| dc.description.abstract |
Instructional leadership is a term that was introduced in the 1970s, but thedefinition has remained somewhat uncertain for decades (Neumerski, 2013; Thompson,2013). Using a sample of 98 building level administrators at a large urban school districtin Kansas, this study sought to determine to what extent instructional leadershipbehaviors were affected by different factors. This quantitative study involved the use ofpurposive sampling of both elementary and secondary building administrators in a largeurban south-central Kansas school district. The first purpose of this study was to identifythe extent that instructional leadership behaviors were affected by the administrator type(principal and assistant principal). The second purpose was to determine the extent thatinstructional leadership behaviors were affected by the gender of the administrator (maleor female). The third purpose of the study was to identify the extent that instructionalleadership behaviors were affected by the school level of the administrator (elementary,middle, high school). The population included all principals and assistant principals inthe elementary and secondary schools employed during the 2020-2021 school year. Theresults of the independent-samples t tests for differences based on administrator type(principal or assistant principal) revealed that principals exhibit instructional leadershipbehaviors defined by the PIMRS more than assistant principals for the instructionalleadership behaviors of framing the school goals, and monitoring student progress. Theresults of the test for differences based on gender revealed no significant difference ininstructional leadership behaviors. The results for the test of differences based on totalyears of experiences as a district administrator, level of administration (elementary,middle, high), and years of experience while at the same building revealed no significant difference in instructional leadership behaviors. Additional analyses became necessaryafter hypothesis testing was reviewed. Additional analyses revealed the responses by theprincipals and assistant principals across the five items in each category were consistentlyhigher than the test value and corresponded to ratings of frequently or almost always forthe instructional leadership behaviors of framing the school goals, monitoring studentprogress, and promoting professional development. It is recommended that moreresearch be conducted to further examine the impact on instructional leadership behaviorsas they correlate to student success in secondary schools. |
en_US |