
137
2973
2835
136
2971
2841
137
2978
2835
137
2972
2840
137
2977

199



2.85
2.88
2.85
2.71
2.72
2.71
2.63
2.66
2.63
2.92
2.93
2.92
2.48
2.23
2.47
2.35
2.46
2.35
2.51
2.56
2.51
2.10
2.30
2.11
2.25
2.36
2.26

SD
.737
.728
.737
.770
.766
.770
.792
.868
.796
.717
.699
.716
.822
.750
.820
.858
.834
.857
.849
.865
.850
.747
.646
.744
.802
.774
.801

df F
Sig.
1
.244 .622
2988
2989
1
.014 .905
2967
2968
1
.304 .582
2979
2980
1
.063 .802
2984
2985
1 12.107 .001
2971
2972
1 2.397 .122
2969
2970
1
.451 .502
2976
2977
1 9.315 .002
2970
2971
1 2.165 .141
2975
2976

Table 38
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership.
Difference according to Principals’ Total Experience

Discusses Educational Goals

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Defines Staff Goals
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Works Development Plan
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Works According To Goals
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Takes Initiative To Discuss
0-2 Years
Problems
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Informs about opportunities to 0-2 Years
Update Knowledge
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Compliments Special Effort
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

N
275
1780
957
3012
274
1768
949
2991
276
1771
955
3002
274
1777
957
3008
274
1770
951
2995
272
1768
953
2993
273
1774
953
3000

200



3.03
2.86
2.79
2.85
2.82
2.72
2.65
2.71
2.76
2.62
2.59
2.63
3.04
2.92
2.88
2.92
2.68
2.47
2.42
2.47
2.50
2.37
2.28
2.35
2.64
2.53
2.45
2.52

SD
.722
.728
.754
.738
.723
.769
.787
.772
.759
.806
.787
.796
.683
.716
.733
.720
.764
.819
.834
.822
.828
.858
.870
.861
.843
.848
.852
.850

df
F
Sig.
2 11.206 .000
3009
3011
2
2988

5.917

.003

2990
2
2999

4.781

.008

3001
2
3005

5.779

.003

3007
2 11.167
2992

.000

2994
2
2990

7.510

.001

2992
2
2997

6.307

.002

2999

Table 38 (cont’d)
Observes Classrooms

Gives Suggestions to Improve

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

274
1768
952
2994
272
1775
952
2999

201

2.14
2.13
2.08
2.11
2.42
2.26
2.22
2.26

.731
.762
.716
.745
.824
.799
.800
.803

2
2991
2993
2
2996
2998

1.271

.281

6.379

.002

Table 39
One Way ANOVA Table for Teachers’ Understanding of Principal’s Instructional Leadership,
Difference according to Principals’ Experience in the Current School

N
878
1965
125
2968
869
1955
123
2947
875
1959
124
2958
874
1965
125
2964
876
1951
124
2951
872
1955
122
2949
874
1958
124
2956

Discusses Educational Goals

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Defines Staff Goals
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Works Development Plan
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Works According To Goals
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Takes Initiative To Discuss
0-2 Years
Problems
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Informs about opportunities to 0-2 Years
Update Knowledge
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
Compliments Special Effort
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

202



2.85
2.84
3.06
2.85
2.68
2.71
2.86
2.71
2.63
2.60
2.92
2.63
2.89
2.91
3.18
2.92
2.46
2.46
2.67
2.47
2.35
2.34
2.56
2.35
2.51
2.51
2.72
2.52

SD
.723
.744
.755
.739
.755
.779
.793
.773
.775
.804
.802
.798
.707
.724
.741
.721
.795
.833
.824
.823
.849
.867
.853
.862
.822
.858
.942
.852

df
2
2965

F
4.911

Sig.
.007

2967
2
2944

3.257

.039

2946
2
2955

9.141

.000

2957
2
2961

8.685

.000

2963
2
2948

3.833

.022

2950
2
2946

3.660

.026

2948
2
2953

3.558

.029

2955

Table 39 (cont’d)
Observes Classrooms

Gives Suggestions to Improve

0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total
0-2 Years
3-15 Years
16 And More
Total

870
1957
123
2950
872
1961
122
2955

203

2.05
2.13
2.40
2.12
2.24
2.26
2.59
2.26

.736
.742
.827
.747
.804
.800
.831
.805

2 12.299
2947
2949
2 10.555
2952
2954

.000

.000

REFERENCES

204

REFERENCES

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95—135
Ada, S., & Gumus, S. (2012). The reflection of instructional leadership concept on educational
administration master’s programs: A comparison of Turkey and the United States of
America. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences 4(2), 467-474.
Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational
Development, 27(2), 129–137.
Aksoy, E., & Isik, H. (2008). Ilkogretim okul mudurlerinin ogretim liderligi rolleri. Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi 19, 235–249.
Austin, G. R. (1979). Exemplary schools and the search for effectiveness. Educational
Leadership, 37(1), 10–14.
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional
leaders: Using mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals'
professional practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 241-279.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bayrak, N. (2001). İlköğretim okul yöneticilerinin liderlik özellikler. Yayımlanmamış yüksek
lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
Biesta, G. (2007). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundation of mixed method research. In
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blasé, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teacher’s perspective. American
Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 589–610.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly,35(3), 349-378.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the
principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64.

205

Borden, A. M. (2011). Relationships between Paraguayan principals' characteristics, teachers'
perceptions of instructional leadership and school outcomes. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 14(2), 203-227.
Borman, G., & Kimbal, S. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equity: Do teachers with
higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The Elementary
School Journal, 106(1), 3-20.
Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from US high
schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292.
Bridges, E. (1967). Instructional leadership: A concept re-examined. Journal of Educational
Administration, 5(2), 136–147.
Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967–1980.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12–33.
Brieve, F. J. (1972). Secondary principals as instructional leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 56(368), 1115.
Brown, G. T., & Chai, C. (2012). Assessing instructional leadership: A longitudinal study of new
principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(6), 753-772.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Buluc, B. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri ile
örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 15(1), 534.
McKenzie, J. (1988, Feb 28). What makes a good school principal? New York Times (1923Current File), pp. 693-693.
Calik, T., Sezgin, F., Kilinc, A. Ç., & Kavgaci, H. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği
davranışları ile öğretmen öz yeterliği ve kolektif öğretmen yeterliği arasındaki ilişkilerin
incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2487-2504.
Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed methods research: The five ps framework. Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods, 9(2), 96-108.
Can, N. (2009). The leadership behaviors of teachers in primary schools in Turkey. Education,
129(3), 436-447.
206

Carver, C. L. (2010). Principals + algebra (- fear) = instructional leadership. Journal of Staff
Development, 31(5) 30-33.
Celik, V. (2002).Okul Kültürü ve Yönetimi. Ankara: Pegema yayıncılık
Chase, F.S., & Guba, E.G. (1955). Administrative roles and behavior. Review of Educational
Research, 24(4), 281–298.
Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effective schools and school improvement: A
comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3),
41-68.
Coldren, A. F., & Spillane, J.P. (2007) Making connection to teaching practice: The role of
boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21(2), 369-396
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D.,
York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Printing
Office.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1998, 28 January). A tale of two schools. Education Week, 33.
Dagli, A. (2000). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre ilköğretim müdürlerinin etkili
müdürlük davranışları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(3), 431-442.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the
education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 263–287.
De Bevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader.
Educational Leadership, 41 (5), 14-20.
Dennis, C. J. (2009). The relationship between principals' self-perceptions and teachers'
perceptions of high school principals' instructional leadership behaviors in South Carolina
high schools. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina.
Dimmock, C. (2011). Leadership, capacity building and school improvement. Hoboken:
Taylor and Francis.

207

DiPaola, M.F. & Hoy, W.K. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation,
and professional development. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Drew, C.J., Hardman, M.L. & Hosp, J.L. (2008). Designing and conducting research in
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duke, D. L., & Stiggins, R. J. (1985). Evaluating the performance of principals: A descriptive
study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(4), 71-98.
Duyar, I., Gumus, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The
influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration.International Journal of
Educational Management, 27(7), 700-719.
Dwyer, D. C. (1985). Understanding the principal's contribution to instruction. Peabody Journal
of Education, 63(1), 3-18.
Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make
a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (2001). Holding schools accountable: is it working? Phi Delta
Kappan, 67-72.
Erdogan, İ., (2005).Yeni bir binyıla doğru Türk eğitim sistemi: sorunlar ve çözümler. İstanbul:
Sistem Yayıncılık.
Ergen, Y. (2013). Öğretmen algılarına göre ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği
davranışlarının incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3),
FATIH project. (2012, March 19). Retrieved from
http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/tr/duyuruincele.php?id=17
Firestone, W. A. , & Wilson, B. L. (1985).Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve
instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7-30.

208

Friedman, M. (1997). Public schools: Make them private. Education Economics, 5(3), 341-344.
Gerrell, N. S. (2005). The relationship between principals' instructional leadership skills and the
academic achievement of high-poverty students. Jackson TN: Union University.
Gillat, A., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). Promoting principals managerial involvement in
instructional improvement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 115-129.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Longman.
Goff, P. T., Mavrogordato, M., & Goldring, E. (2012). Instructional leadership in charter schools:
Is there an organizational effect or are leadership practices the result of faculty
characteristics and preferences? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 1-25.
Goldring, E. B. (1990). Elementary school principals as boundary spanners: Their engagement
with parents. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(1) 53-62 .
Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., & Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual
characteristics: What influences principal practice? Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(3), 332-35.
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research.
conducting educational research. Columbus, OH: Open University Press. The McGraw-Hill
companies.
Gokyer, N. (2010). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği rollerini gerçekleştirme
düzeyleri ve bu rolleri sinirlayan etkenler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 113-129.
Goldman, H., & Heald, J. E. (1968). Teacher expectations of administrative behavior.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 4(3), 29-40.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255274.

209

Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness how perspectives of
parents, teachers, and assistant principals ıdentify the central ımportance of managerial
skills. American Educational Research Journal,48(5), 1091-1123.
Grossman, G. M., Onkol, P. E., & Sands, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkish teacher
education: Attitudes of teacher educators towards change in an EU candidate
nation. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(2), 138-150.
Gumus, S., & Akcaoglu, M. (2013). Instructional leadership in Turkish primary schools: An
analysis of teachers' perceptions and current policy. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 41(3), 289-302.
Gumus, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2013). Eğitim Yönetimi Doktora Eğitiminde Uygulama Temelli
Bir Yaklaşım: Eğitim Doktorası (Ed. D.). Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi
Dergisi, 19(1), 7-29.
Gumus,S., Bulut, O., & Bellibas, M.S. (2013). The relationship between principal leadership
and teacher collaboration in Turkish primary schools: A multilevel analysis. Education
Research and Perspective, 40(1), 1-29.
Gumuseli, A. I. (1996). İstanbul ilindeki ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği
davranışları. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Gurocak, E. O., & Hacifazlioglu, O. (2012). Pre-school education teachers' perceptions of their
administrators' instructional leadership behaviors. International Journal of Human
Sciences, 9(2), 318-338.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2010). Australian principal instructional leadership:
Direct and indirect influence. Magis: Revista Internacional De Investigación En
Educación, 2(4), 299-314.
Hallinger, P.J. (n.d.). Instructional management rating scale: Resource manual.
Hallinger, P. J. (1983). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. (Stanford
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,163 p.
Hallinger, P. (2001). The principal’s role as instructional leader: A review of studies using the
principal instructional management rating scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Hallinger, P., (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
210

Hallinger, P. (2005).Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research.
Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.
Hallinger, P. (2012). A data-driven approach to assess and develop instructional leadership with
the PIMRS. In J. Shen (Ed.), Tools for improving principals' work (pp. 47-69). New York,
NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Hallinger, P. (2013). Measurement properties of the principal instructional management rating
scale.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student
reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–
44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make
a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 38(6), 654-678.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school
leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
22(2),149-173.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness:1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1983). Instructional leadership and school socio-economic status: A
preliminary investigation. Administrator's Notebook, 31(5), 1-4.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal,86(2), 217-247.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership.
Educational Leadership, 45(1), 54–62.

211

Hallinger, P., Murphy, J., Weil, M., Mesa, R.P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Effective schools:
Identifying the specific practices and behaviors of the principal. NASSP Bulletin, 67(463),
83–91.
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The economics of international differences in
educational achievement. NBER working paper no. 15949.
Harris, E. (2002). The relationship between principals’ instructional leadership skills and the
academic achievement of high-poverty students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Journal of Educational
administration, 46(2), 172- 188.
Harris, A. (2009). Distributed leadership: what we know. In Harris, A. (Ed.), Distributed
leadership: Different perspectives (pp.11-21). Dordrecht: Springer.
Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. UK: Open
University Press.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of
teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24 (2), 287309.
Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals' instructional leadership and school performance: Implications for
policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 21-34.
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2),
94-125.
Hills, J. (1965). Educational administration: A field in transition. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 1(1), 58–66.
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M., & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change.
London: Cassell.
Horng, E., & Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan,
92(3), 66-69.

212

Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of
organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3),
290-311.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die
hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8) 10–16.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover, teacher shortages, and the organization of schools.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Inandi,Y. & M. Ozkan. (2006). Resmi ilköğretim okulları ve liselerde görev yapan yönetici ve
öğretmenlerin görüşlerine göre müdürler ne derece öğretim liderliği davranışları
göstermektedir?Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2),123-149.
Jamentz, K. (2002). Isolation is the enemy of improvement: Instructional leadership to support
standards-based practice. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Johnson, B., & Gray, R. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & E. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods
in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, B. R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Karaman, K., Yucel, C., & Donder, H. (2008). Öğretmen görüşlerine göre, okullardaki bürokrasi
ile örgütsel vatandaşlık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi,
14(53), 49-74.
Kaykanaci, M. (2003). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin yönetim işlerine verdikleri önem ve
harcadıkları zaman. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 11(1), 137-158.
Kleine-Kracht, P. A. (1993). The Principal in a Learning Community. Journal of School
Leadership, 3(4), 391-99.
Klitgaard, R. E., & Hall, G. R. (1975). Are there unusually effective schools?.Journal of Human
Resources, 10(1) 90-106.

213

Kopacsi, R., & Walker, E. M. (2000). Multiple voices and mixed methodologies to support
comprehensive school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association in New Orleans, LA.
Korkmaz, M. (2005) Training school managers : Problems, solutions and suggestions. Gazi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 237-252.
Labaree D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Lee, M., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2012). A distributed perspective on instructional leadership
in international baccalaureate (IB) schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4),
664-698.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30, 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1990). The nature, causes and consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Educational Administration, 28(4),
5–31.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins D (2006). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
McGraw-Hill International.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Molina-Azorin, J. (2011). The use of mixed methods research in
interdisciplinary educational journals. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 5(2), 269-283.
Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School
leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629-665.
Marks, H.M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: Integrating
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3),
370-397.
214

Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data driven decision-making
in education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
Marshall, K. (2004). How I recovered from HSPS (Hyperactive Superficial Principal Syndrome:
A progress report. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 701–709.
Martin, W., & Willower, D. (1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 69–90.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Ascd.
May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2011). The scope of principal efforts to improve
instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 332-352.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach ( 2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Memduhoglu, H. B., & Zengin, M. (2012). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi modeli olarak öğretimsel
denetimin Türk eğitim sisteminde uygulanabilirliği. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(1),
131-142.
Merriam, S. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative research. In S. Merriam (Ed.)
Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp.18-36). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McEwan, E. K. (1998). Seven steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Mitchell, C., & Castle, J. B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals.
Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 409-433.
MoNE (1973) Millî eğitim temel kanunu. (14574 Sayili Resmi Gazete).
MoNE (2000). Milli eğitim bakanlığı ilköğretim okulları müdürlüğü görev tanımı. Tebliğler
Dergisi. (Sayı: 2508).
MoNE (2001). Millî eğitim bakanliği ilköğretim müfettişleri başkanliklari rehberlik ve teftiş
yönergesi. Tebliğler Dergisi (Sayı: 2521)
MoNE (2003). Millî eğitim bakanliği ilköğretim kurumlari yönetmeliği. Tebliğler Dergisi. (Sayı:
2553).
215

MoNE (2010). Millî eğitim bakanlığı ortaöğretim kurumları yönetmeliği.
MoNE (2011a). Millî eğitim bakanliği eğitim müfettisleri bakanliklari yönetmeliği. (27974 Sayili
Resmi Gazete).
MoNE (2011b). Millî eğitim bakanliğinin teşkilat ve görevleri hakkinda kanun hükmünde
kararname. Resmi Gazete (Sayi: 28054)
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., Gregory, K.D., Garden, R.A., O’Connor, K.M.,
Chrostowski, S.J., & Smith, T.A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report:
Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third international mathematics and science study at the
eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Problems with research on educational
leadership: Issues to be addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(3), 297–
306.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement and conceptual problems in the study of
instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117–139.
Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In L. L. Lotto & P. W. Thurston (Eds.),
Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the school. (Volume I,
Part B, pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Naumann, J. (2005). TIMSS, PISA, PIRLS and low educational achievement in world society.
Prospects, 35(2), 229-248.
Newman, I. (2000). A conceptualization of mixed methods: A need for inductive/deductive
approach to conducting research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
Niedermeyer, F. C. (1977). A basis for improved instructional leadership. Elementary School
Journal 77(3), 248-254.
OECD (2004) Learning for tomorrow’s world. First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France:
OECD

216

OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
(ISBN: 978-92-64-05605-3).
Ozoglu, M. (2011). Özel dershaneler: Gölge eğitim sistemiyle yüzleşmek. SETA Analiz.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand. Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patterson, J. L. (1993). Leadership for tomorrow's schools. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA:
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187-226.
Richards, J., & Skolits, G. (2009). Sustaining instructional change: The impact of professional
development on teacher adoption of a new instructional strategy. Research in the
Schools, 16(2), 41-58.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual
teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic
Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(5), 635–674.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from
panel data. American Economic Review, 92(2), 247-252.
Rogers, G., & Bouey, E. (1996). Collecting your data. In L. M. Tutty, M. Rothery, & R. M.
Grinnell, Jr. (Eds.), Qualitative research for social workers: Phases, steps, and tasks (4th
ed.) (pp. 50-87). Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of
Education, 93(3), 352-388.
Recepoglu, E., & Ozdemir, S. (2013). Okul Müdürlerinin Öğretim Liderliği Davranışları ile
Okulun Örgütsel Sağlığı Arasındaki İlişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi
Dergisi, 19(4), 629-664.

217

Reitzug, U. C. (1997). Images of principal instructional leadership: From supervision to
collaborative inquiry. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(4), 324-343.
Remler, D. & Van Ryzin, G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description
and causation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:
Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
Sahin, S. (2011). The relationship between instructional leadership style and school culture
(izmir case). Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1920-1927.
Schnepf, S.V. (2007). Immigrants' educational disadvantage: An examination across ten
countries and three surveys. Journal of Population Economics, 20(3), 527-545.
Schulenberg, J. L. (2007). Analysing police decision-making: Assessing the application of a
mixed-method/mixed-model research design. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 99-119.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
Serin, M. K., & Buluc, B. (2012). The relationship between instructional leadership and
organizational commitment in primary schools. Educational Administration: Theory and
Practice, 18(3), 435-459.
Silman, F., & Simsek, H. (2009). A comparative case study on school management practices in
two schools in the United States and Turkey. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 39(4), 483–496.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., & Melhuish, E. (2006). Educational
research and evidence-based policy: The mixed-method approach of the EPPE
project. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19(2), 63-82.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.
School Leadership and Management, 22(1), 73–92.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., & Jita, L. (2003). Leading instruction: The distribution of
leadership for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(5), 533-543.

218

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice:
A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31-56.
Simsek, H. (2004). Eğitim yöneticilerinin yetiştirilmesi : karşılaştırmalı örnekler ve türkiye için
öneriler. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi. Tekışık Yayıncılık.
Talim Terbiye Kurulu (2005). Ilkogretim 1–5. sınıf programları tanıtım el kitabı. Ankara: MEB
Taymaz, H. (2002). Eğitim sisteminde teftiş – kavramlar, ilkeler, yöntemler. Ankara: PegemA
Yayıncılık.
Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods
research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie, (Eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turan, S., Yıildirim, N., & Aydogdu, E. (2012). Okul müdürlerinin kendi görevlerine ilişkin
bakış açıları. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 2(3), 63-76.
Uysal, E. A. (2011). Öğretmenlerin performanslarının değerlendirilmesi: bir araştırma ve model
önerisi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). T.C. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü İşletme Anabilim Dali, Isparta.
Viadero, D. (2005, January 26). ‘Mixed methods’ research examined. Education Week.
Weber, J. (1996). Leading the instructional program. In S. Smith & P. Piele (Eds.). School
leadership. (pp. 253-278). Eugene, Oregon: Clearinghouse of Educational Management.
Yavuz, M., & Bas, G. (2010). Perceptions of elementary teachers on the instructional leadership
role of school principals.US-China Education Review, 7(4), 83-93.

219