Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Terms of Teacher Views on the Instructional Leadership Behavior of Principals

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Terms of Teacher Views on the Instructional Leadership Behavior of Principals

Article excerpt

The 20th century has found an increased focus on leadership by both theorists and practitioners (Erçetin, 2000, p. 3). Modern leadership researchers have claimed that leadership is one of the most frequently observed but least comprehended aspects (Evers & Lakomski, 1996, p. 77). In general terms, leadership can be described as a social process which affects people's aims, individual motives, and abilities, their interpretation of internal and external activities, interpersonal communication and a group's common direction (Hoy & Miskel, 2010, p. 377). In developed countries, in the latter part of the 20th century, there has been a renewed research focus on educational leadership, with one of the most frequently studied leadership styles being instructional leadership. Research after the 1980s has highlighted the crucial role that the leadership of a school principal has in developing schools and the education system (Sisman, 2004, p. 49). Many independent variables were used in these research studies, but the primary focus tended to be examinations of the effect of teacher gender. However, there have not been consistent results in the research in terms of gender differences on the instructional leadership of principals (Sisman, 2004, p. 31). Research indicates that instructional leadership differs from other leadership styles in that it is for educational settings only and is therefore complex and is affected by many situational factors and conditions (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 91). In the research between 1980-1995, Hallinger and Heck found a significant finding for the relationship between principal leadership and student academic success (cited in Zepeda, 2004, p. 12). This finding was also strongly supported by a meta-analysis result with a d = 0.25 effect size for these variables. The greater the leadership, the more students gain success. This positive and statistically significant result highlighted the importance of good leadership in schools (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).

There are several definitions for instructional leadership in the literature. Sisman identified this type of leadership as a kind of power and behavior used to affect school society and conditions (Sisman, 2004, p. 58). It was the application of knowledge to problem solving and making use of others to realize the goals of the school (Krug, 1992, p. 152). In an earlier paper, identified educational leadership as the behavior that either the principal exhibits or uses to make others exhibit to increase student success at school (De Bevoise, 1984, p. 5. It is said that it was helping school communities adopt new habits (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007, p. 96).

Both qualitative and quantitative organizational research has been conducted in Turkey and in the world. In Turkey, there have been comprehensive studies conducted into decision making strategies and problem solving abilities (Arin, 2006; G. Kaya, 2008), organizational citizenship (Çelik, 2010), teachers' self-efficacy (Derbedek, 2008), teacher motivation (Ergen, 2009), job satisfaction (Gezici, 2007), modes of communication (Gürsun, 2007), situational leadership styles (Sönmez, 2010), organizational climate (Tahaoglu, 2007), effective schools (Yilmaz, 2010), teacher organizational commitment (Yüce, 2010), teacher burnout (Arslan, 2007), teacher career development (Inceler, 2005), and emotional intelligence (Tikir, 2005).

However, these studies have often had inconsistent results in terms of the various independent variables such as gender, title, education level, school size, and age. Some studies have found statistically significant results, whereas others did not find any significance at all ( Akdag, 2009; Aksoy, 2006; Argon & Mercan, 2009; Arm, 2006; M. Arslan, 2009; Çelik, 2010; De mirai, 2007; Derbedek, 2008; Dönmez, 2008; Ergen, 2009; Gökyer, 2004; Gülbahar, 2010; Gürsun, 2007; Inandi & Özkan, 2006; Inceler, 2005; Karatay, 2011; G. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.