Re-examining Instructional Leadership with Teacher Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of TALIS 2018

• In Event: Highlighted Session: Methodological Challenges with latent constructs

Proposal

Purpose and Relevance to the CIES Theme

Research in recent decades concludes that school leadership is indirectly but significantly related to students’ performance through its influence on core components of instructional management such as learning standards, curriculum and instruction, professional learning communities for teachers, and school climate (Goldring et at., 2009). This line of research coincides with an important shift towards a stronger focus on teacher practices and professional learning (Cravens & Hunter, 2021). As noted by Robertson (2012), however, “despite tendencies toward a convergence of agendas, there are important differences” (p. 586) in the theoretical framings and empirical analyses that describe effective educational practices and policies, especially at the site level. With a growing presence of international organizations and large-scale data collection, there are concerns over the loss of nuanced and in-depth understanding of historical, socio-cultural, and political contextual factors (Robertson, 2012). Furthermore, the perspectives and voices of classroom teachers are often missing or disconnected from norm-setting theories and their applications (Lopes & Oliveira, 2020; Robertson, 2012; Urick & Bowers, 2019; Volante et al., 2023).

Theoretical Framework and Literature

Since the late 1980s, instructional leadership has been one of the leading theories capturing the essence of effective practices of school leaders (Knapp, Copland, and Talbert 2003; Hallinger and Heck 2011). To define and measure principal leadership, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) developed the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS). With a sharpened focus on the teaching and learning, this instructional leadership model declared a departure from the traditional role of principals as building managers. Since then this concept has been widely adopted as an important framework to define the role of principal leadership in school improvement in many educational systems around the world (Hallinger 2011; Qian, Walker, and Li 2017). Notably, the theoretical framework in this strand of leadership typically identify the aspects of instructional leadership through describing and measuring the behaviors of school leaders and the key processes in which they engage at the school level, largely directly through the perspective of administrators such as principals or vice principals.

Data and Method

Our analysis aimed to fulfill two objectives. Firstly, we intended to identify and validate an instructional leadership scale using teacher perspectives. In our case, this validation process ensured that the scale accurately measures instructional leadership across different cultural contexts.

Secondly, we desired to investigate differences in leadership practices across education systems and regions. The study of leadership across different cultures is a growing field, and our research contributes to this body of knowledge by looking at specific practices in different national contexts (House et al., 2004).

We designed and validated an instructional leadership scale, employing the teacher items from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 questionnaire. We focused our work on four Latin American countries—Chile, Argentina (CABA), Colombia, and Mexico—and two Asian regions—Shanghai/China and Japan.

We used an intraclass correlation analysis to compare variances between systems (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). This was used to investigate the influence of cultural variations on leadership exercise. The impact of culture on leadership has been widely explored in literature, and this study furthers the discourse by offering insights into how leadership practices may be influenced by cultural variations (Hofstede, 2001).

The design and validation process included: (i) Analysis of instructional leadership theory using the framework of Hallinger & Murphy (1985); (ii) independent item selection among researchers as a criterion for content validity rigor (Rubio et al., 2003); (iii) collaborative item definition to ensure reflection among researchers (Morgan, 1997); and (iv) development of evidence of internal structure validity through the execution of a Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MCFA) (Heck & Thomas, 2015).

Findings

The item selection process resulted in a total of 26 items. Four items for the Defining the School Mission dimension, six items for Managing the Instructional Program dimension, and sixteen items for the Developing the School Learning Climate dimension (Table 1).

MCFA results revealed convergence issues in the model that we attributed to low intraclass correlations (ICC) across various items, in all studied countries (Hox et al., 2017). Despite these challenges, the analysis of the ICC allowed us to map leadership practices with substantial variance at the school level, providing insights into how leadership operates in different cultural contexts (Figure 1)

We discovered substantial differences in school-level leadership practices among different systems. Specifically, systems like Shanghai and Japan showed greater homogeneity across all items and dimensions of instructional leadership. This finding suggests a higher degree of uniformity among schools in these systems concerning how instructional leadership is exercised. This consistency in leadership practices may reflect the normative and high-expectation educational cultures characteristic of many Asian school systems.

On the other hand, in Latin American countries we detected much greater variability in certain leadership practices. For instance, the "class observation" practice showed high variance (.200 - .300) at the school level in countries like Chile, Mexico, and Colombia. This indicates that the school effect is more pronounced in this practice in these contexts, highlighting significant differences within these educational systems. This variation in leadership practice might reflect differences in the implementation of educational policies, school autonomy, or cultural norms regarding class observation, all of which are elements to be analyzed in the future.

Contribution and Discussion

This study aims to elevate the perspective and voice of teachers. We provide an alternative measurement process to capture instructional leadership by using the items of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). Our cross-system comparisons pay closer attention to the variations and differences in the leadership dimensions and indicators. These findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of how instructional leadership practices operate differently in various cultural and educational contexts. We observed greater homogeneity in leadership practices in the Asian systems and, in contrast, greater school-level variance in Latin America. This information can be extremely valuable for educational policymakers and school leaders in these countries, as it can help them identify how leadership practices can be assessed and improved with contextual factors in mind, beyond global norm-setting trends.

Authors

• Christian Lazcano, Universidad del Desarrollo

• Xiu Cravens, Vanderbilt University

• Paulo Volante, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile