COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES …...differences in distributive leadership practices...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1197 [email protected]

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 11, Issue 7, July 2020, pp. 1197-1211, Article ID: IJM_11_07_106

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7

ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510

DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.7.2020.106

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES AMONG TEACHER LEADERS IN

MALAYSIAN AND INDONESIAN SCHOOLS

Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob*

School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah

Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia

*Corresponding Author [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Malaysia and Indonesia emphasizes distributive leadership practices among

school leaders by the year 2020. This is being done to improve the social and

economic capital of the country through an effective school improvement, quality

improvement of human capital, and the growth of state assets. However, the issues

that arise such as education transformation and leadership complexity, indirectly lead

to conflict that affects the school performance. This study was conducted to review the

distributive leadership among teacher leaders in two different nations, Malaysia and

Indonesia. Specifically, this study examined the distributive leadership practices

among teacher leaders in secondary schools. Cross-sectional survey method was

applied in the process of collecting data through Distributed Leadership Readiness

Scale (DLRS) formed by Gordon, 2005. The findings showed that there were

differences in distributive leadership practices in Malaysia and Indonesia. This study

can be used by school leaders as a guide in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of

the leadership aspects, as an addition to the basic reference to improve the range of

knowledge, skills, and leadership management, as act of sharing the vision, values,

duties and responsibilities of the organization in particular, as well as research in

aspects of management in schools generally.

Key words: Distributive leadership, school performance, Malaysia and Indonesia,

Educational Policy, Educational Leadership.

Cite this Article: Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz

Mohd Yaakob, Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah, Comparing Distributive

Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and Indonesian Schools,

International Journal of Management, 11(7), 2020, pp. 1197-1211.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7

Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,



1. INTRODUCTION

Education policy makers in Malaysia, Indonesia and throughout the world have studied and

experimented with various methods and strategies in educational leadership in an effort to

enhance school excellence and achievement. The main focus of school leadership stems from

the inclusion of research findings that showed that school leadership has an impact on school

achievement. In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leadership is fully given the responsibility to

create a climate, culture, environment, commitment, teacher work satisfaction that can support

school's excellence. As such, the Ministry of Education Malaysia and Indonesia have

explored the effectiveness of various strategies and leadership models aimed at assessing their

impact on school performance, as well as various variables such as school climate,

confidence, commitment and retention of teachers within a school. In addition, it is also

reported that school leadership is a determinant of the motivation and quality of teachers

which are recognized to have the greatest impact on student motivation and achievement

(Fullan, 2001; Leithwood et al, 2004; Marzano et al, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2007).

There are some researches in education that stated that teaching leadership (Hallinger &

Murphy, 1992) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000;

Gronn, 2002; Restrorative & Humphrey, 2010) has a strong impact on the success of a school.

However, Heck and Marcoulides (1993) argued that the era of leadership led by only a

charismatic individual whose sole responsibility for school organization is over. Hargreaves

and Fink (2006) on the other hand, emphasized that leadership sustainability exists in

distributive leadership as it promotes the emergence of new leadership talent and recognizes

the achievement of group leadership rather than individual-based leadership. Thus, 21st

century education requires a kind of leadership that is capable and has the inclination of

identifying the capabilities and potentials of other individuals within the organization. (Harris

& Spillane, 2008).

1.1. The Perspectives of Distributive Leadership in Malaysian and Indonesian

Schools

As an individual who is fully responsible for the journey of a school, the principal / school

leader faces significant challenges. Principals / school leaders take on traditional

responsibilities as organizational managers (Darling Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995)

and at the same time as instructional leaders (Leithwood et al., 2004). As instructional

leaders, principals / school leaders need to manage instructional programs in schools by

monitoring classroom teaching and learning processes. (Hallinger, 2011). Fullan (1998)

opined,

“The burgeoning workload, disruption of stakeholders and the implementation of new

policies often result in the implementation of new ideas being disrupted and the principals/

school leaders to lose focus” (Fullan, 1998, p. 6)

Recent developments have made the principals' / school leaders' role more complex and

the school is expected to do more than it has ever done. The complex school system in

Malaysia and Indonesia, with its many challenges, leaves no leader able to meet the day-to-

day responsibilities of the school (Oduro, 2006). The need for education in millennium 21

requires the ability and capacity of excellent teacher leadership across the school boundaries.

Most educational leadership researchers think that a formal leader such as a principal /

school leader can fulfill all of their demands by simply obeying the policies and mandates,

which is an inadequate view and is no longer realistic (Barker, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves,

1996; Spillane, 2005, 2006). Principals / school leaders who work alone are unable to bring

the expected transformation to the school and system. Changes in an increasingly complex

Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and

Indonesian Schools


society require more sophisticated leadership (Fullan, 2001) principals/ school leaders to

focus on developing capacity and providing leadership opportunities to their subordinates

while providing appropriate support for change or innovation (Harris & Muijis, 2004; Harris,

2008).

In this regard, school leadership researchers have proposed a collaborative model

involving school faculty participation as defined by the distributive leadership model. (Gronn,

2008; Spillane, 2005). Leithwood et al., (2006) emphasizes that distributive leadership is not

one of the effective leadership styles or plans of action but rather a collaborative action

between leaders and subordinates in the school leadership process. Changing leadership from

one leader to the other reduces the stresses faced by principals / school leaders (Kratzenmeyer

& Moller, 2001), increasing teachers' job satisfaction (Leithwood, Mascall, & Tiuu, 2009) as

well as improving and enhancing the school culture and the learning experiences of students

and teachers (Lambert, 2002; Barth, 2001).

Distributive leadership model is a model where teachers and principals / school leaders

share leadership roles (Spillane, 2005). Marzano et al. (2005), emphasizing the importance of

distributing leadership across organizations to create meaningful and ongoing change. This is

because, according to Leithwood et al. (2006) leadership that is widely distributed has a

significant impact on learning. Accordingly, in the context of distributive leadership,

leadership is no longer seen as a one-person business but it is widely distributed to individuals

and the completion of a task is accomplished through ongoing interactions between many

leaders (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). According to Harris

(2002b), the focus of distributive leadership is not on the qualities that leaders possess but the

focus is on creating a conducive environment for sharing learning and developing leadership

capabilities. In addition, the distribution of leadership across the school level will enhance

leadership sustainability (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).

In order to bring the practice of distributive leadership to the school, the principals /

school leaders should make the school's goal of improving student learning a key element

when distributing the leadership power to teachers (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). To achieve this,

principals / school leaders need to be equipped with facilitation skills in order to change

teachers' role towards effective leadership practice (Barth, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1998).

In Malaysia and Indonesia, policy makers are of the view that the key to effective school

reform is to engage teachers professionally in the effort to improve student learning. Teachers

need to be given the opportunity to participate in school leadership rather than limiting it to

those at the top of the organization (Copland, 2003; Elmore, 2000; Harris, 2008; Lashway,

2003). According to Crowther et al. (2002), the distribution of leadership and the

empowerment of teachers in areas that are considered more important are likely to increase

student achievement. This is supported by Silins and Mulford (2002) who stated that school

performance from student learning aspect will be enhanced if teachers are given the

opportunity to innovate, develop themselves and learn through the practice of distributive

leadership.

Although the concept of distributive leadership emphasizes the distribution of leadership

throughout the school organization, principals / school leaders still hold the responsibility,

decisional power and accountability in the school (Dimmock, 2012). Evidence obtained from

effective school studies also showed that principals/ school leaders are key determinants of

their school's structure and culture. This is because studies showed that without the strong and

active support of formal leadership in schools, distributive leadership will not grow or survive

(Badaracco, 2001).




In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leadership practitioners have begun to express concern

over the rethinking of educational leadership for example as stated in the Tenth Malaysia Plan

document: 2011 - 2015 (RM10) which reflects the government's desire to improve school

leadership performance. Distributive leadership is nothing new as there are several existing

leadership concepts that have principles similar to distributive leadership (Peterson, 1989;

Vroom & Jago, 1998; Wallace, 2001) known as collaborative leadership, shared leadership,

co-leadership, democratic leadership and situation leadership (Spillane, 2006).

Distributive leadership has gained widespread attention in western countries (Harris,

2008) but in Malaysia and Indonesia, studies focusing on the same field are limited. Most of

the studies conducted by researchers in both countries are in the early stages of distributive

leadership practices in Malaysian and Indonesian schools (Nurhayati Ramlan, 2011;

Norasmah Othman & Rofilah Md. Said, 2013; Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Zulkifli Abdul

Manaf, 2009).

In Malaysia, the transformation in the field of educational leadership implemented

through the PPPM (2013 - 2025) shows a shift towards distributive leadership whereby MOE

will increase the performance of high performing school leadership especially in relation to

budget and curriculum areas. In addition, the implementation of this distributive leadership

model also involves the second level school management consisting of senior teachers,

subject leaders and committee chairperson so that best leadership practices can be deployed at

all levels in the school. All school leaders are given the autonomy in the following areas such

as creating a conducive learning environment, freedom of choice in co-curricular activities

and elective subjects, autonomous scheduling of classes according to school needs (MOE,

2013).

The process of empowerment is often viewed as difficult because of the perceptions that

exist among educators who blame the centralized and hierarchical education system as the

root cause of bureaucratic elements that are often seen as a weakness in management and

administration. According to several scientific studies, there is a tendency for educators from

the teacher level to the officer level to assume that the strict controls in the policy structure or

procedure have made them less able to effectively implement the changes (Jamaliah, 1999;

Siti Hawa, 1987). However, Zaidatul Akmaliah and Foo, (2003) asserted that the various

levels of power and authority in the school administration system are not considered to be

pure bureaucracy and that school organization members should be able to model their own

related work structure. Educators should not make the issue of bureaucracy a hindrance to be

efficient in performing their tasks.

In essence, the concept of distributive leadership that emphasizes sincerity and unanimity

is part of the culture of the eastern community, so it is not something new to practice

(Mohammed Sani & Jamalul Lail, 2012). However, in Malaysia and Indonesia there are not

many leadership studies that focus on distributive leadership. Based on the literature review

there are only four studies that discussed distributive leadership (Norasmah Othman &

Rofilah Md. Said, 2013; Nurhayati Ramlan, 2011; Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Zulkifli Abdul

Manaf, 2009; Jamallulail Abdul Wahab, Aida Hanim A. Hamid, Surayati Zainal, & Md Fuad

Md Rafik, 2013). These studies focused on the practical readiness of distributive leadership

using the Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale (DLRS) instrument but these studies were a

more exploratory preliminary study to determine the status and involvement of distributive

leadership in Malaysian secondary schools. Meanwhile Jamallulail et al.'s (2013) study

focused on distributive leadership and teacher motivation in primary schools. Distributive

leadership exists in all schools in Malaysia and Indonesia, but what distinguishes it is the

extent to which it is practiced in schools in both countries. Based on these arguments, the

study concluded that studies on the practice of distributive leadership in both countries can


Indonesian Schools


provide an overview of the contribution of distributive leadership to school performance

excellence in Malaysia and Indonesia.

2. AIMS

This paper aimed to discuss the results of a study on the comparative practice of distributive

leadership among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia. This paper also addressed the

practical issue of distributive leadership of school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia and

whether there were significant differences in the practice of leadership by teachers in

Malaysia and Indonesia.

3. METHODOLOGY

This quantitative study used a survey design with the aim of measuring distributive leadership

practices among school teachers in Malaysia and Indonesia. Cross-sectional survey using

questionnaires as a benchmark for data collection was used (Creswell 2014). This method is

useful for collecting information through questionnaires from study samples. The use of this

method enables information to be easily obtained and at a big volume at a time, based on the

geographical structure of Malaysia and Indonesia (Noraini 2013; Thalahuddin 2016).

The population of this study was secondary school teachers in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Taking into account the sample size of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) of 777 teachers in

Malaysia and Indonesia were selected as the sample using the multi-stage cluster method, and

for each group, the sample was randomly selected. Based on Table 1, 345 (44.4%)

respondents were from Malaysia and 432 (55.6%) from Indonesia.

Table 1 Sample Distribution

Frequency Percentage

MALAYSIA 345 44.4

INDONESIA 432 55.6

TOTAL 777 100.0

This study used the Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale (DLRS) instrument by

Gordon (2005). In general, the DLSR is used to identify the involvement of leaders in the

practice of distributive leadership. The DLRS instrument has 43 items and provides a 5 point

Likert scale for respondents to answer. The original questionnaire was translated back-to-back

translation to ensure the target language (Malay / Indonesian) portrayed more accurately the

original meaning in English (Chen & Boore 2010). A pilot study was conducted on 100

samples to make sure the instrument was reliable. The pilot study showed that the Cronbach’s

Alpha coefficient of reliability for the questionnaire was 0.89. According to Creswell (2012),

a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value greater than 0.80 indicated that the item has good

internal stability and consistency.

Descriptive analysis using mean values and standard deviations was conducted to assess

the practical level of distributive leadership among teacher leaders. Inference analysis was

performed to identify the level of practice of distributive leadership in Malaysia and

Indonesia. The interpretation of mean scores in this study was divided into three; mean values

of (1.00-2.33) as low scores, mean values of (2.34-3.67) as moderate and mean values (3.68-

5.00) as high scores.




4. STUDY FINDINGS

The findings of this study were divided into two sections: (1) demographics and (2)

distributive leadership practices among teacher leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Findings involving 777 samples of male and female teacher leaders in Malaysia and

Indonesia are shown in Table 2 below. The finding showed that the number of female teacher

leaders was greater than that of male teachers. The Indonesian study sample involved was 432

consisting of 309 (56.2%) women and 123 (54.2%) men, while from Malaysia a total of 345

people consisted of 241 people (43.8%) women and 104 (45.8%) men.

Table 2 Malaysia and Indonesia: Sampel by Gender (n=777)

In terms of teaching experience, the findings showed that most respondents in this study

has been teaching within two years (50%). Only 49.5% of respondents have more than two

years of teaching experience. Table 3 shows the experience of teaching respondents.

Table 3 Teachers’ Teaching Experience


2 years 392 50.5

More than 2 years 385 49.5

Total 777 100.0

In terms of educational background, the majority of respondents who participated as a

sample in this study have first degree education (75.4%). 132 people (17%) have a bachelor's

degree and only 7 (0.9%) have the highest level of Phd. Table 4 shows the distribution of

respondents based on their academic qualifications.

Table 4 Teachers’ Academic Background


Bachelor 586 75.4

Master 132 17.0

Phd 7 .9

Diploma 52 6.7

Total 777 100.0

4.1. The Level of Distributive Leadership Practice

The level of distributive leadership practice can be described in nine (9) dimensions, namely

(i) School Structure, (ii) Vision (iii) Value and Confidence, (iv) Collaboration and

Cooperation, (v) Decision Making, (vi) Responsibility, (vi) vii) Initiatives, (viii) School

Country

Malaysia Indonesia

Gender Male 104 (45.8%) 123

(54.2%)

Female 241 (43.8%) 309

(56.2%)

Total 345

(100%)

432

(100%)


Indonesian Schools


Leadership, and (ix) Teacher leadership. Table 5 shows the level of distributive leadership

practice by teachers based on the nine dimensions stated.

Generally, the level of distributive leadership practice for both teachers in Malaysia and

Indonesia showed a high level (m = 3.91, SD = 0.34). The most significant items of practice

were in terms of Teacher Collaboration and Cooperation (m = 4.10, SD = 0.51), followed by

Values and Confidence (m = 3.98, SD = 0.48). the lowest performing aspect was Initiatives

(m = 3.67, SD = 0.54). The overall levels of distributive leadership practice are shown in

Table 5 below.

Table 5 Level of Distributive Leadership Practice by Principals/School Leaders in Malaysia and

Indonesia

Mean Std. Deviation

School Structure 3.72 .48

Vision 3.95 .58

Values and Confidence 3.98 .48

Collaboration and Cooperation 4.10 .51

Making Decision 3.81 .55

Responsibility 3.96 .46

Initiative 3.67 .54

School Leadership 3.97 .47

Teacher Leadership 4.03 .50

Total (Distributive Leadership) 3.91 .34

4.2. Comparison of Distributive Leadership Practice Levels between Malaysia

and Indonesia

Comparing the level of distributive leadership practice for the two countries, the study found

significant differences, t (773.35) = 3.47, p <0.01. the level of distributive leadership practice

for Malaysian teachers was higher (m = 3.96, SD = 0.28) than for teachers in Indonesia (m =

3.87, SD = 0.37). Table 6 below shows the t-test result.

Table 6 Difference in the Overall Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/

School Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia

Country N Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig.(two-tailed)

Distributive

leadership

Malaysia 345 3.96 .28 3.47 773.35 0.001

Indonesia 432 3.87 .37

In particular, the level of distributive leadership practice based on dimensions are as

shown in Table 7 below. Of the nine dimensions in distributive leadership practice, only six

dimensions showed significant differences between Malaysian and Indonesian teacher

leaders. Of these six dimensions, three dimensions that indicated the level of distributive

leadership practice of Malaysian teachers' leaders was significantly higher than teachers in

Indonesia, namely School Structure dimensions (t (766.00) = 14.93, p <0.01); Decision

Making (t (726.35) = 7.79, p <0.01); and Initiatives (t (767.14) = 9.40, p <0.01). In contrast,

the three dimensions practiced by teacher leaders in Indonesia that were significantly higher

than teachers in Malaysia were in terms of Vision (t (775) = -3.99, p <0.01); School

Leadership (t (775) = −4.11, p <0.01); and Teacher leadership (t (767.60) = -5.00, p <0.01).




Table 7 Differences in the Breakdown of Distributive Leadership Practices between Principals/

School Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia

Countries

N Mean

Std.

Deviation t

df

Sig.(two-

tailed)

School Structure Malaysia 345 3.98 .34 14.93 766.00 0.01

Indonesia 432 3.52 .479

Vision Malaysia 345 3.86 .566 -3.99 775 0.01


Making Decision Malaysia 345 3.98 .38 7.79 726.35 0.01


Initiative Malaysia 345 3.86 .48 9.40 767.14 0.01


School Leadership Malaysia 345 3.89 .37 -4.11 775 0.01


Teacher Leadership Malaysia 345 3.94 .40 -5.00 767.60 0.01


While the dimensions of Value and Confidence, Collaboration and Collaboration and

Responsibility, the study found no significant differences in the level of Distributive

Leadership practice for the two countries.

Looking at the different aspects of the Distributive Leadership practice level for both

countries based on gender, academic qualifications and experience, Table 8 and Table 9 show

the situation for both countries.

Table 8 Difference in the Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/ School

Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia Based on Gender

Country

N Mean

Std.

Deviation t

df

Sig.(two-

tailed)

Malaysia Male 104 4.12 .28 7.20 179.23 .001*

Female 241 3.89 .25

Indonesia Male 123 3.89 .44 .568 179.84 .571

Female 309 3.87 .34

Comparing to the levels of leadership practice for both countries by gender, the study

found that there was a significant difference in the level distributional leadership practice for

teachers in Malaysia, t (179.23) = 7.20, p <0.01. Male teacher leadership level was higher (m

= 4.12), SD = 0.28) than female teachers (m = 3.89, SD = 0.25). While the level of

Distributive leadership practice based on teacher leaders in Indonesia by gender was not

significant.

Table 9 Difference in the Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/ School

Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia Based on Teaching Experience and Academic Background

Aspects Country Sum of

Square df

Mean

Square F

Sig.(two-tailed)

Teaching

Experience

Malaysia Between

Group .001 1 .001 .015 .902

Within

Group 27.192 343 .079

Indonesia Between

Group .077 1 .077 .561 .454


Indonesian Schools


Within

Group 58.619 430 .136

Academic

Background

Malaysia Between

Group .263 2 .132 1.670 .190

Within

Group 26.930 342 .079

Indonesia Between

Group .294 2 .147 1.079 .341

Within

Group 58.402 429 .136

Table 9 shows the different levels of Distributive Leadership practice in Malaysia and

Indonesia based on teachers' teaching experience and academic background. The analysis

showed that there as no difference in the level of distributive leadership practice for both

countries based on teaching experience and academic background.

5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

In general, differences in the level of distributive leadership practice of teacher leaders in

relation to demographic factors such as gender, teaching experience, and academic

background in this study can be seen through the level of distributive leadership practice of

the teacher leaders. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the gender

aspect in Malaysia whereas in Indonesia there was no significant difference. Whereas in terms

of teaching experience and academic background of the school leaders in Malaysian and

Indonesian schools, there were no significant differences. In terms of gender it was found to

differ on the level of school leaders' distributive leadership practice in the dimensions of role

modeling, inspiring vision sharing, challenging processes, allowing for action, and providing

encouragements among Malaysian school leaders. The differences in the level of distributive

leadership practice based on these demographic factors also support the views of other

researchers such as Nurulaim Zakaria and Suhaida Abdul Kadir (2013), Lim & Cromartie,

2001), Grant (2011), Tashi (2013), Duignan (2006), and Cheng (2007). ). However, the study

of Vlachadi (2013) and Obadara (2013) found that gender demographic factor did not make a

significant difference in the level of distributive leadership practice among teacher leaders in

schools.

In light of these differences, the analysis showed that the gender of leaders in Malaysian

and Indonesian schools effectively influenced the level of their distributive leadership

practice. This finding is consistent with the findings of Grant (2011), Tashi (2011), and Lisa

(2007) who found that female leaders are more committed to practicing distributive leadership

in schools than male leaders. However, studies conducted by Du (2013) and Chang (2011)

found that male leaders have higher levels of practicality in distributive leadership than

female leaders. Although these studies did not have the same findings, they clearly indicated

that there was a significant difference in the level of distributive leadership practice based on

school leaders' gender. This supports Lumby's (2014) view that gender issues are inevitable in

educational leadership and management because the gender factor is a contributing factor to

several issues that exist in organizations. However, this is contrary to Whitehead's (2002)

view that gender inequality in organizations is largely removed from mainstream theory. But

it is reinforced by Coleman (2012) who found that the gender factor remains an inherent

margin in the study of leadership theory. Distributive leadership has accepted the issue of

gender as a variable and this study also proved that there are significant differences in the

level of distributive leadership practice based on the gender factor of school leaders.




In addition, the results showed that there was a significant difference in the level of

distributive leadership practice based on academic background of school leaders in Indonesia

and Malaysia. This finding further supports the findings of Bolden (2011), Vlachadi (2013),

Du (2013), Chen (2007), and Naicker (2013) which also prove that academic leadership

backgrounds influence school leaders' level of distributive leadership practice. The finding of

this study showed that teaching experience among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia

affected the level of their distributive leadership practice.. This finding is in line with the

findings of Chen (2007), Lisa (2007), Naicker (2013), and Mullick, Sharma, and Deppeler

(2013) who found that teacher leaders with higher academic background have higher levels of

academic distributive leadership practices than leaders who obtained lower level of academic

backgroundHowever, the result of this study is contrary to the findings of Mohammad

Aliakbari (2014), Maria and Maria (2013), and Bennett (2003), who found that the academic

level of teacher leaders did not differ significantly from the level of distributive leadership

practice.

In addition, this study also found significant difference in the distributive leadership

practice of school leaders based on teaching experience in Malaysia and Indonesia. This

finding is in line with studies conducted by Lisa (2007), Duffy & Lent, (2013), Chen (2007),

and Timperley (2009) who generally found significant difference in the level of distributive

leadership practice of school leaders based on teaching experience. Ngang, Zaheena

Abdullah, and Mey (2010) stated that the experience of teachers is an integral part of the

effectiveness of administrative leadership. However, it is contrary to the study of Mohammad

Aliakbari (2014) and Ibukun, Oyewole, and Abe (2011) who found that differences in

teaching experience did not affect the level of distributive leadership practice among school

leaders.

6. CONCLUSION

In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leaders practice distributive leadership at a high level.

Distributive leadership practices among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia were

different in terms of gender, teaching experience, and academic background. The findings of

this study provide beneficial contributions to educational leadership practitioners and

education policy makers in Malaysia and Indonesia. This can be seen from the practice levels

of distributive leadership among school leaders and the effectiveness of distributive leadership

practices towards school success. Overall, the findings showed that distributive leadership

practice plays an important role in improving the quality of excellence of Malaysian and

Indonesian schools.. Therefore, in the effort to design programs that enhance the skill level

and strengthen the leadership of school leaders, the elements of distributive leadership need to

be clarified by providing good understanding to each school leader in both countries.. School

leaders' understanding of each element of distributive leadership can guide leaders in

achieving organizational goals and effectively addressing issues that arise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was supported by matching grants between UUM, Malaysia and Universitas

Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia, Code S.O 13949.

REFERENCES

[1] Badaracco, J.L. (2001). We don’t need another hero. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 120–

126.

[2] Barker, R. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54, 469–494.


Indonesian Schools


[3] Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: teachers, parents, and principals can make

the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[4] Blase, J.& Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: teachers’ perspectives on how

principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration,

38(2), 130-141.

[5] Boardman, M. (2001). The value of shared leadership: tasmanian teachers’ and leaders’

differing views. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29(3), 2.

[6] Boddy, M. (2002). Linking competitiveness and cohesion. In : Begg, I., Ed. (2002). Urban

Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 33-53. ISBN

1861343574

[7] Bodtker, A. M. & Jameson, J. K. (2001) Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:

Application to organizational conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict

Management, 3, 259-275.

[8] Booth, M. & Okely, A. D. (2005). Promoting physical activity among children and

adolescents: The strengths and limitations of school-based approaches. Health Promotion

Journal of Australia.

[9] Chen, Y. (2007). Principals’ Distributed Leadership Behaviors and Their Impact on Student

Achievement in Selected Elementary Schools In Texas. Dissertation of Educational

Administration.

[10] Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. P. (2009). Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing

research: Methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 234-239.

doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2702.2009.02896.x

[11] Coleman, S. R. (1966). The Invariance of the vacuum is the invariance of the world. Journal

Math. Phys. 7(77).

[12] Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., McPartland, J. M. Md., Weinfield, F. D.,& York, R. L.

(1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U.S.A

Department of Health Education and Welfare.

[13] Coleman, M.& Earley, P. (2005). Leadership and Management in Education. New York,

Oxford University Press.

[14] Conger, J. A.& Pearce, C. L. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of

Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[15] Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[16] Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

[17] Crowther, D. (2002). Psychoanalysis and auditing. In S. Clegg (ed), Paradoxical new

directions in management and organization theory, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp 227-46.

[18] Cullen K.W., Baranowski T., & Baranowski J. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of dietary

intake: Advancing dietary intervention. Annu Rev Nutr.

[19] Muijs D.& Bosker, R. J. (2006). School effectiveness and school improvement. International

Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. ICSE.

[20] Dantow, A.& Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of

Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 183-204.

[21] Darling-Hammond L., Bullmaster M.L., &Cobb V.L., (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership

through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal.

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/8510/




[22] Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

[23] Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership in learning centred schools: Cultural context, functions and

qualities. In M. Bundrett, N. Burton & R. Smith (Eds.), Leadership in Education (3-22).

London: Sage Publications.

[24] DiPaola, M. E. (2004). Elementary principals’ perceptions regarding bully prevention

activities. Educational Leadership.

[25] Duignan, P. (2006). Ethical Leadership: Key Challenges and Tensions. Melbourne,

Cambridge University Press

[26] Duignan, P. (2003). SOLR Project: Contemporary challenges and implications for leaders in

frontline service organizations, Sydney: Flagship for creative and authentic leadership, ACU

National.

[27] Duignan, P. (2007). address to Catholic Education Conference in Sydney, Australia

[28] Duffy, R. D.& Lent, R. W. (2013). Test of a Social Cognitive Model of Work Satisfaction in

Teachers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75, 212-223.

[29] Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134–142.

[30] Elmore, R. F.& Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: staff development and

instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds). Teaching as the

Learning Professions: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[31] Elmore, R. E. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Albert Shanker

Institute.

[32] Elmore, R. (2002). Scaling Up Educational Reform. Paper presented at the Distinguished

Voices in Education Series of the Philadelphia Education Fund, Philadelphia, PA.

[33] Fullan, M. G. (1995). The Limits and the Potential of Professional Development. In T. Guskey

& M. Huberman (Eds), Professional Development in education: New Paradigms and

Practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

[34] Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers

College Press.

[35] Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press; Toronto, Ontario Principals’ Council.

[36] Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. Seminar series204.

Centre for Strategic Education.

[37] Fullan, M. (2008). The Six Secrets of Change: What the Best Leaders do to Help Their

Organizations Survive and Thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[38] Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now (2nd edition).

Corwin

[39] Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative Methods In Educational Research: The Role Of Numbers

Made Easy. New York, NY: Continuum.

[40] Gordon, R. J.(2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world.(15th Ed.). SIL International.

[41] Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management Decision, 38(8): 550–562

[42] Green, R. (1994). The Course of the Four Horsemen: Costs of War and its Aftermath in Sub-

Saharan Afica in Macrae and Zwi (1994)

[43] Green, R. L. (2001). Practicing the Art of Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


Indonesian Schools


[44] Greenberg, R. A. & Baron, J. (2000). Behaviour in Organizations (7th ed). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[45] Griffiths, M. (2003). Action for Social Justice in Education: Fairly Different, Maidenhead:

Open University Press

[46] Griffith J., Steptoe A., & Cropley M. (1999). An investigating of coping strategies associated

with job stress in teachers. British Journal of Psychology, 69(4).

[47] Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–

451.

[48] Gronn P. (2002b). Distributed Leadership. Second International Handbook of Educational

Leadership and Administration: Dordrecht: Kluwer.

[49] Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in

an Era of School Reform. London: Paul Chapman Publishing

[50] Gronn, P. (2008). The Future of Distributed Leadership, Journal of Educational

Administration, 46(2): 141-158.

[51] Hallinger, P.& Heck, R. H. (1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school

effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), . 157–191

[52] Hanson, E. M. (1991). Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd Ed),

Boston: Allynard Bacon. p.271

[53] Hallinger, P.& Hausman, C. (1996). The changing role of the principal in school of hoice: A

longitudinal case study.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco, California.

[54] Halverson, R. R. (2007). Systems of practice and professional community: The Adams case.

In J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in Practice (35-62). New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

[55] Hargreaves, A.& Fink, D. (2004). The Seven Principles of Sustainable

Leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7).

[56] Harris, A. (2005). Distributed leadership. In B Davies (ed). The essentials of school

leadership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

[57] Harris, J. R. (2000). Context-specific learning, personality, and birth order. current directions

in Psychological Science,9, 174-177.

[58] Harris, A.(2004). Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading, Educational Management

and Administration, 32(1): 11–24.

[59] Harris, A.(2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence,

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3): 1–11.

[60] Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership in Shools: Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow.

Routledge & Falmer Press.

[61] Harris, A. (2009). Distributed School Leadership: Evidence, Issues and Future Directions.

ACEL Monograph 44. Penrith, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.

[62] Harris, A.& Chapman, C. (2002). Effective Leadership in Schools Facing Challenging

Circumstances. National College for School Leadership.

[63] Harris, A.& Muijs, D. (2005). Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership. Maidenhead:

Open University Press.

http://acel.org.au/uploaded_files/media/acel_monograph_44.pdf

http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/protected/spss/docs/effective-leadership.pdf

http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/education/protected/spss/docs/effective-leadership.pdf




[64] Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed

leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational

Change 8, 337-347.

[65] Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the

UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8): 961-972.

[66] Hastings, R. P.& Bham, M.S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and

teacher burnout.School Psychology International, 24(1) 115-127.

[67] Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of

Experience, Sixth Edition. New York, NY: Published by McGraw-Hill/Irwin

[68] Hawe, P.& Shiell, A. (2000). Social Capital and Health Promotion, a review. Social Science

and Medicine, 51, 871-885.

[69] Heck, R. H.& Marcoulides, G. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school

achievement. NASSP Bulettin, 77 (553), 20 -28

[70] Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research

Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610

[71] Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-

40

[72] Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

[73] Leithwood, K., Louis K. S., Anderson S., & Wahlstrom K. (2004). How Leadership Influences

Student Learning.

[74] Leithwood, K. & Jantzi D. (1998). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on

Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School.

[75] Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding Successful Principal Leadership: Progress on a Broken

Front. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto

Ontario, Canada.

[76] Leithwood, K., Jantzi D., Ryan S., & Steinbach R. (1997). Connecting teacher leadersip and

school improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Ameeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

[77] Leithwood, K., Mascall B., & Tiiu, S. (2009). Distributed Leadership According to Evidence.

Albany: Blackwell Publishing.

[78] Leithwood, K. A.& Riehl C. (2003). What we know about succeessful school leadership. A

report of division of Area.

[79] Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009b). New perspectives on an old idea: a short

history of the old idea. In Leithwood, K., Mascall, B. and Strauss, T. (eds), Distributed

Leadership according to the Evidence. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–14.

[80] Li, L. W. (2012). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Pengajaran Pemimpin Sekolah Terhadap

Keberkesanan Pengajaran Guru di Sekolah Kebangsaan dan Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan

Bahagian Bintulu Sarawak.Tesis Master. Universiti Utara Malaysia. Tidak diterbitkan.

[81] Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From

Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

[82] Noraini Idris (2013). Penyelidikan dalam pendidikan. McGraw Hill. Kuala Lumpur.

[83] Normah Othman (2009). Teaching and assessing three types of direct writing in Malaysian

ESL classrooms. A survey of ESL teachers opinions. English Language Journal, 3, 102-114.

http://zhaomr01.jxcg2011.nwnu.edu.cn/source/lw/L16%20Teacher%20led%20school%20improvement.pdf

http://zhaomr01.jxcg2011.nwnu.edu.cn/source/lw/L16%20Teacher%20led%20school%20improvement.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024001905

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034303024001905


Indonesian Schools


[84] Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th edn. London: Sage.

[85] Nunnally, J. C.& Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-

Hill.

[86] Oduro, G. K. T. (2004). Distributed leadership in schools: what English head teachers say

about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. Paper presented at the British Educational Research

Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16–18 September

[87] Oduro, G. K. T. (2006). Distributed leadership in schools. Education Journal, 80, 23-25.

[88] Olsen, E. M.& Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). A Pathway Forward to School Change: Leading

Together and Achieving Goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools.

[89] Peterson, K. D. (1989). Secondary principals and instructional leadearship: Complexities in a

diverse role. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools: Madison, WI.

[90] Restorative J.&Humphreys, E. (2010). Distributed Leadership and Its Impact on Teaching and

Learning. Education Doctorate, NUI Maynooth

[91] Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007). Leadership as stewardship. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on

Educational Leadership (2nd ed., pp. 75-92). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[92] Thalahuddin Abdullah & Azlin Norhaini Mansor. (2015). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Transformasi

Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Guru Di Sekolah Luar Bandar : Satu Kajian Kes.Prosiding ASEAN

Comparative Education Research Conference (ACER-N 2015), ISBN: 978-983-2267-81-2

[93] Timperley, H. (2009). Using assessment data for improving teaching practice. Australian

Council for Educational Research (ACER) Conference. Assessment and Student Learning:

Collecting, interpreting and using data to inform teaching, Western Australia.

[94] Tsui, K. T. & Cheng, Y. C. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A

contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evalation.

[95] Turunen H., Tossavainen K., Jakonen S., Salomaki U. & Vertio H., (1999). Initial results from

the European Network of Health Promoting Schools program on development of health

education in Finland. Journal of School Health.

[96] Vuille, J. C.& Schenkel, M. (2001). Social equalization in the health of youth. The role of the

school. European Journal of Public Health, 11, 287-293.

[97] Wallace, M. (2001). Conflict Management and School Leadership. College of Education,

University of South Africa, UNISA.

[98] Weingart, L. & Jehn, K. (2000). Manage Intra-Team Conflict Through Collaboration. In. E.

Locke (Ed), Handbook of Principles of Organization Behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.

[99] Whiteley, P. (1999). Social Capital and European Democracy, pp 25–44. London: Routledge

[100] Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations, Sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES …...differences in distributive leadership practices...

Documents

Transcript of COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP PRACTICES …...differences in distributive leadership practices...