The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
Principals’ Instructional Leadership:
Fostering Teacher Professional
Development
Li, Xiao Jun*
*Department of Education Policy and Leadership, Hong Kong Institute of Education, HONG KONG.
E-Mail: xjunli{at}s{dot}ied{dot}edu{dot}hk
Abstract—Instructional leadership evolves over three decades and still gain popularity as an effective
leadership model affecting teaching and learning. However, most research is derived from Anglo-American
settings. Empirical studies on the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher professional
development in China are limited. This article aimed to investigate principals‟ instructional leadership
practices for improving teacher professional development in the context of reform in China. Data was attained
from interviews of ten primary school principals in Shenzhen. The key instructional leadership practices were
identified and derived from the accounts of principals: supervising teachers, mentoring, shaping cross-gradelevel collaboration, and developing research-led teaching activities. The findings provided evidences of
relevant instructional leadership practices linked with teacher professional development that contributed to
student learning. Responding to the changes in educational environment, principals were expected to foster
communication and collaboration among teachers both inside and outside schools. The roles of principals in
managing instructional matters associated with teacher professional development tended to be more dynamic
and versatile.
Keywords—Chinese Educational Reform; Collaboration; Instructional Leadership; Teacher Professional
Development.
Abbreviations—SB, SJ, SC, SF, SG, SE (The Participating Principals in the Study); Community of Practice
(COP).
I.
T
INTRODUCTION
HE central challenge facing many schools principals is
improving student achievement emerging from this
hyper-accountability period [Knapp et al., 2003;
Normore & Brooks, 2012]. Outcome-based educational
reform suggests the evaluation of student achievement as the
success of leadership [Elmore, 2000; Reardon, 2011].
Instructional leadership has proved to have greater impacts on
student outcomes [Robinson et al., 2008]. Instructional
leadership typically “create positive environments where all
students learn” [O‟Donnell & White, 2005] by focusing on
teachers‟ a series of activities in leading learning [Leithwood
& Jantzi, 1999]. With respect to the higher expectation of
student learning, teacher quality and their effective pedagogy
are defined as essential elements that maximize student
participation and learning [Colbert et al., 2008; Mills et al.,
2009; Dixon & Senior, 2011]. This allows principals to
rethink how they can better equip teachers with capacity to
forester student knowledge acquisition in the classroom.
ISSN: 2321-242X
Principals develop teacher professional learning for
fostering collaborative learning across teachers at all level in
school [Silins et al., 2000; Leithwood et al., 2010]. The term
professional development refers to the activities for engaging
teacher in capacity building such as observation, sharing,
coaching, school-level meeting, and training workshop [Stock
& Duncan, 2010]. Along with the emerging challenges of
teaching in school, principals have to develop higher-level
effective activities of teacher professional development. In
this sense, focusing instruction management is the core
business of principals as instructional leaders but principals
must challenge the process of promoting staff learning as
“Knowledge is about the capacity to do something” [Senge,
2000]. The review of literature indicates discussion about
how principals could exert a more positive influence on
teacher quality in terms of the changing school environment.
The challenges of accountability context are also facing
with Chinese principal embedded in the changes of policy
context [Mok & Welch, 2003; Lee & Pang, 2011]. One of
contextual factors about curriculum reform aiming to
improve teaching quality is associated with the capacity for
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
240
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
school leadership [Leithwood, 2001]. Emphasis of leadership
has been placed on strategies related to instruction
improvement and highlighted teacher development and
building learning-organizations [Wang, 2009; Liu, 2010].
However, the empirical research related to Chinese
instructional leadership is still limited and the bulk of the
Chinese literature on principal is prescriptive and builds
around personal commentaries rather than hard data [Walker,
Hu & Qian, 2012]. Thus, research into understanding the
instructional leadership linked with teacher professional
development will provide in-depth meaning of „Chinese‟
instructional leadership within contextual influence.
II.
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR
TEACHING AND LEARNING
Western literature offer conceptual lenses about the nature,
components and consequences for instructional leadership,
among which several studies suggest the indirect effects of
leadership on student learning [Hallinger & Heck, 1996;
Robinson et al., 2009]. Several claims have been made for
supporting the impact of instructional leadership on teaching
and learning. A claim is that instructional leadership is
evident as the primary source of educational expertise when
principals facilitate high-quality instruction of teachers
[Marks & Printy, 2003]. Hallinger‟s (2003) claim suggests
that instructional leadership is a “directive and top-down
approach” to lead “first-order changes” in school instruction.
As such, indirect effect of instructional leadership on student
achievement mediated through teacher collaboration and
capacity was significant [Miller et al., 2010; Ovando &
Cassey, 2010]. Lane (1991) claims that instructional
leadership is devised to nurture learning community for
facilitating teacher learning. Promoting supervision of
teachers, one of important leadership approaches, is clearly
associated with the improvement of teacher attitudes toward
professional development and instruction [Tschannen-Moran
& Hoy, 2001; Frase & Sorenson, 2002; Youngs & King,
2002].
Principals as leaders of instructional designers for
teaching and learning have to “enable others to act” by
improve professionalism of instructors [Kouzes & Posner,
2007]. The changing school environment constructs the more
dynamics view of the principals as instructional leader
[Nettles & Herrington, 2007]. Neumerski (2012) suggests
that knowledge about instructional leadership has to be
expanded across the wider sphere of national-cultural
boundaries. Therefore, it is important to explore the
contextualized instructional leadership linked to the
improvement of teacher capacity.
III.
REFORM CONTEXT IN CHINA
Under the banner of quality education, the state stressed a
revolutionary change in curriculum which aims to improve
students‟ all round learning by changing teachers‟ approaches
to instruction student learning processes [MoE, 2001]. The
curriculum reform has resulted in a series of conceptual and
practical innovations on classroom teaching at the school
level [Ryan et al., 2009]. Traditional teacher development
activities are embedded in the system of teaching and
research in Chinese education. The normal activities of
teaching and research comprise: opening classrooms for
observation, preparing curricular content together and
organizing mentor program for young teachers [Hu, 2005].
The shifts in teaching and learning require new kinds of
teachers and new forms of teacher professional development.
In order to „free up‟ curriculum innovation and
relevance, the government has introduced three-level
curriculum management. Schools are granted more autonomy
to develop school-based curriculum. Principals and teachers
are involved in the development of school based curriculum
with a focus of student self-directed learning, creativity and
cooperative learning [Guan & Meng, 2007]. Concern is given
to teacher professional development as teachers are critical in
achieving desired curriculum reform outcomes by improving
effective approaches to teaching [Paine & Fang, 2006; YorkBarr & Duke, 2004]. The current eminent change in relation
to instructional matters results in the rising expectation and
challenges for schools principals‟ work and duties. For
instance, principals are confronted with the problem of how
the concepts and practices originated from western countries
could be suited to the Chinese tradition instruction design
[Yin et al., 2013].
As such, the review of the reform context in China shows
changes in curriculum and teaching, e.g. the change to
student-center knowledge acquisition, teaching methods for
classroom innovation, and new forms of teacher professional
development. Principals have been granted more autonomy in
terms of developing school-based curriculum, experimenting
with classroom innovations and designing suitable teacher
development programs for their own schools. This calls for a
study to understand the current state of Chinese principals in
the enactment of instructional leadership for facilitating
teacher professional learning.
IV.
INTERVIEWS FOR INSIGHTS
The study aimed to explore principals‟ practice associated
with instructional leadership for fostering teacher
professional development. Semi-structure interviews were
used as the main data collection method in this study.
Interviews help researcher gain access to the contexts framing
people‟s beliefs and to understand what they mean [Seidman,
1998].
4.1. Data Collection
The transformation of the basic education and curriculum
development require higher expectation and standard for the
quality of teaching [Dello-Iacovo, 2009; Liu & Fang, 2009].
ISSN: 2321-242X
The researcher conducted interviews with 10 principals from
primary schools in Shenzhen to elicit their understanding of
how they perform instructional leadership to improve
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
241
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
professional development of teachers in response to
curriculum reform. In terms of the context to each principal,
data was collected in terms of the nature of their work lives,
their experiences, goals and values, the practices that they use
for teacher professional development. Data from documents
used in this study provided a holistic picture of Chinese
educational reforms. The secondary materials would be
retrieved from official records, government websites, school
documents, newspapers, minutes and field notes from school
visits.
The study selected Shenzhen city as a specific research
site for the following reason: Shenzhen as an economically
advanced cities in southern China, provides well-developed
educational environment for the implementation of schoolbased curriculum. Principals from this city may have more
autonomy and opportunities to foster their leadership for
improving teaching and learning. In addition, as one of
educational experimental zones, schools in Shenzhen are
undergoing rapid development in the trials of classroom
innovation. The opportunities and resources for teacher
professional development are adequate compared with other
cities.
4.2. Data Analysis
Data analysis was ongoing and inductive in the qualitative
research. Constant comparative method across the process “is
used for practically all intellectual tasks during analysis:
forming categories, establishing the boundaries of the
categories, assigning the segments to categories, summarizing
the content of each category, finding” [Tesch, 1990]. Row
data is attained from the transcript of qualitative interview,
field notes, observations and comments. Data was under the
analysis process purposed by Corbin & Strauss‟s (1998) three
phrase coding: open, axial, and selective. Categories attained
from coding were characterized by the abstraction for
reflecting the focus on principal instructional leadership.
Once the data finish analyzing, the findings were validated
and ensured the good fit between data and interpretation.
V.
FINDINGS
The next section will detail the accounts about how principals
practice instruction leadership to enhance teacher
professional development derived from the data.
5.1. Mentoring
Due to greater concern on teaching quality in relation to
curriculum reform, principals paid much attention to
mentoring program which was adopted as one of the vital
ways of on-the-job teacher development based on school
context in China. Principals believed that young teachers
could benefit from mentoring program because there
remained many successful examples of mentoring program
for developing beginning teachers‟ professional knowledge
and expertise. The well-defined mentoring program is called
“blue project” which has been launched for some years based
on the school‟s own setting.
ISSN: 2321-242X
The term “blue project” has been frequently mentioned
by the principals in their interviews. This notion comes from
a Chinese idiom which indicates blue is extracted from the
indigo plant but is bluer than the latter. It means pupil excels
teacher. To adapt the requirements of improving classroom
innovation of new curriculum reform, Education Bureau of
Guangdong (2011) accelerate the implementation of blue
project across schools in the province. The current policy
results in principals taking more active roles in mentoring
process of young teachers in terms of their school realities.
The heated concerns on the linkage of mentoring program
and teaching quality have changed principal instructional
leadership. The voices of principals reflected their thoughts in
response to the higher demands of educational environments.
Principal SB said that “New teachers can be seen as the
vehicle that leads to new ways of teaching in our school.
Though the impact of principal leadership on student
achievement is indirect, I think. Principals influence the
school atmosphere of teacher development.”
There were many interpretations of mentoring during the
process principals played various roles in fostering
professional of beginning teachers. The roles of principals
were such as recourse providers, advisors, role models and
instructors. Despite a large amount of time spending on
dealing with school administrative works, principals tended
to engage in more direct support of teacher professional
learning. They considered the leadership in instruction issues
and coaching was more participative so some of them acted
as direct coach of the teaching team for building the school
culture of teacher coaching. Especially when seniors were not
willing to mentor young teachers, principals have to act as a
role model to lead the follower. Principal SJ reflected:
The implementation of mentoring reflects the
supportive atmosphere of collaboration and teamwork. If
you act as a model, the teachers will follow you. For
example, I once coached a young teacher who would
participate in the contest of Chinese teaching and
innovation. No matter how I prepared lessons with her for
many times, she could not understand. Finally I
demonstrated a class by myself, and then she realized the
class could be like that and she got it. It is very important
an experienced leader who provide supports for the
growth of teachers (SJ).
The context of new curriculum reform focused on the
quality of teaching and the transformation of classroom
practice. School principals considered it was a big challenge
for teachers to conduct student-centered learning activities as
the core pedagogy. It was also a need to find valuable ways to
support teachers to acquire particular professional knowledge
and expertise in response to the shifting curriculum scheme.
As principal SC said: “we were all new learners when we
were faced with curriculum reform.” Mentoring not only
provided a threat-free way to induct beginning teachers into
the teaching profession but also allowed principals to engage
in overall curriculum and the teaching in the school context.
As such, the work of mentoring ensured instructional
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
242
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
leadership in ways that principals promote
development for the improvement of teaching.
teacher
5.2. Supervision
Supervision was another interpersonal process in which
principals gave feedbacks to teachers resulting in
communication and interaction about curricular and
pedagogical design. Principals acknowledged the importance
of collective efforts in supervisory procedure and delegated
the supervisory roles to subject leaders and academic officers.
Principals supported the instruction improvement by
organizing teaching sharing session based on collective
classroom observation. Collaboration between principals and
teachers contributed to variety and individual initiative in
instructional delivery which was a vital part of supervisory
process. Principal SF introduced lesson demonstration
rehearsal as a traditional evaluative way of teaching and
teaching research in terms of specific teaching strategies:
Collective classroom observation for each subject is
scheduled regularly each week. A teacher representative
demonstrates a lesson and the other teachers would
observe together and discuss afterward. The teacher
would demonstrate the same lesson for another class of
students based on the peer‟s comments. Apart from
within-subject class, we also organize across-subject class
observation. It is a good opportunity to develop teachers‟
instructional capacity through collective learning and
sharing (SF).
As a professional teaching expert, the supervision and
evaluation of instruction is considered as a critical function of
principals in China. From the perspectives of principals,
supervising and monitoring is a best way to manage what
occur in classroom to ensure quality of teaching. To maintain
regular communication and supervision with teachers,
principals undertook frequently classroom visits as a chief
evaluative action. For example, Principal SG introduce he
usually use the way of walk-through classroom to observe
teachers‟ practice and mark down the notes. In sum,
supervision was considered as primary key task of principals
in their daily routines. Responding to the requirements of
quality assurance, principals concerned about a more
constructive and scientific evaluative process of instruction.
5.3. Cross- Grade-Level Collaboration
The system of teaching research has been rooted in Chinese
education since 1950s and aims to involve teachers in
undertaking subject-based research for classroom teaching
[Hu, 2005]. It is a comprehensive model that consists of
multiple functions: administration, research and teacher
professional development. The routine activities of schoolbased teaching research can be summarized into three
categories: preparing lessons and observing classroom;
regular subject-based meeting and discussion; school-level
and district level teaching research project.
The system of teaching research resulted in school-level
administrative organization that involves teachers in relevant
positions of the research group. In this organization,
ISSN: 2321-242X
principals play indirect roles in leading teaching research and
delegate power to middle leaders for managing the research
groups as introduced by principal SC. It was shown that
teachers who are affiliated in multiple groups are leaded by
subject leaders, head of grade group, and head of research
group. In this sense, apart from the organization structure of
administrative teams, the structure of academic affairs
presented another kind of horizontal and vertical relational
web. Principals were responsible for dealing with the
multiple working relationship and working tasks for shaping
collaborative process.
Responding to the increased efforts on bringing
innovation into classroom as required by curriculum agenda,
principals redesigned school structure to bring teachers
together in closer proximity for discussion and collaboration.
For example, principals in a few Shenzhen school built up socalled outstanding teacher office beyond administrative
functions. A short-list experienced leading teachers were
selected to hold the informal office of teaching and research
affairs. The informal learning structure allowed teachers to
plan instructional activities together and to discuss according
classroom observation several times each month. The regular
and on-going meeting and sharing indicated cross-subject and
cross- grade collaboration among teachers. Principal SE
introduced the outstanding teacher office led by eleven
endorsed teachers who are arranged to have instruction
demonstration for other teachers each semester:
The eleven teachers who are excellent in learningcenter teaching mainly come from the subject group of
Chinese, math and English. Apart from demonstrating
classes, another chief job of them is to lead and guide
teaching research on the issues of classroom innovation.
In addition, they are expected to coach young teachers.
Each outstanding teachers mentor two or three apprentice
teachers (SE).
Along with the focus of integrated learning and
interdisciplinary learning, the development of professional
learning required cross-grade communication for teachers in
different discipline areas. The traditional school structure
such as subject groups and grade groups had to be changed so
that teachers could adopt a more productive and dynamic way
of collaboration. Principals were expected to provide
opportunities to engage teachers to work into relevant groups
of professional learning. Thus, authority associated with
instructional leadership was attributed by principals who
were able to provide platforms for fostering capacity
development of staff. The influence of traditional
administrative school system might decrease when principal
utilized flexible modes of communication and coordination
across staff members. Principals expected that the
engagement of teachers in a restructured school setting could
gradually generate positive learning culture and collaborative
processes.
5.4. Research-led Teaching Activities
Within the changing requirements of curriculum reform,
school-based teaching research was expected to find an
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
243
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
effective way of educational practice renovation and
knowledge reconstruction. In 2003, Ministry of Education
further announced the tasks of teaching research system that
transfer the works of teaching research from district-level
authority to school. Considering each school was unique,
school had its own situation for testing a variety of
educational policies. Principals showed their views on the
activities of teaching and research related to the whole
education environment and its own school setting. SE said:
Research-led teaching activities lead to the
sustainable development of school. This process might be
slow but routine. Teachers who are involved the group
would learn and discuss the strategy of teaching,
evaluation of students, and report writing. We can see that
teachers gradually feel confident and encouraged in the
process of group learning (SE).
In terms of the changes generated in China‟s education,
some challenges were visible for school teaching. First, the
new standard of curriculum prompted to engage student
actively participate in learning process. Second, the rise of
information technology allowed teachers to stimulate more
active and effective classroom activities. The challenges
suggested new instruction modes that facilitate intensive
teacher-student interaction. Connected with this, schoolbased research for teaching responds to the shifts in
instruction modes and learning process. Comparing with the
traditional ways of research activities in school, current forms
of teaching research have changed to be diverse and open.
One of the approaches was to involve external educational
experts in supervising teaching and conducting research
project. Principal SC provided an example of research
collaboration with tertiary education sector:
We have collaborated with a professor from Capital
Normal University on a COP project about developing
teacher development community. Fifteen senior and
young teachers who were involved in this project team. I
was the leader of this team. Our teachers benefited from
the whole process. They were motivated and passionate
for managing classroom. One of the project tasks was to
explore how to conduct cooperative learning in the
classroom and how to make students actively participate
in group work. In the end, we could see the enhancement
of student engagement in the classroom (SC).
The participating principals had greater tendency to
invite external consultants for bringing with it different ideas
and resources. More than half of interviewees showed their
positive attitudes toward external supports for teaching
research by providing some successful experimental
examples. It was notable to see that a variety of forms of
school-based teaching research has been created since the
new direction on classroom instruction along with new
technology was generated. In sum, the forms of teaching
research activities embedded in current school‟s situation
according to interviewee‟s information include:
 Group lesson preparation
 Classroom observation and comments
 Reflective dialogue in the group meeting
ISSN: 2321-242X



Demonstration lesson activities
School-level teaching contest
District-level seminar and meeting of teaching
research
 School-based research project
 External supervision of teaching
Principal took their multiple responsibilities for dealing
with the affairs of the school teaching and research. The roles
of principals were complex and ever-changing that they have
priority on instruction supported which would best meet their
instructional goals. Ten principals in this study were expected
to wear various hats in the works of teaching and research,
such as coach, adviser, evaluator, resource holder, manager,
project leader. Due to the higher requirements of research on
classroom innovation and external communication, principals
were impeded in carrying out their duties. In this sense, the
structure of teaching and research team were therefore
changed in response to the shifting work components. In all,
the roles of principals were dynamic, versatile and flexible.
VI.
DISCUSSION
The roles of principals become more complex as a result of
the changing policy reform, increased accountability of
schools for development, and growing emphasis on the
effective pedagogy. Schooling in future can be a system
derived from “new ways of thinking and interacting that
enables deep, collective learning” [Senge, 2000]. It is
suggested that principals develop instructional leadership for
learning in order to maximize opportunities for teachers and
students‟ knowledge innovation. Considering application of
instructional leadership varies across societies, the findings of
the study suggest the key leadership practice which Chinese
principals enact for improving teacher professional learning.
The core instructional leadership practices including shaping
cross-grade-level collaboration, mentoring and supervising
teachers, and developing research-lead teaching activities.
Along with the instructional practices for the complexity of
the work, communication and collaboration is encouraged at
all levels inside school and outside school. The finding also
implies that external supporters could share their expertise on
pedagogical practice during the procedures of teacher
professional learning. The changes in teacher professional
development require principals to think their roles and
functions in facilitating effective and sustainable learning
environment.
Instructional leadership practices found in this study is
associated with the multiple contexts and personal factors.
The study provides the examples of contextualizing the
pattern of instruction leadership practices. The analysis
discusses “what works” related to principals‟ routines for
school improvement in the current reform environment
[Hallinger, 2011]. For instance, the instructional leadership
function of research-led teaching activities is highly linked
with the education system of China. Principals guide schoolbased collective research activities toward the improvement
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
244
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
of instructional pedagogy. Similar with action research for
research community in western societies, teachers work
together on a research project and publish academic journals
[Zhou & Liu, 2011]. Along with the contextual influence on
the shifts of students‟ holistic development, principals tended
to implement new approaches on teachers‟ learning activities
by promoting cross-subject collaboration on teaching
research. The implication is that principals should be
commitment to lead teachers to improve their capacity
through newly appropriate forms of learning activities. It is
also suggested that leadership behaviors demonstrated in a
specific culture should be conductive and applicable for the
school setting.
As the accounts of principals, the leadership activities
employed by principals indicate routine nature of school
management for improvement agenda. Despite varied intents
behind the leadership behaviors, the participating principals
normally act in similar way consistent with the emphasis on
developing school culture and effective leadership for
learning [Hallinger, 2005; Hallinger, 2011]. The empirical
evidences of principals‟ leadership activities facilitating the
ongoing development of teaching and learning provide
practical implication for education practitioners. A further
exploration of this study with more cases within different
district and school contexts is essential.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
R. Tesch (1990), “Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and
Software Tools”, New York: Falmer.
J.J. Lane (1991), “Instructional Leadership and Community: A
Perspective on School based Management”, Theory into
Practice, Vol. 30, No. 2, Pp. 119–123.
P. Hallinger & R.H. Heck (1996), “Reassessing the Principal‟s
Role in School Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Research,
1980–1995”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32,
No. 1, Pp. 5–44.
I. Seidman (1998), “Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A
Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences”,
2nd Edition, New York: Teachers College Press.
J. Corbin & A.C. Strauss (1998), “Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory”, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
K. Leithwood & D. Jantzi (1999), “The Relative Effects of
Principal and Teacher Sources of Leadership on Student
Engagement with School”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 35, Pp. 679–706.
R.F. Elmore (2000), “Building a New Structure for School
Leadership”, Washington, D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.
P.M. Senge (2000), “Leadership in the World of the Living”,
Editors: F. Hesselbein & P. Cohen, Leadership Beyond Walls.
SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
H. Silins, W. Mulford, S. Zarins & P. Bishop (2000),
“Leadership for Organizational Learning in Australian
Secondary Schools”, Editor: K. Leithwood, Understanding
Schools as Intelligent Systems, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Pp.
267–291.
ISSN: 2321-242X
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
M. Tschannen-Moran & A.W. Hoy (2001), “Teacher Efficacy:
Capturing an Elusive Concept”, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 17, Pp. 783–805.
K. Leithwood (2001), “School leadership in the context of
accountability policies”, International Journal of Leadership in
Education, Vol.4, No. 3, Pp. 217– 235.
Ministry of Education (2001), “The Compendium for
Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (Trial ed.)”, China
Education
Network
Website:
http://www.edu.
cn/20010926/3002911.shtml.
P. Youngs & M.B. King (2002), “Principal Leadership for
Professional Development to Build School Capacity”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5, Pp.
643–670.
L.E. Frase & S. Larry (2002), “Teacher Motivation and
Satisfaction: Impact on Participatory Management”, NASSP
Bulletin, Pp. 37–43.
H.M. Marks & S.M. Printy (2003), “Principal Leadership and
School Performance: An Integration of Transformational and
Instructional Approaches”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3, Pp. 370–397.
K.H. Mok & A. Welch (2003), “Globalization, Structural
Adjustment and Educational Reform”, Globalization and
Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region, New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, Pp. 1–31.
M. Knapp, M. Copland & J. Talbert (2003), “Leading for
Learning: Reflective Tools for School and District Leaders”,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, URL:
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/library/24hr/publications/k/.
P. Hallinger (2003), “Leading Educational Change: Reflections
on the Practice of Instructional and Transformational
Leadership”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33, No. 3,
Pp. 329–351.
J. York-Barr & K. Duke (2004), “What do we know about
Teacher Leadership? Findings from Two Decades of
Scholarship”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74, No. 3,
Pp. 255–316.
H.W. Hu (2005), “Teaching and Research Group in the Context
of Teacher Development in China”, Global Education, Vol. 34,
No. 7, Pp. 21–25.
R.J. O„Donnell & G.P. White (2005), “Within the
Accountability Era: Principals‟ Instructional Leadership
Behaviors and Student Achievement”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol.
89, No. 645, Pp. 56–71.
P. Hallinger (2005), “Instructional Leadership and the School
Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to Fade Away”,
Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 4, Pp. 221–239.
L. Paine & Y.P. Feng (2006), “Reform as Hybrid Model of
Teaching and Teacher Development in China”, International
Journal of Education Research, Vol. 45, Pp. 279–289.
J.M. Kouzes & B.Z. Posner (2007), “The Leadership
Challenge”, 4th Edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
S. Nettles & C. Herrington (2007), “Revisiting the Importance
of the Direct Effects of School Leadership on Student
Achievement: The Implications for School Improvement
Policy”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 82, No. 4, Pp.
724–736.
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
245
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 2, No. 4, June 2014
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
Q. Guan & W.J. Meng (2007), “China‟s New National
Curriculum Reform: Innovation, Challenges and Strategies”,
Frontiers of Education in China, Vol. 2, No. 4, Pp. 579–604.
J.A. Colbert, R.S. Brown, S.H. Choi & S. Thomas (2008), “An
Investigation of the Impacts of Teacher-Driven Professional
Development on Pedagogy and Student Learning”, Teacher
Education Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2, Pp. 135–154.
V. Robinson, C. Lloyd & K. Rowe (2008), “The Impact of
Leadership on Student Outcomes”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 5, Pp. 635–674.
J. Ryan, C.Y. Kang, I. Mitchell & G. Erickson (2009), “China's
Basic Education Reform: An Account of an International
Collaborative Research and Development Project”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, Pp. 427–441.
L. Wang (2009), “The Research and Analysis of Principals‟
Curriculum Leadership Behaviours”, Journal of Tianzhong,
Vol. 24, No. 1, Pp. 12–16. (in Chinese).
M. Mills, M. Goos & A. Keddie (2009), “Productive
Pedagogies: A Redefined Methodology for Analysing Quality
Teacher Practice”, Australian Educational Researcher, Vol. 36,
No. 3, Pp. 67–87.
B. Dello-Iacovo (2009), “Curriculum Reform and „Quality
Education‟ in China: An Overview”, International Journal of
Educational Development, Vol. 29, No. 3, Pp. 241–249.
V. Robinson, M. Hohepa & C. Lloyd (2009), “School
Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works
and Why: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES]”,
Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Y.B. Liu & Y.P. Fang (2009), “Basic Education Reform in
China: Globalization with Chinese Characteristics”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 29, No. 4, Pp. 407–412.
M.J. Stock & H.E. Duncan (2010), “Mentoring as a
Professional Development Strategy for Instructional Coaches:
Who Mentors the Mentors?”, Planning and Changing, Vol. 41,
No. 1, Pp. 57–69.
R.J. Miller, Y.L. Goddard, R. Goddard, R. Larsen & R. Jacob
(2010), “Instructional Leadership: A Pathway to Teacher
Collaboration and Student Achievement”, Paper Presented at
the University Council for Educational Administration
Convention.
K. Leithwood, S. Patten & D. Jantzi (2010), “Testing a
Conception of How School Leadership Influences Student
Learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46, Pp.
671.
M.N. Ovando & P. Casey (2010), “Instructional Leadership to
Enhance Alternatively Certified Novice Bilingual Teachers‟
Capacity”, Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2, Pp.
144–168.
ISSN: 2321-242X
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
W. Liu (2010), “The Research of Principle s Instructional
Leadership in Middle School of Leping City”, Unpublished
Master‟s Dissertation, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang,
Jiangxi, China. (in Chinese).
J. Zhou & K.Y. Liu (2011), “Development of Action Research
in China: Review and Reflection”, Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol. 12, Pp. 271–277.
M. Dixon & K. Senior (2011), “Appearing Pedagogy: From
Embodied Learning and Teaching to Embodied Pedagogy,
Pedagogy”, Culture & Society, Vol. 19, No. 3, Pp. 473–484.
P. Hallinger (2011), “Leadership for Learning: Lessons from
40 Years of Empirical Research”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 49, No. 2. Pp. 125–142.
C.K. Lee & S.K. Pang (2011), “Educational Leadership in
China: Contexts and Issues”, Frontiers of Education in China,
Vol. 6, No. 3, Pp. 331–341.
S.F. Reardon (2011), “The Widening Academic Achievement
Gap between Rich and Poor: New Evidence and Possible
Explanations”, Editors: G.J. Duncan & R.J. Murnane, “Whither
Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children's Life
Chances”, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Pp. 91–115.
C.M. Neumerski (2012), “Rethinking Instructional Leadership,
A Review: What do we know about Principal, Teacher, and
Coach Instructional Leadership, and where should we go from
here”?, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 2,
Pp. 310–347.
A.H. Normore & J.S. Brooks (2012), “Instructional Leadership
in the Era of No Child Left Behind”, Editor: L. Volante, School
Leadership in the Context of Standards-based Reform:
International Perspectives, New York: Springer, Pp. 41–67.
A. Walker, R.K. Hu & H.Y. Qian (2012), “Principal
Leadership in China: An Initial Review”, School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol. 23, No. 4, Pp. 369–399.
H.B. Yin, C.K. Lee & W.L. Wang (2013), “Dilemmas of
Leading National Curriculum Reform in a Global Era: A
Chinese
Perspective”,
Educational
Management
Administration & Leadership, Pp. 1–19.
Li Xiao Jun is a PhD candidate in the
Department of Education Policy and
Leadership at the Hong Kong Institute of
Education. She attained a distinction with her
Master of Sociology from Chinese University
of Hong Kong. She is currently conducting
research in the field of educational leadership,
school management and education policy in
China. During her study period of PhD
program, she participated in several education conferences in Asia.
© 2014 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
246