English Language Teaching; Vol. 15, No.

2; 2022
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Instructional Leadership Practices Among Headmasters and The

Correlation with Primary Schools’ Achievement in Sabah, Malaysia
Fazal Mohamed Mohamed Sultan1, Gunasegaran Karuppannan2 & Justin Rumpod3
1
Faculty Science Social and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Centre for Graduate Studies, University Selangor, Malaysia
3 Kolompong Secondary School, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Correspondence: Fazal Mohamed Mohamed Sultan, Faculty Science Social and Humanities, Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Received: January 3, 2022 Accepted: January 26, 2022 Online Published: January 27, 2022
doi: 10.5539/elt.v15n2p50 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n2p50

Abstract
This study aims to identify the correlation between the instructional leadership practices by the headmasters with
the level of performance and achievement of schools in Malaysia. A total of 141 respondents comprised of senior
assistants of primary schools were examined. Respondents' perceptions of instructional leadership practices by
the headmasters were gained using a set of questionnaire that was modified from the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale (PIMRS). Descriptive statistical analysis was used to obtain the mean score,
percentage, and standard deviation of the instructional practices. At the same time, ANOVA test was applied to
obtain the perceptions from demographic factors and Pearson Correlation to measure the relationship between
the instructional leadership and the schools’ performance that is based on band measurement. The findings show
that the level of instructional leadership practice is high, with a mean of 4.24. Band 1, 2, 3 and 4 schools each
have min of 4.37 4.23, 4.23 and 4.05 respectively. Pearson correlation analysis shows that there is a weak
negative correlation between the headmasters’ instructional leadership practices level and the performance of the
schools (r = -0.210). Thus, findings conclude that the level of instructional leadership practices among
headmasters in primary schools is high and has a weak negative relationship in-term of schools’ achievement.
Keywords: instructional leadership, achievement, questionnaire, relationship
1. Introduction
High performing and committed school leaders should be able to bring changes, improve the performance of the
schools, and students' achievement. In the Malaysian Education Development Plan (PPPM) 2013-2025, the
Ministry of Education Malaysia (MoE) has committed to place high quality headmasters and a team of school
leaders to drive schools’ excellence. Thus, among the main focus is to improve the quality performance of school
leadership by improving the training and selection methods of school leaders. Through this transformation, MoE
is highly confident that headmasters are not only capable of serving as an effective and outstanding head
administrator, guiding the teachers, being agent of change in their schools and communities, but also as an
effective instructional leader. Therefore, as the leader of the school, the headmaster needs to play a role as a
motivator, mentor, and teacher supervisor to improve and maintain the quality of teaching in the school (Rutil &
Gunasegaran, 2021).
According to Hallinger (2011), instructional leadership has a positive relationship and contributes significantly to
the quality of teacher teaching. In fact, the study of Sazali, Rusmini, Abang Hut and Zamri (2007) shows that
there is a relationship between instructional leadership practices and students' academic achievement. Therefore,
the instructional leadership by headmasters should be given emphasis in schools. Sufean (2014) explained that
instructional leadership refers to leadership that focuses on academic management matters, improvement of
teaching and learning process in the classroom is the main function of headmasters while other areas of
leadership include maintaining their school's excellence. School leaders who exhibit low performance in their
duties and roles as instructional leaders are considered as ineffective school leaders and they are also categorised
as ineffective (Mohd. Yusoff & Sufean, 2013). Mohd. Suhaimi (2004) emphasises that the role and
responsibilities of a headmaster is very broad, namely as the leader in the school, administrator, manager and

50
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

carry out teaching duties at least five hours a week. In this study, the researcher used Hallinger and Murphy’s
(1985) Instructional Leadership Model as the basis of the study. According to the model, instructional leadership
is divided into three main dimensions and has 10 leadership functions. The dimensions are defining the goals of
schools, managing instructional programs, and promoting a learning climate. The model discusses instructional
leadership comprehensively and has been widely adopted in developed countries such as the United States of
America, Britain, Australia, and Finland. This demonstrates its popularity and suitability as a research model in
the field of instructional leadership.
1.1 Problem Statement
The leadership of the headmaster is a major factor in determining the progress of a school (James & Balasandran,
2011). Instructional leadership has been identified to have a positive relationship in-term of students' academic
performance (Hallinger, 2011). Records show that Tuaran District in Sabah, one of the states in Malaysia, faced a
decline in the achievement in the Standard Six public examination – Primary School Assessment Test (UPSR) in
year 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Malaysian Plan of Education Development (2013-2025) has categorized school
performance based on band 1 to band 4, in which band 1 is the best performance. In 2015, the decline in
performance is obvious with the existence of four categories of bands, namely 20.55% in Band 1, 26.03% (Band
2), 41.10% (Band 3) and 12.33% (Band 4). Analysis of UPSR results in the following year showed a decrease –
District Average Grade (GPA) of 2.57 to 3.04 with the number of excellent schools with Grade Point Average
(GPS) 1.0 to 1.99 were only 6.76%. Schools that earned GPS 2.0 to 2.99 were 58.11%, and 35.13% (3.1-3.99).
Apart from that, the performance of schools by location significantly raises various questions. For example, most
of the schools in Band 1 are in Nabalu Zone, Kiulu Zone and Tamparuli Zone. Meanwhile, Band 4 schools are
mostly in the Sulaman and Mengkabong Zones. Therefore, the researcher strongly felt that a study needs to be
conducted to examine what are the factors that caused the problem. If the situation or problem is persisting, it not
only shows that the schools’ leadership are ineffective, but it is also feared that it will jeopardise the school's
performance in the long run. Therefore, a leadership model needs to be studied as an alternative effort for school
performance improvement. Accordingly, this study was conducted based on the following objectives:
i. To determine the level of instructional leadership practices among primary school headmasters in
Tuaran District.
ii. To identify the level of instructional leadership practices among headmasters based on school bands in
Tuaran District.
iii. To identify differences in the level of instructional leadership of headmasters in Tuaran District based
on demographic factors.
iv. To analyze the relationship between the instructional leadership practices of principals with the
achievement of school bands in Tuaran District.
1.2 Significance of the Study
The main challenge faced by the MoE is to improve the quality of education. For example, although students'
performance in national examinations such as UPSR and SPM, examination for Form Five students, is increasing,
the performance gap between urban and rural areas is still significant and the results of the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 has put Malaysia in the bottom third as about 50 percent of
students aged 15 years old are unable to achieve the minimum level in the assessment. Therefore, one of the
main focuses of the MoE is to improve overall student achievement and bridge the performance gap. At the same
time, the ministry places emphasis on ensuring that every teacher and school leader achieves the quality
standards set by the education authorities. Thus, the study is significant as it examines the practice of
instructional leadership among school leaders, namely school headmasters in rural areas, and thus, the findings
will be able to assist the MoE, Sabah Education Department and District Education Office to carry out their
planning in order to improve the academic achievement at all levels, particularly in rural and remote areas, which
are often associated with low socioeconomic issues.
1.3 Conceptual Framework of the Study
The conceptual framework (Figure 1) of this study is based on the Instructional Leadership Model developed by
Hallinger and Murphy (1985). The independent variable used was the instructional leadership of the headmasters,
which consisted of three dimensions, namely the dimensions of defining school goals, managing instructional
programs, and promoting a positive learning climate. These dimensions are divided into 10 elements of
instructional leadership, namely the practice of headmaster leadership in setting goals, disseminating those goals,
supervising, and evaluating teachers' teaching, coordinating curriculum, monitoring student progress, controlling

51
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

student progress, maintaining quality visibility in school programs, creating incentives for teachers, encouraging
professional development, and providing incentives to students. This independent variable when manipulated
will affect the dependent variable, for example school band achievement. The independent variable of the study
refers to the instructional leadership practices by headmasters that will influence the performance of UPSR
examination, and in turn will affect the dependent variable – school band achievement. The instructional
leadership of headmasters could be manipulated by the mediating variable i.e. teachers will influence the
academic achievement performance of students. Students' academic performance affects the GPA in the UPSR,
and this will affect the value of the composite index score, which is a measure for determining the school band.
The dimension defining school goals lists two subdimensions, namely formulating school goals and
disseminating school goals. The dimension of managing an instructional program has three elements, namely
supervising and evaluating teaching, coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress. While the
dimension of encouraging learning climate lists five subdimensions namely controlling teachers' teaching time,
maintaining visibility, providing teacher incentives, encouraging professional development, and providing
student learning incentives.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT

VARIABLE
HEADMASTERS INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP
DEFINE SCHOOL GOALS
Formulate school goals
Disseminate school goals

MANAGING INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS SCHOOL BAND
Supervise and evaluate teaching ACHIEVEMENT
Coordinate the curriculum
Monitor student progress

PROMOTING A POSITIVE
LEARNING CLIMATE
Controlling teaching time
Maintain visibility
Provide incentives for teachers
Encourage professional development
Provide incentives to students

Fi 1 C lF k f h S d
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study
2. Literature Review
Hallinger (2000) refers to instructional leadership as the behavior of principals or headmasters who formally
interact with teachers to enhance the credibility and capacity of teachers in the classroom. Pansiri (2008) refers
to instructional leadership with the role of principal or headmaster, namely: (a) coordinating, controlling,
supervising and developing curriculum and teaching, (b) interacting and communicating with teachers in order to
improve the quality of teaching and learning, (c) as an instructional leader focused on the goal of improving
student learning outcomes, (d) as an agent of change that creates a positive culture and climate as well as sets
high expectations for teachers and students.
Various researchers have discussed and debated the importance of instructional leadership. For example, Blasé &
Blasé (2002) see instructional leadership in two main areas, namely as a teaching leader, communicating with
teachers to enhance self – reflection and encourage the improvement of teachers’ skills and professionalism.
They also say that effective instructional leadership requires principals or headmasters to have effective
communication by using a variety of methods to communicate with teachers. For example, teaching, giving
guidance, suggestions, feedback, showing the way, sharing opinions, and giving appreciation to the
achievements and excellence of teachers.

52
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

Meanwhile, according to Azlin Norhaini (2006), principals or headmasters are faced with tasks and
responsibilities that are too complex so that they seem less focused, creative, lost focus and problematic in terms
of planning and implementation of activities provided to affect school excellence. Azian (2010) and Hussein
(1993) also said that principals or headmasters can influence school achievement directly and indirectly.
Therefore, there are schools that are still able to produce excellent results even if the principal or headmaster
does not conduct teaching and learning in the classroom. Schools still excel because principals or headmasters
can influence the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom through instructional leadership practices that
include efforts to formulate school goals, communicate and define high achievement expectations, create
conducive classrooms, allocate resources, supervise teacher performance, monitor progress pupils as well as the
creation of a positive school climate and environment. The role of instructional leadership should not only
revolve around traditional functions such as setting school goals, providing educational resources, managing
curriculum, evaluating, monitoring teacher teaching and learning, but should be extended to the application of
technology in teaching and learning, stimulating teacher professionalism and leveraging data in decision making
in instructional leadership. Past studies have shown that the instructional leadership of principals is an important
factor to the existence of effective schools, i.e. schools that produce high quality pupils (Hallinger, 2003). This
statement is supported by Zakaria (2016) who state that instructional leadership is the main pulse in determining
school effectiveness.
A study conducted by the Aminuddin Baki Institute (2002) on senior principals in Malaysia found that the
principal can be a determinant of the progress or decline of a school. The findings conclude that school leaders
should have high values and commitment have a clear vision and direction, have high skills in gathering
information, supervision, evaluation and be able to make continuous improvement.
3. Methodology
Researchers used a questionnaire instrument developed by Hallinger (2000), the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), which divides principals’ instructional leadership into three dimensions.
These three dimensions consist of school goals, instructional program management and promoting a positive
learning climate. The study respondents consisted of senior assistant teachers of administration, student affairs
and co-curriculum. Of the 74 primary schools in Tuaran District, the researcher found that there are 222 senior
assistant teachers. However, based on the formula of Krejcie and Morgan (1970), only 141 people were selected
as the sample and respondents by using the determination of sample size at the significance level of p <0.05 and
the sample was selected randomly for the purpose. The total number of questionnaires distributed to band 1
schools was 45 sets with 42 being returned, a total of 51 out of 57 forms were received from band 2 schools,
band 3 schools (90; 78) and band 4 schools (30; 24). The method and process of obtaining samples is continued
until the required respondents are sufficient (Azizi Yahaya et al., 2007).
The questionnaire instrument provided consists of three parts, namely Parts A, B and C with a total number of
questions is 57. To strengthen the research process, researchers have conducted a pilot study in primary schools
in the district of Tamparuli involving 42 respondents, which is 30 percent of the actual study sample. For the
ethical criteria of the study, the researchers had obtained the permission of the District Education Department
and the Headmaster of the school before distributing the questionnaire form, which was collected back after one
week, thus giving sufficient time for the respondents to answer. For data triangulation, the researcher also
obtained information by examining reports, magazines and school records that can be obtained at schools and
District Education Offices. In this study, the researcher used Statistics Package for Social Science 21.0 software
to analyze the data. Descriptive analysis in terms of percentage, mean and standard deviation was used to
decipher demographic information. In addition, ANOVA and Pearson Correlation tests were also used. To obtain
data on students' academic performance, researchers obtained data by analyzing school achievement in the
UPSR examination. For that purpose, the results of three years namely 2014, 2015 and 2016 were also analyzed.
4. Findings
Of the 141 respondents who participated in this study, 87 people or 61.7 percent were male while the remaining
38.3 percent were female. Respondents were in high grades indicating that the senior assistant teachers were
senior and experienced teachers. Therefore, this group of respondents is seen to have a high capacity to provide
an assessment of the leadership practices of headmasters in their respective schools. In terms of age, 21 people or
14.9 percent of respondents were aged 40 years and below, 41-50 years (56 percent), 51-59 years (29.1 percent);
directly shows that 85.1 percent of the respondents are those aged 40 years and above, which is a group of
respondents who are quite experienced with a long period of service in the education sector. Therefore, in terms
of demographics of respondents according to positions held, the researcher has selected respondents from among

53
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

senior assistant teachers of curriculum and administration, student affairs and co-curriculum in a balanced
manner, respectively 33.3 percent for each level of position. Therefore, this study has met a balanced sampling in
terms of positions held.
4.1 Objective 1: Levels of Instructional Leadership Practices by Headmasters
It was found that the mean score of the level of instructional leadership practice among headmasters was high,
namely 4.24 with a standard deviation of 0.398. Leadership practice in dimension 1 (defining school goals),
which involved two elements of instructional leadership, namely formulating school goals and disseminating
school information, was the highest practiced, having a mean of 4.44 with a standard deviation of 0.61.
Meanwhile, dimension 2 (managing teaching programs) and dimension 3 (promoting a positive learning climate)
had a mean of 4.22 and 4.18, respectively, with standard deviations of 0.67 and 0.71. This practice is at a high
level, indicating that headmasters place high emphasis on the dimension of managing instructional programs and
the dimension of promoting a learning climate in instructional leadership in schools.
Analysis also shows that there are elements that have high mean, indicating given high emphasis in instructional
leadership. Among the popular instructional leadership elements are fostering the development of
professionalism with the highest mean of 4.44 and standard deviation of 0.586, followed by the element of
formulating school goals with a mean of 4.42 and standard deviation of 0.589, and the element of
communicating with school goals with a mean of 4.40 and standard deviation of 0.631 (Table 1). Meanwhile, the
findings of the study also show that there are elements that have moderate mean, which shows that it is given
less emphasis by headmasters. Among the three less popular elements of instructional leadership are providing
incentives for teachers, with a mean of 3.91 and standard deviation of 0.816, protecting instructional time (mean
4.0 and standard deviation 0.735) and maintaining visibility in all school programs (mean 4.08 with standard
deviation of 0.744).
Table 1. Level of mean based on instructional leadership elements
Elements of Instructional Leadership Mean Standard deviation Interpretation
Fostering the Development of Professionalism 4.44 0.586 High
Formulate School Goals 4.42 0.589 High
Communication With School Goals 4.40 0.631 High
Coordinating Curriculum 4.27 0.646 High
Providing Learning Incentives 4.22 0.661 High
Teaching Supervision and Evaluation 4.16 0.658 High
Monitor Students’ Progress 4.15 0.695 High
Maintaining Visibility 4.04 0.744 High
Protecting Instructional Period 4.0 0.735 High
Providing Incentives for Teachers 3.91 0.816 Moderate
4.1.1 Analysis and Items of Instructional Leadership Dimension
In this section, the analysis of principals ’instructional leadership is discussed based on dimensions, namely (i)
the dimension of defining school goals, (ii) managing instructional programs, and (iii) promoting a positive
learning climate. Data analysis showed that the dimension defining school goals had the highest mean, namely
4.44 with a standard deviation of 0.61. This indicates that the headmaster gives high priority to the aspect of
preparing and disseminating the vision and mission of the school in his instructional leadership. Mean scores and
standard deviations to all items in the dimension defining school goals showed high values – exceeding 4.0.
4.1.2 Managing Instructional Programs Dimension
The classroom teaching and learning process is a major task and is directly related to instructional leadership.
The management of instructional programs is closely related to the process of supervision, evaluation,
coordination, and monitoring of student progress. The findings of the study showed that the mean score and
standard deviation for the level of instructional leadership practice of the dimension of managing instructional
programs were high, with a mean of 4.22 with a standard deviation of 0.67. The instructional leadership element
with the highest mean was ‘curriculum alignment’, which was 4.30 with a standard deviation of 0.646. The item
with the lowest mean is item B24, which is to inform the teacher in writing about the school's performance. This
item has a mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation of 0.751, where the implementation is at a moderate level.
This means that respondents see the headmaster’s emphasis on these aspects in his instructional leadership as
‘sometimes’ only.

54
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

4.1.3 Promoting a Learning Climate Dimension

Promoting a learning climate in schools is one of the dimensions of instructional leadership, which is divided
into five main elements, namely controlling teachers' teaching time, promoting professional development,
ensuring constant visibility in schools, emphasizing academic excellence, creating incentives for teachers, and
creating incentives for students. The findings of the study showed that the dimension of ‘promoting a learning
climate’ had a mean of 4.18 with a standard deviation of 0.71. Although the mean score of this dimension
showed a high level of practice, but the item analysis showed that the eight items of this dimension were in the
moderate mean level, meaning that these aspects were given less emphasis by the headmasters. In fact, the
analysis also showed that there were three items with the lowest mean, namely item B39 (special reward for
teachers' efforts to improve professional development), item B28 (ensuring that students who skip school
continue to be given guidance so that no one is left behind) and item B38 (recognizing teachers’ outstanding
performance by writing appreciation memos to be included in their personal files) with mean of 3.61, 3.72 and
3.79 respectively.
4.2 Objective 2: Level of Instructional Leadership of Headmasters Based on School Bands
The second research question in the study was to identify the level of instructional leadership based on the
school band. The primary school band achievement record in Tuaran District in 2015 showed that 15 schools
were in Band 1, 19 (Band 2), 30 (Band 3) and 10 (Band 4). This means that 10 or 20.27 per cent are high
performing schools while 49 schools or 66.22 per cent are medium performing and the remaining 13.51% are
low performing schools. The results showed that Band 1 schools had a high mean level of instructional
leadership practice compared to Band 2, 3 and 4 schools which was 4.37 with a standard deviation of 0.254
(Table 2). Band 2, 3 and 4 schools each had a mean level of instructional leadership practice which was a mean
of 4.23 with a standard deviation of 0.271, 4.23 with a standard deviation of 0.229 and 4.05 with a standard
deviation of 0.298. It shows the level of instructional leadership of headmasters based on district school bands is
high, meaning the headmaster has performed his duties and role as an instructional leader with a high level of
practice. In the meantime, data analysis based on the dimensions of instructional leadership, it was found that
there are differences in instructional leadership practices according to school bands. Band 1 schools had a higher
mean level of practice compared to schools in other bands (Table 3).
Table 2. Overall Outcome of Mean Based on School’s Band
Schools’ Band Mean Standard deviation Level
Band 1 4.37 0.254 High
Band 2 4.23 0.271 High
Band 3 4.23 0.229 High
Band 4 4.05 0.298 High
Table 3. Outcome of Mean Based on Scools’ Band and Respective Dimensions
Schools Dimension Mean Level
D1: Defining the Goals of the School 4.60 High
BAND 1 D2: Managing Instructional Programs 4.38 High
D3: Promoting Positive Learning Climate 4.29 High
D1: Defining the Goals of the School 4.46 High
BAND 2 D2: Managing Instructional Programs 4.16 High
D3: Promoting Positive Learning Climate 4.18 High
D1: Defining the Goals of the School 4.42 High
BAND 3 D2: Managing Instructional Programs 4.23 High
D3: Promoting Positive Learning Climate 4.16 High
D1: Defining the Goals of the School 4.23 High
BAND 4 D2: Managing Instructional Programs 4.07 High
D3: Promoting Positive Learning Climate 3.96 Moderate
D = Dimension; D1 = Defining the Goals of the School; D2 = Managing Instructional Programs; D3 =
Promoting a Positive Learning Climate

55
 elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

4.3 Objective 3: The Level of Instructional Leadership Practices Based on Demographic Factors
Statistical analysis of ANOVA showed that the gender aspect had a significant value of 0.825 (F = 0.793: p =
0.825> 0.05). Since the significant value was greater than p = 0.05, it was decided that there was no significant
difference in terms of the level of instructional leadership practice of headmasters based on gender factors (Table
4). In terms of age, it was found that the significant value was 0.319 (F = 1.117: p = 0.319> 0.05), which was
greater than p = 0.05, and thus showed no significant difference in the level of instructional leadership practice.
This means that the respondents' perceptions of the instructional leadership of headmasters based on the
demographics of gender, age, grade, position held and the level of education of the respondents were not without
significant differences.
Table 4. One-Way ANOVA Analysis on the Aspects of Headmasters’ Instructional Leadership Practices Based on
Demographics Factors
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 11.969 58 .206 .793 .825
Gender Within Groups 21.350 82 .260
Total 33.319 140
Between Groups 26.113 58 .450 1.117 .319
Age Within Groups 33.050 82 .403
Total 59.163 140
Between Groups 40.284 58 .695 .977 .532
Grade Within Groups 58.283 82 .711
Total 98.567 140
Between Groups 40.733 58 .702 1.081 .369
Position held Within Groups 53.267 82 .650
Total 94.000 140
Between Groups 11.746 58 .203 .529 .994
Education level Within Groups 31.417 82 .383
Total 43.163 140
At the confidence level of 95%, p = 0.05
4.4 Objective 4: The Relationship of Headmaster Instructional Leadership Practice with Band Achievement
In the meantime, Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted to look at the relationship of instructional
leadership with school band achievement. Test results showed that there was a weak negative correlation
between the level of instructional leadership of headmasters with school band achievement (r = 0.210*, p <0.05)
(Table 5). This proves that the level of instructional leadership practice of headmasters has a weak negative
relationship with school band achievement. In other words, an increase or decrease in the level of instructional
leadership practice will have a weak negative impact on the performance of the school band. For example, an
increase in a Band 3 to Band 1 school may occur due to other factors. For example, environmental factors,
socioeconomics of parents and increase in composite scores in Malaysian Education Quality Standards (SKPM)
are not necessarily factored by the increase in the level of instructional leadership practices of headmasters.
Table 5. Correlation Analysis of Instructional Leadership and Its Relationship with Schools’ Band Achievement
Instructional leadership School’s band achievements
Instructional leadership Pearson Correlation 1 -.210*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .013
N 141 141
*
School’s band achievements Pearson Correlation -.210 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .
N 144 141
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

56
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

5. Discussions
5.1 Levels of Headmasters’ Instructional Leadership Practice
It is found that the level of instructional leadership practices among headmasters in Tuaran District is at a high
level with a mean of 4.24 and a standard deviation of 0.398. Dimension-based analysis showed that leadership
practices in dimension one, which involved two elements of instructional leadership, namely formulating school
goals and disseminating school information had a mean of 4.44 while dimension two (instructional program
management) had a mean of 4.23 and dimension three (promoting a learning climate) received a mean of 4.18.
Thus, it can be concluded that headmasters practice high levels of instructional leadership. Analysis based on
instructional leadership elements shows that there are elements that have a high level of mean and some that are
low. The outcome suggests that some of these elements are given emphasis in instructional leadership, and some
are given less priority. For example, fostering the development of professionalism is the element that has the
highest mean of 4.44, followed by the element of formulating school goals (mean 4.42). The third highest was
the element of communicating with schools’ goals which had a mean of 4.40. The aspect that had a moderate
level mean, which showed less emphasis, was the element of providing incentives for teachers, where the mean
obtained was only 3.91.
5.2 Level of Instructional Leadership Practices from the Perspective of Defining Schools’ Goals Dimension
The instructional leadership practices among headmasters in-term of defining schools’ goals dimension had
recorded a mean of 4.44. Analysis of scores and standard deviations also showed that the level of instructional
leadership practices for the dimension of defining schools’ goals on each item was high, exceeding 4.0. This
clearly explains that leadership practices for this dimension is at a high level. The two elements of instructional
leadership in this dimension, i.e., formulating school goals and disseminating schools’ goals have a high mean of
4.42 and a standard deviation of 0.589, and 4.40 with a standard deviation of 0.631, respectively. On the other
hand, it was found that three items – B4 (using students performance data in developing school academic goals),
B7 (discussing academic goals with teachers during school meetings) and item B6 (communicating effectively
with school community members with respect to the goals of school) are being practiced ‘almost always’ by
headmasters, and had a mean of 4.53, 4.50 and 4.47, respectively. This indicates that instructional leadership
ensures that the schools have a clear direction and is understood by all members of the school community. The
finding is in line with points asserted by many researchers such as Hallinger and Murphy (1985), Weber (1996)
and Hussein (1993).
5.3 Level of Instructional Leadership Practices from the Perspective of Managing Instructional Programs
Dimension
The findings show that the mean for instructional leadership practices in-term of managing instructional
programs dimension is 4.22 – is high. The item with the highest mean was B16 (clearly defining the distribution
of tasks for curriculum coordinators according to level/degree has a mean of 4.53 with a standard deviation of
0.633, and indicating ‘almost always’ being practiced by headmasters, while item B24 (informing teachers in
writing about school performance) had the lowest mean of 3.91 with a standard deviation of 0.751. These
findings directly indicate that instructional leadership practices among head teachers emphasize clear
justification in informing the distribution of curriculum tasks to teachers.
5.4 Level of Instructional Leadership Practices from the Perspective of Encouraging the Learning Climate
Dimension
The level of instructional leadership of the dimension promotes a learning climate has a mean of 4.17, and this
shows that it is being practiced ‘almost always’ by headmasters. A popular item implemented by headmasters is
item B50, which fully supports the efforts of teachers in giving appreciation or gifts to students for contributions
or achievements in class with a mean of 4.55 and a standard deviation of 0.591. Meanwhile, the item that has the
lowest mean and is practiced ‘frequently’ by headmasters is item B28, which is a special reward for teachers’
efforts to improve development with a mean of 3.61 and a standard deviation of 0.962. The low-level
instructional leadership practices need to be enhanced as emphasized in Halliger & Murphy’s (1985)
Instructional Leadership Model, Weber’s (1996) Instructional Leadership Model and Hussein’s (2008)
Leadership Model which assert that the implementation of instructional leadership by headmasters is a key
determinant to schools’ achievement.
5.5 Headmasters Instructional Leadership Level Based on School Band or Performance Levels
Analysis shows that there are clear differences in the instructional leadership practices among Band 1 and Band
4 schools. The level of instructional leadership practices among Band 1 school headmasters had recorded a mean

57
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

of 4.40, while the mean level in Band 4 schools was 4.05. Band 2 and 3 schools have the same mean level – 4.22.
Overall, the mean level is considered high, and shows that headmasters of Band 1, 2, 3 and 4 schools have high
level of instructional leadership practices. Data analysis based on the instructional leadership dimension showed
that Band 1 schools have a higher mean in all dimensions compared to other schools. For example, the mean
level for dimension such as define school goals, Band 1 schools have a mean of 4.58 while Band 4 schools’
mean around 4.23. Similarly for the the dimension of managing instructional programs, the mean level for Band
1 schools is about 4.37 and Band 4 schools recorded 4.07. Even in the dimension of promoting positive learning
climate, the mean level for Band 1 schools is 4.28 while Band 4 schools is only 3.96. The outcomes show that in
reality the practice of instructional leadership in Band 1 schools is higher compared to low-performing schools.
Based on descriptive statistical analysis, it was found that the most dominant dimension of instructional
leadership practiced among headmasters in Tuaran is the dimension of define school goals with a mean of 4.41.
The second most dimension is, managing instructional programs with a mean of 4.19, and third, the dimension
promoting positive learning climate with a mean of 4.12. In-term of items that were analysed, the instructional
leadership item with the highest mean is item B4 (using students’ performance data to develop schools’ academic
goals) – 4.35. The second is item B50 (fully supporting efforts of teachers in giving appreciation or gifts to
students for their contributions or achievements in the class) – 4.51. Third, items such as B7 (discussing
academic goals with teachers during school meetings), B16 (clearly defining the distribution of tasks for
curriculum coordinators according to level of education/degree) and B43 (ensuring the participation of all staff in
internal courses) have same level of mean – 4.50. The outcome for all items considered high and indicates that
the headmasters are adopting an ‘almost always’ style in-term of leadership practices and is in line with the need
to improve students’ performance. The finding is similar with the outcome of Jamelaa’s (2012) study, which
defined that headmasters’ emphasis on the instructional leadership dimension will have a positive impact on
achievement level among students.
5.6 Headmasters’ Instructional Leadership Practices Based on Demographic Factors
Differences in the level of instructional leadership practices among headmasters based on demographic factors of
respondents were analyzed using ANOVA test. Thus, the findings show that gender, age, position held and grade,
and level of education have no significant differences on the instructional leadership. The gender aspect had a
significant value of 0.825, age (0.319), grade (0.532) and position held (0.369) as well as education level showed
a significant value of 0.994. Since the significant value was greater than p = 0.05, the study concludes that there
are no significant differences in the level of instructional leadership practices among headmasters based on the
demographic factors of the respondents.
5.7 Headmasters’ Instructional Leadership Practices and Its Relationship with Achievement of Schools
Pearson Correlation analysis showed that there was a weak negative correlation between the instructional
leadership of headmasters with schools’ achievement level or band of schools (r = -0.210*, p <0.05). This
explains that an increase or decrease in the level of instructional leadership practices will not necessarily affect
the performance of the school’s band level. For example, the increase in school band achievement for example
from Band 2 to Band 1, is not necessarily the result of an increase in the level of instructional leadership practice
and vice versa. These findings are in line with the findings of a study by Usang (2012), in secondary schools in
Sarawak, whose findings show that there is a weak negative relationship between principals’ teaching leadership
and student performance in examinations.
6. Implications and Recommendations
The researcher concluded that the instructional leadership practices among primary school headmasters in
Tuaran District, Sabah is quite high. They have performed their duties as instructional leaders in line with the
aspirations of the MoE outlined in the PPPM, which places high-performing leaders for the interest of
educational excellence. Second, the dimension of defining schools’ goals has the highest score, thus shows that it
is given high priority by many headmasters. The dimension of managing teaching programs and promoting a
positive learning climate are in the second and third position respectively in terms of priority. Third, the study
found that headmasters in Band 1 schools have higher level of instructional leadership practices compared to
Band 2 and 3 schools. There are many factors that influence the excellence of each school. The leadership factor
is just one of them. Demographic, geographical, socio-economic status of parents and the local environment also
influence schools’ excellence. Overall, it was found that the instructional leadership practices by headmasters
should emphasize all three dimensions of instructional leadership that have been discussed, namely defining the
goals of their respective schools, managing instructional programs, and promoting a positive learning climate.
The finding is in line with Zakaria’s (2016) study that was conducted to examine the under-enrolled schools in

58
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

Malaysia, which found that headmasters practice high instructional leadership in the development of their
school’s mission and vision.
7. Conclusion
The researcher successfully identified the level of instructional leadership practices among headmasters of
primary schools in Tuaran District, Sabah. In fact, the researcher also identified differences in the level of
instructional leadership practices based on the level performance of schools or band. Since school performance is
determined based on band, it is clear that high level of instructional leadership practices exist in high-performing
schools, and vice versa. The most popular dimension of instructional leadership practiced by headmasters is
defining the mission of the school and followed by the dimension of managing instructional programs and finally,
the dimension of promoting a positive learning climate. Indeed, an important dimension in effective instructional
leadership of headmaster is the ability to prepare or formulate the vision and mission of their schools, then
spread widely to the entire school community and in turn, it will support and create a climate of shared goals.
Since the effectiveness of schools in terms of academic achievement depends on the quality of teaching and
learning in the classroom, the focus on two important aspects, namely maximizing teaching time and emphasis
on academics should be the focus of the schools’ leadership.
Acknowledgement
This paper is supported by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia research grant (Code: GUP-2021-062).
References
Aminuddin Baki Institute. (2002). Traces of excellence in school management: A collection of records of the
success of Malaysian senior principals in developing schools. Kuala Lumpur: Rita Business.
Azian Ahmad Shaharbi. (2010). Leadership Behaviour and Practices of a Head Teacher in an Excellent School.
Unpublished Master Thesis. Open University Malaysia.
Azizi Yahaya, Sharhrin Hashim, Jamaludin Ramli, Yusof Boon, & Abdul Rahim Hamdan. (2007). Mastering
research in education: Theory of data analysis and interpretation. Kuala Lumpur: PTS Profesional
Publishing sdn.Bhd.
Azlin Norhaini Mansor. (2008). The Management role of school principals. Journal of Research, 10, 119-136.
Retrieved from https://www.jossr.com/PDF/JOSSR-2019-03-06-01.pdf
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2002). Teachers' perception of principals’ instructional leadership and implications.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 256-264. https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.1.3.256.7892
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behaviors of principals. The
Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445
Hallinger, P. (2000). A review of two decades of research on the principalship using the Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Seattle, WA.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational
Administration, 49(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Hussein Mahmood. (2008). School effectiveness leadership (2nd ed.). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Jamelaa Bibi Abdullah. (2012). Instructional leadership practices and attitudes towards change among secondary
school principals in Pahang state. PhD Dissertation. National University of Malaysia.
James Ang Jit Eng, & Balasandran Ramiah. (2011). Instructional leadership: A practical guide. PTS
Professional Publishing.
Mohd. Suhaimi Mohamed Ali. (2004). Instructional leadership practices of rural secondary school principlas.
Thesis Doctor of Philosophy. University Putra Malaysia.
Mohd. Yusuff Mohd Nor, & Sufean Hussin. (2013). Educational democracy: The dilemma of small and
centralised schools. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Publishers.
Pansiri, N. (2008). Instructional leadership for quality earning: Primary school management development project
in Botswana. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 471-494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208095789

59
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 15, No. 2; 2022

Rutil Taising, & Gunasegaran Karuppannan. (2020). Principals’ management empowerment practices and its
relationships with work satisfaction among school mid-level administrators. Selangor Humaniora Review,
4(2). Retrieved from https://share.journals.unisel.edu.my/ojs/index.php/share/article/view/117
Sazali Yusoff, Rusmini Ku Ahmad, Abang Hut Abang Engkeh, & Zamri Abu Bakar. (2007). The relationship
between instructional leadership to effective schools. IAB Management Journal, 107-119.
Sufean Hussin. (2014). Instructional leadership and school culture of high-and low-performing school: Patterns of
variation relationship. IOSR Journey of Humanities and Social Science, 19(3).
https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1934138144
Usang Anak Ngrambang. (2013). Implications of principals' teaching leadership and teachers' job satisfaction on
examination performance in rural secondary schools in Sarawak. Research Journal, 5.
Weber, J. (1996). Leading the instructional program. In Smith, S. & Piele, P. (Eds.), School Leadership. Handbook
for Excellence in Student Learning (4th ed.). California: Corwin Press.
Zakaria Othman. (2016). Instructional leadership of principals in underserved schools. Doctor of Philosophy
Thesis. University of Malaya.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

60