Linking leadership practices, professional learning community and student performance in Hong Kong
secondary schools
Objectives
The focus of the study was to investigate the influence of leadership practices on student outcomes,
being mediated through the creation of a professional learning community. Adopting a quantitative
methodology, the study specifically aimed:
1. To explore the direct effect of leadership practices on student performance; and
2. To examine the mediating effect of professional learning community on influencing the link between
leadership practices on student performance;
Theoretical Framework
In a review of research on school leadership, Hallinger and Heck (1999) found that leaders effectively
influence school outcomes indirectly through multiple variables. Southworth (2005) also notes that
“effective school leaders work directly on their indirect influence” (p. 102). Principals exercise some
form of influence on creating appropriate conditions and culture that have a direct influence on students
(Leithwood & Day, 2007). Professional learning community is one of the most commonly found school
condition variables introduced in the literature; it serves as a mediator whose main function is to
generate a mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the depend
variable of interest (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In other words, professional learning community (the
mediating variable) has a direct effect on student performance (dependent variable) and it is in turn
affected by school leadership (independent variable).
Although the effect of school leadership on student outcomes has been widely recognized, empirical
evidence to support this link is lacking in the literature. The work of Day and his team (2009) in the UK
is one of the few endeavours that address this area. This study attempted to investigate the influence of
school leadership practices on student outcomes through understanding the effect of leadership
practices on professional learning community building in Hong Kong secondary schools. Specifically,
my study was guided by the framework shown in Figure 1.
The assessment of leadership practices is varied and complicated depending on the theoretical
framework researchers espouses (Antonakis, Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004). In this study, I adopted a
7-dimension framework that is used by the Education Bureau to assess the responsibilities of principals
in Hong Kong. The seven dimensions are: External communication and Connection, Quality Assurance
and Accountability, Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum, Staff Management, Resource Management,
Leader and Teacher Growth and Development, and Strategic Direction.
Research focus on professional learning community (PLC) thus far has focused either on its impact on
student learning or the school conditions conducive to teacher capacity development. For instance,
Pedder (2006) drawing on the findings from a large-scale study in the UK covering 1906 students
confirmed the contribution of teachers’ professional learning to student academic outcomes. Bolam
and his research team (2005) also maintained that the development of a professional learning
community in schools was a determining factor affecting student achievement. Thompson and his
colleagues (2004) also advocated that the building of a professional learning community amongst
teachers not only enhanced the knowledge base of the group but also had a significant impact on their
work in their classrooms. Apparently, there are few studies that attempt to link leadership, teacher
capacity and student outcomes together.
The measure of student performance, the dependent construct in the study, was drawn from the quality
assurance framework used by the Hong Kong Education Bureau to assess the performance of students
(EDB, 2008). Two sets of performance indicators were adopted in the study; one to measure students’
academic achievement and the other their behavioural outcomes.
Methodology
The instrument used in this study comprised 61 items; 33 for measuring the 7 leadership practice
dimensions (Kwan & Walker, 2008), 4 for PLC, 3 for student academic performance and 3 for student
behavioural performance. The study targeted at vice-principals (VPs) as informants for their more
objective evaluation on leadership enactment in schools. The instrument was sent to in VPs in all Hong
Kong secondary schools. Respondents were asked to indicate the agreement to all the 33 statements
on a 6-point Likert’s scale. A total of 179 responses were obtained.
Findings
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the measurement model structure for leadership
practices using LISREL. The following goodness of fit statistics was obtained, 2=886.79 (df=272),
RMSEA=.063, CFI=.91, and NNFI=.90 suggesting a good fit of the model to the data. The reliability
alphas for all scales were found to be in a satisfactory range (from .701 to .856). An aggregated score
for all 7 leadership practices was also computed for further analysis.
Kim, Kaye and Wright’s (2001) suggestion on testing the mediating effect of a variable was followed in
the study; three analyses were run and tested for significance: (1) regressing the mediator on the
independent variable; (2) regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable and (3)
regressing the dependent variable on both mediator and independent variables simultaneously. Two
sets of regression analyses with professional learning community (PLC) as mediator, aggregated
leadership score (AL) as the independent variable, and student academic and behavioural performance
as respective dependent variable were run. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 to be inserted here
With three significant regressions established, the result of AL in regression (3) was compared with
that of regression (2) in each of the sets. As both sets of results suggested a significant reduction in the
 value, so the partial mediating effect of PLC on student academic and behavioural outcomes was
confirmed.
The findings suggested that leadership practices had a both direct and indirect effect on student
outcomes and the latter was mediated through PLC. With a view to exploring the respective effect of
the leadership practices, a series of regression was run with the 7 leadership practices as independent
variables. The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 to be inserted here
The findings showed that only the leadership practice of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum had a
direct effect on student performance. It also suggested that a mechanism set in schools to monitor
student learning could also alleviate students’ behavioural problems.
The regression results further showed that the leadership practices of Leader and Teacher Growth and
Development as well as Staff Management were predictors for Professional Learning Community.
Schools in which whose leaders had focused at “develop[ing] leaders among school teachers”,
“promot[ing] a range of continuous professional development experiences among all staff”, “us[ing]
coaching and mentoring to improve quality of teaching”, and “encourag[ing] staff to think of learning
beyond the academic curriculum” were more conducive to the development of teacher collaboration.
Results of the study showed that leadership practices which are directly linked to teaching and learning,
such as focusing at “teaching, learning and curriculum” and “quality assurance and accountability”
could lead to student academic outcomes improvement. Effort in developing collaboration among
teachers also appeared to be warranted. School leaders should be more visionary and forward looking;
instead of establishing a quality assurance system in schools to monitor the learning outcomes of
students, school leaders are encouraged to place more attention to the professional development of
teachers. A team of competent teachers is the essential element for enhancing the performance of
students.
Significance of the study
The study can contribute to the literature in a number of ways. First, it provides an empirical support to
the well established and yet to be validated claim in the literature that the effect of leadership practices
on student academic outcomes was indirect and it was mediated through the building of a professional
learning community. Secondly, it also informs school leaders that developing and motivating teachers
to meet future challenges rather than narrowly focusing at teaching and learning quality assurance
mechanisms can also help student learning.
Reference
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T. & Sternberg, R.J. (2004). The Nature of Leadership. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Bollam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S, Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M.,
Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional learning
Communities. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E., Ahtaridou, E. &
Kington, A. (2009). The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes. Nottingham, UK:
National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and school
improvement. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educatinal
Administration (pp.141-162). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kim, J-S., Kaye, J., & Wright, L.K. (2001). Moderating and mediating effects in causal models. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, 22, 63-75.
Kwan, P. & Walker, A. (2008). Vice-principalship in Hong Kong: aspirations, competencies and
satisfaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(1), 73-97.
Leithwood, K. & Day, C. (2007). Starting with what we know. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.)
Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change (pp.1-16). Dordrecht: Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.
Pedder, D. (2006). Organizational conditions that foster successful classroom promoting of learning
how to learn. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 171-200.
Southworth, G. (2005). Learning-centred leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The Essentials of School
Leadership (pp. 75-92). London: Paul Chapman.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and
student learning. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28(1). Retrieved 20 April 2010,
from http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx
Figure 1 Theoretical Framework
Leadership
Practices
Professional Learning
Community
Student Performance
Table 1 Regression Statistics on the Examination of the Mediating of PLC
Student Academic Performance as dependent variable
Standardised Coefficient
Adjusted R2
F
Sig
Regression 1
PLC=.410, p=.000
.351
97.062
.000
Regression 2
AL=.498, p=.000
.244
58.398
.000
Regression 3
AL=.393, p=.000; PLC=.176, p=.030
.260
32.233
.000
Standardised Coefficient
Adjusted R2
F
Sig
Regression 1
PLC =.410, p=.000
.351
97.062
.000
Regression 2
AL=.569, p=.000
.320
84.280
.000
Regression 3
AL=.381, p=.000; PLC=.317, p=.030
.382
55.678
.000
Student Behavioural Performance as dependent variable
Table 2 Regression analyses with 7 leadership practices as independent variables
Regressing student academic performance on 7 leadership practices
Model statistics
Adjusted R2 = .257, F=9.813, p=.000
Significant standardised Coefficient
Teaching, Learning & Curriculum =.301, p=.022
Regressing student affective performance on 7 leadership practices
Model statistics
Adjusted R2 = .330, F=13.146, p=.000
Significant standardised Coefficient
Teaching, Learning & Curriculum =.305, p=.015
Regressing PLC on 7 leadership practices
Significant standardised Coefficient
Adjusted R2
F
Model statistics
Adjusted R2 = .385, F=16.948, p=.000
Significant standardised Coefficient
Leader and Teacher Growth & Development =.303, p=.011
Staff Management =.347, p=.002
Sig