Instructional leadership behaviors of elementary school principlals in ho chi minh city, vietnam = 越南胡志明市国民小學校長教學領導行爲之研究 博士論文

國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政學系

博士論文

Instructional Leadership Behaviors of
Elementary School Principals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

越南胡志明市國民小學校長教學領導行為之研究

指導教授：楊振昇
研究生 ：阮氏好

中華民國 103 年 3 月



DEDICATION
First and foremost, this doctorate is dedicated to my wonderful husband, Nguyen Phi
Vu, who has supported me throughout my work. I thank you for his loyalty, love, support,
patience, encouragement and belief in me throughout the years I have been pursuing my
education and career. I am grateful for the joy and happiness he has brought into my life. This
doctorate would not have been possible without him. I love him with all my heart.
I would also like to thank my parents, my parents-in-law, my older sister, and my
sister-in-law. Words cannot express how much their love, support, and understanding
throughout this process has meant to me. Their constant encouragement and belief in me
made completion possible.
Mommy and daddy have taught me the importance of education and provided
unconditional love, and support, expressing their pride in my educational achievements. I
have felt their affection throughout my education and career. Now I can say to them that their
dream has come true. I am honored and lucky to have parents like them.
Lastly, I would also like to dedicate this doctorate to my beloved son, Nguyen Thien

Phuc, who gave up so much time with his mother, from age one to five, to allow his mother
to follow her dreams.
Only my family knows the stress, pressure, and endless energy it took to finish this
academic journey. I am so proud of my family, and I could not have done this without their
support and love.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported
and advised me throughout my doctoral studies. I received so much to my advisor, committee
members, the faculty and assistant at Department of Educational Policy and Administration,
friends and colleagues throughout the process. It is with heartfelt thanks that I extend my
sincerest appreciation to them.
I am especially indebted to my advisor, Prof. Yang Chen-Sheng. His knowledge,
patience and words of encouragement were invaluable. Without his significant and valuable
suggestions for improvement, the present results would have been far fewer. Thank you for
your understanding and flexibility throughout my pursuits of my personal and professional
goals.
I am also grateful to my dissertation committee chair, Prof. Lin Ming-Dih, and each
of the committee members: Prof. Li An-Min, Prof. Wu Ching-Ling, and Prof. Chang I-Hua. I
thank them for serving on my committee, sharing their time and expertise, and for their
advices, and feedback which have greatly improved the quality of my dissertation.
I would also like to thank faculty of the Department of Educational Policy and
Administration at National Chi Nan University. The knowledge and wisdom I have learned
from all of you will guide my professional life in the future.
I would also like to extend my special thanks to National Chi Nan University and Prof.
Chang Dian-Fu, Prof. Wu Ching-Ling, Prof. Xiao Lin, Prof. Feng Feng-I from the
Department of Educational Policy and Administration for sponsorship and financial aid

throughout the years. I also would like to extend my thanks to Prof. Philip Hallinger for his
kindness in waiving fee for PIMRS for this study.

ii


Thanks also to my dear friends and colleagues: Ms. Liu Hsin-Chen, Mr. Jiang YiSheng, Mr. Duong Minh-Quang, Ms. Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh, Ms. Vu Xuan Bach Duong, Mr.
Chang Shiau-Chi, Ms. Chou Wen-Ching, Mr. Chang Chih-Wei, Ms. Nguyen Thi Le Hang,
for their helps and friendship over the past years. You have all stood by me through this
process and gave invaluable assistances when I coped with the obstacles of daily life. My
appreciations also to Prof. Robert Reynolds (National Chi Nan University, Taiwan), Dr. La
Thi Thanh Thuy (Midwest Education Group LLC, America), Prof. Nguyen Trung Hung
(New Mexico State University, America), and Dr. Nguyen Duy Mong Ha, Dr. Nguyen Thi
Hong Tham, Mr. Bui Chi Binh (University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ho Chi Minh
City, Vietnam) for taking time to proofread and edit my work as well as providing feedback
throughout all the stages of my dissertation. Most of all, thanks for being such dear friends
and colleagues over the years.
I would like to give thanks to my former dean Dr. Nguyen Anh Hong and her family
for their understanding and willingness to support me throughout this process.
Finally, I would like to thank all persons who contributed to the completion of my
doctorate program. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

iii


VITA
NAME:

Nguyen Thi Hao

NATIONALITY:

Vietnamese

DATE OF BIRTH:

October 10, 1982

EDUCATION: Ed.D. 2014, National Chi Nan University, Taiwan, R.O.C
M.Ed. 2007, University of Technical Education Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
B.Ed. 2004, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
EXPERIENCE: 2004-present: Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Vietnam National
University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

iv


題目：越南胡志明市國民小學校長教學領導行為之研究
校,院,系：國立暨南國際大學教育學院教育政策與行政學系
畢業時間：民國一○三年三月

頁數：177
學位：博士

學生姓名：阮氏好

指導教授：楊振昇
摘要

本研究的主要目的是探討越南胡志明市國民小學校長教學領導之行為。除了探

討校長與教師之間對校長教學領導認知的差異外，並檢視學校規模、座落地點、校長
基本的人口統計變項對校長自我認知其教學領導的影響；同時，也檢視教師基本的人
口統計變項對教師認知之校長教學領導行為的影響；最後，也分析校長與教師對於增
進校長教學領導的建議。
本研究使用量化與質化方法以回答七個研究問題。本研究從 120 個小學進行抽
取樣本：校長樣本以分層抽樣方法、教師樣本以系統抽樣方法選取。研究工具為
Hallinger 發展的「校長教學管理評定量表」，此外，並另附上一開放性問題，以調
查校長與教師對增進校長教學領導之意見。
本研究的主要結論如下：
(a)校長於教學領導之工作職能反應較高之層面如下：制定學校目標、提供教師
誘因、統籌協調課程、提供學生學習誘因、溝通學校目標、以及督導與評鑑教學。
(b)教師對於校長教學領導工作職能反應較高之層面如下：制定學校目標、統籌
協調課程、溝通學校目標、提供教師誘因、提升教師專業發展、以及提供學生學習誘
因。

v


(c)學校規模較小的校長，在提供教師誘因與學生學習誘因層面較為積極。此外，
整體而言，比起座落於鄉村的學校校長，都市的學校校長在教學領導上較為積極。
(d)任職校長年資與教學經驗較淺的校長，對於統籌協調課程與維護教學時間之
層面的領導，則顯示較不積極。
關鍵字：校長教學管理評估量表、教學領導行為、越南國民小學校長

vi


Title of Dissertation: Instructional Leadership Behaviors of Elementary School Principals in
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Name of Institute: Department of Educational Policy and Administration, College of

Education, National Chi Nan University

Page: 177

Graduation Time: March, 2014

Degree Conferred: Doctor of Philosophy

Student Name: Hao Thi, Nguyen

Advisor Name: Chen-Sheng, Yang
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore instructional leadership behaviors of
elementary school principals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam as perceived by both elementary
school principals and the teachers they direct. It examines the differences between teachers
and principals’ perceptions of the principals’ instructional leadership behaviors. In addition, it
examines the effects of variables including school size, location, and principal demographics
on principal self-perceptions. Moreover, it examines the effects of teacher demographics on
teacher perceptions of their principal instructional leadership behaviors. Finally, it analyzes
principal and teacher suggestions to improve instructional leadership behaviors.
The study proposes seven major research questions. Stratified sampling was used to
select principals for the principals and system for the survey from 117 elementary schools in
Ho Chi Minh City. Systematic sampling was used to select teachers from the same schools.
The survey instrument used in this study was adapted from the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1983). An open-ended question was added to each
survey to elicit principal and teacher recommendations to improve instructional leadership
behaviors.
Major conclusions of the study are:

vii


(a) Principals gave high scores in job functions framing the school goals; providing
incentives for teachers; coordinating the curriculum; providing incentives for learning;
communicating the school goals; and supervising and evaluating instruction.
(b) Teachers gave high scores in job functions framing the school goals; coordinating
the curriculum; communicating the school goals; providing incentives for teachers;
promoting professional development; and providing incentives for learning.
(c) The principals in smaller schools were more active in providing incentives for
teachers and providing incentives for learning. In addition, urban school principals were more
active instructional leaders than rural school principals were.
(d) The fewer years of experience as principals and teachers that principals had, the
less active they were in coordinating the curriculum and protecting instructional time.
Keywords: Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale; Instructional Leadership
Behaviors; Vietnamese Elementary School Principals

viii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................xii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................. 9
1.7 Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................. 10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................................ 11
2.1 Overview of Vietnam’s educational system ................................................................ 11
2.1.1 National education system in Vietnam .............................................................. 11
2.1.2 The development of educational administration in Vietnam .............................. 13
2.1.3 The new elementary education curriculum ........................................................ 15
2.1.4 Recruitment process and training of the elementary school principal ............... 19
2.1.5 Roles and functions of elementary school principals in Vietnam....................... 20
2.2 Review of Instructional Leadership ............................................................................. 22
2.2.1 Definition of instructional leadership ................................................................ 22
2.2.2 The instructional leadership role of the principal .............................................. 25
2.2.3 Factors influencing principals’ instructional leadership .................................... 30
2.2.4 Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model ................................... 33
2.3 Review of Empirical Studies on Principal Instructional Leadership ........................... 34
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 38
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 41
3.1 Research Design ......................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Population and Sample Selection ............................................................................... 43
3.3 Research Instrument ................................................................................................... 47
3.3.1 The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale instrumentation ............ 47
3.3.2 Reliability and validity of the PIMRS instrument .............................................. 48
3.3.3 Adaption of the PIMRS instrument into Vietnamese ......................................... 52
ix


3.4 Data Collection Procedures.......................................................................................... 62
3.5 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 63
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 67

4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 69
4.1 Description of the Sample ............................................................................................ 69
4.1.1 Principals’ demographic profile .......................................................................... 69
4.1.2 Teachers’ demographic profile ........................................................................... 71
4.2 Responses to Research Questions ................................................................................ 72
4.2.1 Responses to research question 1 and 2 .............................................................. 73
4.2.1.1 Principals’ own perceptions of instructional leadership behaviors............ 74
4.2.1.2 Teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership behaviors ..................... 78
4.2.2 Responses to research question 3 ........................................................................ 83
4.2.3 Responses to research question 4 ........................................................................ 86
4.2.4 Responses to research question 5 ........................................................................ 98
4.2.5 Responses to research question 6 ...................................................................... 108
4.2.6 Responses to research question 7...................................................................... 114
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 122
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................... 125
5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 125
5.1.1 Summary of the purpose of the study ............................................................... 125
5.1.2 Summary of the research procedures and methods .......................................... 125
5.1.3 Summary of the findings ................................................................................... 126
5.1.3.1 Summary of demographic profiles of respondents .................................. 126
5.1.3.2 Summary of findings regarding research questions ................................. 127
5.2 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 131
5.3 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 132
5.3.1 Recommendations for educational authorities .................................................. 133
5.3.2 Recommendations for elementary school principals ........................................ 135
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 136
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 139
APPENDICE ........................................................................................................................ 153
Appendix A. Structure of the Education System in Vietnam .......................................... 153
Appendix B. Granting Permission to Use the Instrument................................................ 154

Appendix C. The Principal Instructional management Rating Scale .............................. 155
x


Appendix D. Vietnamese Version of Principal Form ..................................................... 162
Appendix E. Vietnamese Version of Teacher Form ........................................................ 166
Appendix F. Introductory Letter ...................................................................................... 170
Appendix G. Recommendation Letter ............................................................................ 171
Appendix H. Introductory Letter .................................................................................... 172
Appendix I. Descriptive Statistic of Principal Responses to Individual Items of the
PIMRS ........................................................................................................ 173
Appendix J. Descriptive Statistic of Teacher Responses to Individual Items of the
PIMRS ........................................................................................................ 175
Appendix K. Instruction for Answering Questionnaire Surveys ..................................... 177

xi


LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Primary Education: Weekly Lesson Timetable (National Guidelines)................................ 12
2. Distribution of Study Population and Sample ..................................................................... 45
3. Reliability Estimates of the PIMRS Subscales ................................................................... 50
4. Terms and Sentences That Presented Difficulty in Translation........................................... 54
5. Factor Analysis Result and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of the PIRMS Ten Subscales for
Vietnamese Version Teacher Form ..................................................................................... 57
6. Factor Analysis Result and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of the PIRMS Ten Subscales for
Vietnamese Version Principal Form ................................................................................... 58
7. The Construction of the PIMRS-Vietnamese Version......................................................... 61
8. Matrix of Research Questions, Variables, and Survey Items .............................................. 66

9. Demographic Profile of Principals Participating in This Study........................................... 70
10. Demographic Profile of Teachers Participating in This Study .......................................... 71
11. Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors as Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions

73

12. Principals’ Self-Perceptions of Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job Function
Based on Demographic Variables ...................................................................................... 75
13. Principals’ Self-Perceptions of Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job Function
Based on School Size and School Location....................................................................... 78
14. Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job
Function Based on Demographic Variables ...................................................................... 81
15. Comparison of Principals’ and Teachers’ Ratings Using Dependent Samples T-Test ..... 84
16. Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Male Teachers and Female
Teachers’ Ratings of Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors.................................. 87
17. Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances..................................................................... 90

xii


18. ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Five Groups of Years
Working Together with the Current Principal ................................................................... 92
19. Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances..................................................................... 94
20. ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Five Groups of Years
of Teaching Experience ..................................................................................................... 96
21. Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Male Principals and Female
Principals’ Ratings of Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors ................................ 98
22. Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Two Groups of Principals in
Term of Years of Experience as a Principal .................................................................... 102
23. Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances................................................................... 106

24. ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Four Prior Teaching
Experience Groups ........................................................................................................... 107
25. Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Urban School Principals and
Rural School Principals’ Self-Ratings of Their Instructional Leadership Behaviors ...... 109
26. Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances................................................................... 112
27. ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Three School Size
Groups .............................................................................................................................. 113
28. Principals’ and Teachers’ Recommendations to Improve Instructional Leadership
Behaviors ......................................................................................................................... 115
29. Descriptive Statistics of Principal Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS .......... 172
30. Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS ............ 174

xiii


LIST OF FIGURES

1. Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model .................................................... 33
2. Research framework ........................................................................................................... 42

xiv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DOET

Department of Education and Training

HCMC

Ho Chi Minh City

M

Mean

MOET

Ministry of Education and Training

PIMRS

Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale

SD

Standard Deviation

xv


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The principal’s role has become an interested topic of research in educational
leadership field (Lineburg, 2010). According to Bridges (1983), there were ninety four
percent of studies on educational leadership topic from 1967 to 1980 focused on public
school administrators. The role of principal was the focus of numerous studies because it has
been identified as a key aspect of an effective school (Cotton, 2003; Goodwin, Cunningham,
& Childress, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 996).

Regarding playing an important role in effective schools, principals are often
considered essential to the success of schools, and have a discernible effect on a school's level
of productivity (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985), as well as playing a critical role in effective
instructional interventions (New York City Department of Education, n.d.). Principals exert
this influence primarily as instructional managers or leaders (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985)
even though they have many roles to serve in schools’ business. They are thus motivated to
become more active as instructional leaders and must have strong instructional skills and
extensive knowledge of teaching and learning (Lineburg, 2010).
The school principal’s instructional leadership role has interested researchers from
both developed and developing countries and has been a popular topic of research examining
accountability and standards movement. Since 1980s, instructional leadership role of the
principal became popular which called for transferring manager or administrator role to
instructional leader. Currently, this research topic has been still received a lot of attention
because of academic standards movement and accountability increasing (Babb, 2012). This
trend put pressure on school principals in leading their schools to high achievement for all
students (Lineburg, 2010).

1


Vietnam’s national development strategy states that “Education is national priority
policy” and emphasizes that “Educational management is a key factor for enhancing quality
of national education” (National Assembly, 1992). Thus, Vietnam has begun developing
teaching and administrative staff with an emphasis on standardization, quality assurance,
adequate quantity, and uniform structure. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has
also asserted that improving teaching and learning in all classrooms is one of the best ways to
enhance educational quality. In this context, Vietnam education has designed the curriculum
of general education that focuses on improving teaching methodology. The curriculum has
leaded changing in teaching practice that called for shifting teaching methodology.
In Vietnam, however, principals give attention to both instructional and noninstructional tasks. Principals spend more time in managerial and administrative duties even

though the MOET’s requirement of improving teaching and learning quality. Principals thus
have less time given to instructional leadership and balancing the administrative role with the
instructional leadership role remains one of their greatest challenges.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
School principals play a pivotal role in society, mediating between teachers, students,
and parents. In most developed countries, elementary school principals typically have
master’s degrees in educational leadership or educational administration or at least
administrator/ principal licenses which require formal leadership training, before assuming
leadership positions (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Yang, 1996).
In contrast, elementary school principals in Vietnam are given leadership positions
because they are good teachers with a range of experience in teaching within the elementary
school system. They do not need to obtain licenses in educational leadership or educational
administration before or after assuming their positions. Furthermore, most of them have not
attended a formal professional school management program. This is a consequence of the

2


recruitment process of Vietnam’s educational system. According to MOET, the national
education system employs 90,000 school administrators; of these, 40% received their training
in short-term courses on educational administration, and only 0.02% has earned bachelor and
master’s degree in educational administration (cited in Institute of Educational Managers Ho
Chi Minh City, 2005).
According to MOET (1994), elementary education is the foundation for formation,
development of the comprehensive human personality, and quality of elementary education is
the basis for ensuring educational quality at all level. Thus, renovation of educational quality
has been mentioned since 1996 in discussion on reforming curriculum and textbooks.
However, renovation efforts of schools have not fulfilled the expectations of society and
educational quality is still a serious concern of scholars and educational authorities. This has
put pressure on elementary school principals to enhance teaching and learning and create

powerful learning environments for their students as well as to ensure students’ achievement
every school year.
Unfortunately, elementary school principals in Vietnam spend most of their time on
work unrelated to instructional leadership: supervising school buildings, preparing budgets,
developing school-community relationships, managing human resources, attending in-service
political training courses, and meeting with higher authorities. This also influences the quality
of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning in the context that textbooks are being updated
and adjusted to reduce the load (Thanh Nien, 2013).
How elementary school principals demonstrate their instructional leadership
behaviors in the context of Vietnam’s education that elementary school principals lack of
formal educational leadership training is the concern of this study. There have not yet been
any studies focused on elementary school principals’ instructional leadership roles in

3


Vietnam (Gian et al., 2012). This is the first study that investigates elementary school
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore instructional leadership behaviors of
elementary school principals in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam as perceived by both
elementary school principals and teachers. Principals’ instructional leadership behaviors were
defined in terms of the ten job functions identified by Hallinger (1983): (1) framing school
goals, (2) communicating school goals, (3) supervising and evaluating instruction, (4)
coordinating curriculum, (5) monitoring student progress, (6) protecting instructional time, (7)
maintaining high visibility, (8) providing incentives for teachers, (9) promoting professional
development, and (10) providing incentives for learning. These 10 job functions consisted of
50 distinct behaviors. This instructional leadership framework was clearly explicated and it
also provided a valid and reliable instrumentation for studying instructional leadership role of
principals (Hallinger, 2011).

This study investigated the differences between teachers and principals’ perceptions
of elementary school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors. In addition, it examined
the effect that the school size variable, the school location variable, and principal
demographic variables have on the principal’s self-perception of instructional leadership
behaviors. Moreover, it also examined the effect that teacher demographic variables have on
teachers’ perceptions of elementary school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors.
Lastly, principals’ and teachers’ recommendations to improve principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors were analyzed.
1.3 Research Questions
Based on the purpose, this study raises seven research questions:

4


1. How do elementary school principals perceive their own instructional leadership
behaviors?
2. How do elementary school teachers perceive their principals’ instructional leadership
behaviors?
3. Are there significant differences between principals' perceptions and teachers’
perceptions of principals' instructional leadership behaviors?
4. Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors in terms of teacher demographic variables?
5. Are there significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their instructional
leadership behaviors in terms of principal demographic variables?
6. Are there significant differences in perceiving principals’ instructional leadership
behaviors in terms of school size and school location?
7. What recommendations do respondents offer to improve instructional leadership
behaviors?
1.4 Significance of the Study
There are many studies pertaining to instructional leadership in different countries.

However, this study is the first to examine elementary school principals’ instructional
leadership behaviors in Vietnam using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale
(PIMRS). Therefore, the significance of this study is as follows:
1. The knowledge gained through this study can benefit principals interested in
improving their instructional leadership practices and enhancing the quality of teaching and
learning. It can provide principals knowledge and skills in practicing their instructional
leadership at the school levels. It also has significance for other practitioners and researchers
in Vietnam who are interested in studying teaching and learning in general education.

5


2. According to Hallinger et al. (1994), training programs are often enhanced when
they take into account data-based findings drawn from the local or national context. The
findings of this study can provide suggestions for the MOET, universities of education and
other educational administration training institutions to develop in-service training programs
that focuses on instructional leadership and set the time for principals to implement
knowledge and skills they learn. Moreover, the study provides data to use to coach and
mentor principals as instructional leaders since principals in Vietnam are not trained prior to
becoming school principals.
3. This study adds to the very limited body of literature regarding elementary school
principals’ instructional leadership behaviors in Vietnam.
1.5 Definition of Terms
Major terms used throughout this study are defined below for clarity and
understanding.
Elementary schools are public educational units at the primary level, comprising
classes from grade 1 to grade 5.
Elementary school principals are qualified officers, appointed by educational
authority responsible for organizing and administering public elementary schools’ activities
and education quality. The principals in this study are school leaders who have at least one

year of experience as elementary school principals on or before September 5, 2012.
Elementary school teachers are public elementary school educators, whose teaching
assignment is from first grade through fifth grade. The teachers in this study consist of
classroom teachers who work together with sampled principals in current schools at least one
school year on or before September 5, 2012.
Instructional leadership behaviors are defined as the principals’ actions which are
linked with the teachers’ teaching and students’ learning in their schools. According to

6


Hallinger (2005), the instructional leadership role of the principal has three dimensions:
defining the school’s mission; managing the instructional program; and promoting a positive
school learning climate. These three dimensions are further delineated into ten leadership
functions comprising 50 leadership behaviors which are stated on the PIMRS. The ten job
functions of instructional leadership are as following:
1. Framing school goals: This function refers to a principal’s role in determining the
areas in which school staff will focus their attention and resources during a given school
year.
2. Communicating school goals: This function is concerned with the ways in which the
principal communicates the school’s important goals to teachers, parents and students.
3. Supervising and evaluating instruction: A central task of the principal is to ensure that
school goals are translated into classroom practice” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p. 222).
4. Coordinating curriculum: School curricular objectives are closely aligned with both the
content taught in classes and with achievement tests.
5. Monitoring student progress: Instructionally effective schools emphasize both
standardized and criterion-referenced testing. Tests are used to diagnose programmatic
and student weaknesses, to evaluate the results of changes in the school’s instructional
program, and to make classroom assignments.
6. Protecting instructional time: Principals who successfully implement policies that limit

interruptions of classroom learning time can increase allocated learning time and,
potentially, student achievement.
7. Maintaining high visibility: Visibility on the campus and in the classrooms increases
interactions between the principal and students as well as the teachers.

7


8. Providing incentives for teachers: An important part of the principal’s role in creating a
positive learning climate involves setting up a work structure that rewards and recognizes
teachers for their efforts.
9. Promoting professional development: Principals can inform teachers of opportunities
for staff development, lead in-service training activities, and support teachers through
staff development and training that is linked to school goals and monitor implementation
in the classroom.
10. Providing incentives for learning: It is possible to create a school learning climate in
which students value academic achievements by frequently rewarding and recognizing
student academic achievement and improvement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, pp. 221224).
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale is a survey comprised of 50
statements regarding principal instructional leadership behaviors using five-point Likert scale
(ranging from almost never to almost always). This study used two kinds of form: Principal
Form and Teacher Form.
Years of experience as a principal are the total number of years that sampled
principals have been appointed as principals and as principals at the current schools.
School size is the total number of classes at an elementary school. It could be divided
into three categories: (a) category one is 28 or more classes; (b) category two is from 18 to 27
classes; and (c) category three is fewer than 18 classes (MOET & Department of Government
Staff Organization, 1995).
Years of prior teaching experience are the total number of years that sampled
principals had been classroom teachers at elementary schools before they had been appointed

as principals.

8