Instructional leadership as a controlling function in secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County,Kenya: Influence on students’ learning outcomes

Abstract

This research article reports on instructional leadership as a controlling function in secondary schools. All the 41 secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County were included in the study and the targeted respondents were teachers and principals. A purposive sampling method was used to select the respondents from each school. A principal self-rating questionnaire, a teacher perception questionnaire, and a document analysis checklist were used for data collection. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent samples T-test, and regression analysis test. The study found that school principals engaged their deputies, heads of department, and directors of studies to conduct their day-to-day instructions in their schools. It was also revealed that classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning significantly influence student learning outcomes in secondary schools. The study concluded that involving the expertise of immediate juniors in day-to-day instructions is an effective way of implementing instructional leadership roles of the school principals in secondary schools. The study, therefore, advocates for the school principal becoming the overall instructional supervisor and instructional improvement catalyst.

Keywords

Instructional leadership controlling function influence student learning outcomes

Introduction

Instructional leadership

Chiedozie and Victor (2017) defined instructional leadership as administrative activities and roles that are geared towards quality instruction delivery. Further, Quah (2011) defined instructional leadership as that which directly relates to the teaching and learning process, which involves interaction between teachers, students, and the curriculum. Hallinger and Murphy (2012) argue that instructional leadership is viewed as the process of identifying the direction for the school, motivation of staff, and coordination of school and classroom-based strategies aimed at improving teaching and learning. This implies that instructional leadership is all about the curriculum, instruction, and quality instruction delivery with teachers and students at the center.

The school principal is arguably responsible for the provision of instructional leadership in his or her school as chief executive officer (Chiedozie and Victor, 2017; Hallinger, 2005; Ombonga and Ongaga, 2017; Onuma, 2016). This implies that instructional leadership is a role carried out by the school principal. Since school principals have multi-faceted roles which are more demanding and challenging, at times complicated, overloaded, and unclear (Bush, 2013; Hallinger, 2005; Mahlangu, 2014; Mestry, 2017), there is little evidence that school principals are involved in hands-on directed supervision of teaching and learning in classrooms (Hallinger, 2005).

Consequently, the growing inconsistency and lack of consensus on the roles of the school principal as the instructional leader (Bodnarchuk, 2016; Fullan, 2000; Robinson et al., 2008) may be the reason for the lack of empirical evidence about school principals directly observing and supervising classroom instruction that they did 25 years ago (Hallinger, 2005). This shows that though instructional leadership was conceived as a role carried out by the school principal (Chiedozie and Victor, 2017; Hallinger, 2005; Ombonga and Ongaga, 2017; Onuma, 2016), there has been a lack of harmonization on what the school principal has to do, and not do, as the instructional leader in secondary school.

Further, a study on instructional leadership revealed that adaptation of instructional leadership remains a conundrum facing Kenyan principals (Ombonga and Ongaga, 2017). This shows that Kenyan school principals are not taking on an effective role as instructional leaders. School principals in Rangwe Sub County are not exceptional. Principals in Kenya lack any formal principal training compared to those in developed countries (Ombonga and Ongaga, 2017). Bush and Jackson (2002) underscore the importance of formal principal training, and since principals have numerous and unclear roles (Bush, 2013; Hallinger, 2005; Mahlangu, 2014; Mestry, 2017), they need a proper understanding of these roles. Therefore, to understand, and for substantial adaptation of instructional leadership, to improve teaching and learning in the 21st century (Hallinger, 2005), the importance of this study cannot be underestimated.

Instructional leadership and controlling function

To understand the role of a school principal as an instructional leader, the researcher viewed instructional leadership as a controlling function. Although the controlling function is argued to be a managerial role of the instructional leader (Hallinger, 2005), instructional leadership has never been viewed as a controlling function and has been relatively ignored by researchers and scholars in the field of educational leadership and administration in Kenya and across the world.

A controlling function is defined as an administrative function that deals with monitoring, evaluation, and supervision of outcome achievements (Brech, 2003; Koontz and O’Donnell, 1964; Mockler, 1970). The controlling function involves the development of monitoring standards, comparison of actual performance with set standards, and formulation of corrective actions (Tripathi and Reddy, 2007). In these aspects, therefore, the controlling function involves administrative activities which are geared towards quality instruction delivery, which is instructional leadership as defined by Chiedozie and Victor (2017).

In standard secondary school, the school principal sets out outcome monitoring standards, classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in classrooms, checking of schemes of work, teacher preparedness and resources, review of school performance and examination analysis, teacher development through conducting performance appraisals, and setting new strategies and recommendations in the school (Musingafi et al., 2014). According to Sule et al. (2015), the majority of these controlling function practices can be classified as instructional. Therefore, the current study views instructional leadership as a controlling function to try to bring consensus to what has become a growing inconsistency globally (Bodnarchuk, 2016; Fullan, 2000; Robinson et al., 2008).

School principals are supposed to monitor the extent of learning outcome achievement in schools. Through the development of monitoring standards, instructional effectiveness is guaranteed. Nyambuto and Njoroge (2014) argue that school principals are to set outcome monitoring standards to guide their achievement and to help them track the achievement of set learning outcomes (Chukwumah, 2015). Southworth (2002) also argues that as an instructional leader, the school principal influences the quality of school outcomes by aligning academic standards.

Classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in classrooms are of benefit to both teachers and students (Kieleko et al., 2017), as they bring about the interaction between students and teachers, and enhance high-quality teaching and learning. Though secondary school principals are mandated to visit and observe teaching and learning in classrooms (Kotirde et al., 2014; Osakwe, 2013), there is no empirical evidence to show that school principals as instructional leaders spend time directly observing and supervising classroom instruction, in either secondary or elementary schools (Hallinger, 2005). To elaborate further, teachers revealed that school principals do not observe teachers teaching in classrooms (Ndungu et al., 2015).

Teachers Service Commission (TSC) regulations require school principals to ensure that the schemes of work developed by teachers are checked (Teachers Service Commission, 2018) as a way of monitoring curriculum implementation. As the requirement for both TSC and the Ministry of Education in Kenya, Kieleko et al. (2017) assert that school principals have the mandate to check the schemes of work developed by teachers. This practice ensures the achievement of the quality of instruction in schools, which is one of the key roles of an instructional leader in a school (Chiedozie and Victor, 2017; Sule et al., 2015).

Teacher lesson notes are important indicators of teachers’ preparedness in any lesson. To be in tandem with controlling functions, school principals are therefore mandated to verify teachers’ lesson preparation by checking teachers’ lesson notes (Kotirde et al., 2014; Madukwe et al., 2019; Osakwe, 2013). Though this practice might contradict the outcome of studies on empowering teachers, teacher leadership, and distributed leadership, Sule et al. (2015) argue that the school principal as an instructional leader is mandated to check both teacher and students’ notes which, on the contrary, has been abandoned by the majority of school principals (Osiri et al., 2019). Therefore, lack of verification of teacher lesson preparedness defeats the primacy of the controlling function and the role of instructional leader as proposed in this study.

Controlling function was previously viewed as a way of ensuring adequate resources and efficient application for teaching and learning (Musingafi et al., 2014). Following this argument, school principals are mandated to check the schools’ resources and equipment (Onyeike and Maria, 2018; Uko, 2015). Thus, according to Cruz et al. (2016), school principals are compelled to inspect school resources and equipment. This practice has been neglected and it has been the responsibility of teachers to write requisition letters for missing resources in secondary schools.

Consequently, analysis is key in any instructional program. According to Duke and Stiggins (2008), analyzing, interpreting, understanding, and communicating assessment data are roles of a school leader. Therefore, the school principal should analyze and review the performance of their schools (Agih, 2015; Cruz et al., 2016). Madukwe et al. (2019) further argue that school principals are to interpret and report the outcomes, although this is not commonly done among schools in Kenya (Ndungu et al., 2015). Through examination analysis, the effectiveness of teaching and learning in the classroom is monitored. It also helps in monitoring the progress of students. This practice also may help the instructional leader to understand the effectiveness of teachers in curriculum implementation. To understand the effect of the current practice in Kenya, the importance of this study cannot be downplayed.

In teacher management, school principals are concerned about assisting teachers to continually improve their teaching (Glick, 2011). Arguably, this can be achieved through staff appraisal, which involves teacher management. Musingafi et al. (2014) argue that school principals are mandated to perform staff performance appraisals. Although this is practiced in secondary schools, Charles (2018) revealed that it is done as a directive from the government but employees do not see its importance and school principals do not like exercising it. Charles continued by asserting that appraisal is least popular among those who are involved in it. Although this practice increases interaction between the principal and teachers and learners and aids in teacher management, its significance is underestimated among leaders and teachers in schools.

On realization of any deviation between the set standards and the actual performance, setting corrective actions comes hand in hand to address these deviations. The school principals make new strategies and recommendations for raising standards with teachers to address the deviations (Onyeike and Maria, 2018). Furthermore, recommendations and new strategies aid in the achievement of the previously unachieved learning outcomes (Uko, 2015). These strategies may involve training of teachers or setting new standards that aim to improve teaching and learning, which are the key roles of an instructional leader.

The foregoing discussion revolved around controlling function practices which are mainly instructional (Sule et al., 2015). This was to clarify understanding of the instructional roles of the school principal in the perspective of the controlling function, which has been so far neglected, although it is argued to be a managerial role of an instructional leader (Hallinger, 2005). In this aspect, therefore, the study was aimed at understanding instructional leadership as a controlling function to enable its adaptation among school principals in Kenya who so far face challenges in its adaptation (Ombonga and Ongaga, 2017). It was also aimed at determining how the abovementioned controlling function practices, which are instructional, influence student learning outcomes. To achieve the aims of this study, the following research questions were formulated.

How do school principals in Rangwe Sub County carry out controlling function practices (day-to-day instruction) in their schools?

How do the controlling function practices (day-to-day instruction) influence student learning outcomes in secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County?

Methods and materials

Research method and design

This study used an ex-post facto research design and survey. Ex-post facto research design is used when collecting data on variables that had already occurred, rendering no manipulation of independent variables to find their influence on the dependent variable (Simon and Goes, 2013). For instance, the study was set to establish how school principals conduct their controlling function. This could best be revealed from the past practices of the school principals. Similarly, the student learning outcomes, which were viewed as school mean scores in the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE), were obtained from the past five years of school KCSE performance. The survey method was used since the study involved all secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County.

Sampling technique and sample size

A census was used for secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County; this ensured that all 41 secondary schools in the sub-county were involved in the study. The census aimed at achieving a piece of representative information from all school categories as classified by the Ministry of Education as National, Extra County, County and Sub County secondary schools. The targeted respondents were school principals and teachers, and 41 school principals and 164 teachers were sampled using a purposive sampling method. The purposive sampling method was used to sample the key informants; hence, it aimed at obtaining the relevant information with the effective use of limited resources during the study (Palinkas et al., 2013). This gave a total sample size of 205 respondents from 41 secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County. Teachers were to corroborate the principals’ responses since an individual’s self-rating tends to be very low (Dunning et al., 2004). Deputy principals, directors of studies, heads of science departments, and heads of technical departments represented teachers involved in classroom teaching. They also have leadership responsibilities, making them key informants in the study compared to their counterparts with no added leadership responsibilities.

Research instruments

The study used a self-developed questionnaires and a document analysis checklist as research instruments. Principal self-rating questionnaires (PSQ) and teacher perception questionnaires (TPQ) were used to gather information from the school principals and sampled teachers. School principals were requested to do a self-rating based on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’, ‘seldom’, ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ to ‘very often’ to find the information on how they performed controlling function practices in the questionnaire. The sampled teachers were requested to give their perceptions on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neutral’, ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ to corroborate the school principals’ responses. The mean below three was treated as ‘never’ and ‘disagree’ while the mean above three was treated as ‘often’ and ‘agree’ for principals and teachers, respectively. The document analysis had one item which aimed at collecting data on school KCSE performance for the previous five years.

Validity and reliability of research instruments

To test for the validity and reliability of the research instruments, a pilot study was conducted in three secondary schools from a neighboring sub-county that shared similar characteristics to the study population. The content validity was used. This aimed at measuring the degree to which the sample test item focuses on what it was designed to measure (Mugenda and Mugenda, 2013). Content validity was achieved through a pilot study and by consulting expert opinions which helped in improving the relevance and clarity of the research instruments. The reliability of the instrument was tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at 0.7 coefficient level. The study found a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.707 which was above the threshold; hence the instruments were treated as reliable.

Ethical consideration

The researcher observed the necessary ethical considerations by acquiring a research permit from the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI) as a requirement in Kenya for researchers. This was further supplemented with research authorization letters from the County Director of Education and the Sub County Director of Education in the research area. In the field, consent from the school principals and teachers was sought and confidentiality was assured to the respondents.

Data collection and analysis

After acquiring all the necessary documents for research ethics in the country of focus, data was collected using a self-developed PSQ, TPQ, and a document analysis checklist. The PSQ and TPQ questionnaires were administered to the school principals and sampled teachers, respectively, who were required to give information on how school principals carried out the controlling function practices in question. The questionnaires were collected immediately after completion. The data on the student learning outcomes (academic achievement) was collected using the document analysis checklist. This data was obtained from the directors of studies offices, for they are the custodians of all internal and external examination results. The descriptive statistics, independent samples T-test, and regression analysis test were conducted using the SPSS software version 23. This software was used since it handles research in social sciences and can manage complex data analysis which was appropriate for this study. The findings were presented in tables which helped in the discussions based on the same.

Research findings

Principal self-rating on controlling function practices

The researcher sought to find out how school principals in secondary schools performed controlling function practices. The principals were subjected to a five-point Likert scale PSQ. Table 1 shows how school principals rated themselves about how they carried out controlling function practices in their schools. On a five-point Likert scale, the study revealed that school principals often ensured the development of outcomes monitoring standards (mean = 4.45, std. dev = 0.50), classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in the classroom (mean = 4.16, std. dev = 0.75), checking of schemes of work developed by teachers (mean = 4.23, std. dev = 0.75), as well as checking of resources and school equipment (mean = 3.97, std. dev = 0.82). The study further revealed that school principals often ensured analysis of KCSE examination (mean = 4.21, std. dev = 0.81), review of school performance in all sectors (mean = 3.87, std. dev = 0.88), performance of staff appraisal (mean = 3.58, std. dev = 0.72), formation of recommendations for raising school standards (mean = 3.87, std. dev = 0.81), and formation of new strategies for goal achievement (mean = 3.82, std. dev = 0.93). However, the study revealed that principals never ensured teacher preparedness through checking their lesson notes (mean = 2.51, std. dev = 0.87).

Table 1.

School principals’ self-rating on how they perform controlling function practices.

Variables	Never (%)	Seldom (%)	Sometimes (%)	Often (%)	Very often (%)	Mean	Std. dev
Classroom visits and observation are done by the school principal and/or HODs.	–	–	21.1	42.1	36.8	4.16	0.75
The principal ensures the development of outcomes monitoring standards with the help of teachers.	–	–	–	55.4	44.6	4.45	0.50
The principal ensures that schemes of work are checked by the school deputy.	–	2.6	10.5	47.4	39.5	4.24	0.75
The principal ensures the checking of teachers’ lesson preparation by HODs	–	15.8	60.5	10.5	13.2	2.51	0.87
Staff appraisal is done	–	2.6	47.4	39.5	10.5	3.58	0.72
The principal usually checks resources and equipment by themselves.	–	–	34.2	34.2	31.6	3.97	0.82
The principal ensures KCSE examination analysis is done by the DOS.	–	–	23.7	31.6	44.7	4.21	0.81
Recommendations are made with teachers.	–	–	39.5	34.2	26.3	3.87	0.81
The principal reviews school performance with the help of teachers.		2.6	36.8	31.6	29.0	3.87	0.88
The principal ensures new strategies and targets are set in school.	–	5.4	36.8	28.9	28.9	3.81	0.92

HOD: head of department; KCSE: Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education; DOS: director of studies.

Source: Authors, 2020.

Teacher perception on how school principal carried out controlling function practices

To corroborate the principals’ responses as argued earlier in this study, the researcher involved teachers whose perceptions on how the school principal carried out controlling function practices in their schools were sought on a five-point Likert scale. The results are shown in Table 2. The study revealed that teachers were in agreement that school principals ensured development of outcomes monitoring standards (mean = 3.91, std. dev = 0.76), checking of teachers’ schemes of work (mean = 4.42, std. dev = 0.58), conducting staff performance appraisal (mean = 4.16, std. dev = 0.70), checking of school resources and equipment physically (mean = 3.76, std. dev = 0.79), analysis of KCSE examination was done through the director of studies (mean = 3.73, std. dev = 0.90), and review of school performance in all sectors (mean = 3.83, std. dev = 0.77). Moreover, further agreement that school principals ensured classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in classrooms (mean = 3.20, std. dev = 1.08), formulation of recommendations for raising school standards (mean = 3.26, std. dev = 1.16), and formulation of new strategies for goal achievement (mean = 3.45, std. dev = 1.29) were observed. However, the majority of teachers agreed that school principals did not ensure teacher preparedness through checking their lesson notes by themselves and/or with the help of heads of department (mean = 2.44, std. dev = 0.71) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Teachers’ perceptions on how principals perform controlling function practices.

Variables	Strongly disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Neutral (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly agree (%)	Mean	Std. dev
Classroom visits and observation are done by the school principal and/or HODs.	0.7	36.0	17.3	34.5	11.5	3.20	1.08
The principal ensures the development of outcomes monitoring standards with the help of teachers.	0.7	5.0	14.4	62.6	17.3	3.91	0.76
The principal ensures that schemes of work are checked by the school deputy.	–	0.7	2.2	51.8	45.3	4.42	0.58
The principal ensures the checking of teachers’ lesson preparation by HODs.	–	61.9	19.4	5.0	13.7	2.44	0.71
Staff appraisal is done.	–	9.4	9.4	56.8	30.9	4.16	0.70
The principal usually checks resources and equipment by themselves.	0.7	4.3	28.8	50.4	15.8	3.76	0.79
The principal ensures KCSE examination analysis is done by DOS.	–	12.2	20.1	49.6	18.1	3.73	0.90
Recommendations are made with teachers.	2.2	33.1	18.7	28.1	17.9	3.27	1.16
The principal reviews school performance with the help of teachers	–	5.0	23.7	54.0	17.3	3.83	0.77
The principal ensures new strategies and targets are set in school.	3.6	32.4	6.5	30.9	26.6	3.45	1.29

HOD: head of department; KCSE: Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education; DOS: director of studies.

Source: Authors, 2020.

Controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) by schools’ category

The data was further subjected to independent samples T-test to establish if there were significant differences in controlling function practices by school category. The school category means and standard deviations were analyzed and results shown in Table 3. The results in Table 3 show almost similar practice in all school categories, where all the controlling function practices were often done except ensuring teacher preparedness, with a close range in means. Therefore, there were no significant differences in instructional leadership practices in any of the school categories (see Table 3). This implies that the schools in the study area performed their instructional leadership similarly despite their categorical differences.

Table 3.

Analysis of mean difference by school category.

	School category	N	Mean	Std. dev
Classroom visits and observation are done by the school principal and/or HODs.	Extra County	2	4.50	0.71
	County	6	4.50	0.84
	Sub County	30	4.07	0.74
The principal develops outcomes monitoring standards with the help of teachers.	Extra County	2	5.00	0.00
	County	6	4.33	0.52
	Sub County	30	4.43	0.50
The principal ensures that schemes of work are checked by the school deputy.	Extra County	2	4.50	0.72
	County	6	4.50	0.84
	Sub County	30	4.17	0.75
The principal ensures teacher preparedness by checking teachers’ lesson notes.	Extra County	2	2.00	0. 62
	County	6	2.52	0.78
	Sub County	30	2.27	0.98
School principal ensures teacher management through staff appraisal is done.	Extra County	2	4.00	0.00
	County	6	3.33	0.52
	Sub County	30	3.60	0.77
Resources and equipment physically checked by the principal.	Extra County	2	4.50	0.72
	County	6	3.50	0.55
	Sub County	30	4.03	0.85
The principal ensures KCSE examination analysis was done by DOS.	Extra County	2	5.00	0.00
	County	6	4.50	0.84
	Sub County	30	4.10	0.80
Recommendations are made with teachers.	Extra County	2	4.50	0.77
	County	6	3.67	1.03
	Sub County	30	3.87	0.78
The principal reviews school performance with the help of teachers.	Extra County	2	4.50	0.72
	County	6	3.67	0.82
	Sub County	30	3.87	0.90
The principal ensures new strategies and targets are set in school.	Extra County	2	5.00	0.00
	County	6	3.83	0.98
	Sub County	30	3.73	0.91

HOD: head of department; KCSE: Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education; DOS: director of studies.

Source: Authors, 2020.

Regression analysis test on controlling function practices and student learning outcomes

The study sought to determine the influence of the controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) on student learning outcomes in secondary schools. To predict the relationship between the dependent and independent variables, regression analysis was used because it helps in predicting and describing crucial independent variables that affect the dependent variable (Kumari and Yadav, 2018). The principal responses were regressed against the learning outcomes achieved through document analysis. The strength of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables is shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Model summary on controlling function and student learning outcomes.

Model	R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimation
	0.714^a	0.510	0.328	0.55516

^a Predictors: (constant) controlling function practices of the school principal.

Dependent variable: school mean scores for the previous five years.

Source: Authors, 2020.

The finding from the model summary of R² = 0.510 revealed that 51% of student learning outcomes could be explained by the controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) done by the principal in a secondary school. This result shows a greater percentage of student learning outcomes being influenced by the controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) in secondary school while the remaining 49% is influenced by other factors outside the scope of this study. To test the significance of the model used, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) output is shown in Table 5.

Table 5.

ANOVA result.

Model	Sum of squares	Df	Mean squares	F	Sig
Regression	8.652	10	0.865	2.807	0.016^a
Residual	8.322	27	0.308
Total	16.974	37

^a Predictors: (constant) controlling function practices of the school principal.

Dependent variable: school means scores for the previous five years.

Source: Authors, 2020.

The ANOVA summary was used to test the significance of the model used; it was found that F = 2.807 and p = 0.016 (< 0.05). The study concluded that there was a statistically significant relationship between the day-to-day instructions and student learning outcomes in secondary schools. Therefore, to predict the degree of dependence of student learning outcomes on the controlling function practices in secondary schools, a regression coefficient was established in Table 6.

Table 6.

Linear regression on controlling function and student learning outcomes.

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
Model	B	Std. error	Beta (β)	t-value	p-value
Constant	−4.328	1.522		−2.843	0.008
Classroom visits and observation are done by the school principal and/or HODs.	0.471	0.153	0.525	3.087	0.005***
The principal develops outcomes monitoring standards with the help of teachers.	0.421	0.217	0.313	1.940	0.063
The principal ensures that schemes of work are checked by the school deputy.	0.127	0.151	0.141	0.844	0.406
The principal ensures checking of teachers’ lesson notes and preparation by HODs.	−0.274	0.138	−0.354	−1.983	0.058
Staff appraisal is done.	0.541	0.174	0.576	3.100	0.004***
Resources and equipment physically checked by the principal.	0.048	0.132	0.059	0.367	0.716
The principal ensures KCSE examination analysis was done by DOS.	0.099	0.119	0.118	0.828	0.415
Recommendations are made with teachers.	−0.050	0.123	−0.060	−0.410	0.685
The principal reviews school performance with the help of teachers.	−0.066	0.121	−0.085	−0.544	0.591
The principal ensures new strategies and targets are set in school.	0.187	0.113	0.256	1.658	0.109

HOD: head of department; KCSE: Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education; DOS: director of studies.

Dependent variable: school means scores for the last five years.

*** Significance at 1% significant level.

Source: Authors, 2020.

The regression coefficient results revealed that ensuring classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in the classroom statistically influenced student learning outcomes (p = 0.005, t = 3.087) with a beta (β) coefficient of 0.525 which implies that a unit increase in the number of classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in classrooms increases student learning outcomes by 52.5%. Consequently, the regression coefficient revealed that teacher development through staff appraisal in secondary schools statistically influences student learning outcomes (p = 0.004, t = 3.100) with a β coefficient of 0.576, which implies that an increase in teacher development through staff appraisal increases student learning outcomes by 57.6% as shown in Table 6.

Discussion

Though research on administrative practices had found unmistakable patterns where principals tend to avoid instructional roles (Bodnarchuk, 2016; Cuban, 1988; Hallinger, 2005), the school principal responses and teacher perceptions in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively, show that school principals in the study area had taken a different approach to achieve instructional duties in their schools. In these schools, the philosophy that leadership emanates solely from the formal position of the principal was abandoned but dynamic interactions mobilize and guide teachers in the process of instructional change and learning improvement (Harris, 2005; Spillane, 2005; Timperley, 2005).

From the findings, it was evident that school principals had mutual support at classroom level to ensure that the instructional roles were carried out in their schools. This shows that these principals applied the model proposed by Fink and Resnick (2001). This model advocated for principals to have mutual support right from the classroom (Fink and Resnick, 2001). These principals ensured that different instructional roles were done by themselves, their deputies, heads of departments, and/or directors of studies because they had multi-faceted roles which were more demanding and challenging (Bush, 2013; Hallinger, 2005; Mahlangu, 2014; Mestry, 2017). This finding, therefore, confirms why there was no empirical evidence showing school principals being actively involved in hands-on directed instruction supervisions and classroom observation to improve teaching and learning from the review done by Hallinger (2005).

It was further revealed that school principals acted as instructional improvement catalysts as argued by Horng and Loeb (2010). This was so because the school principals ensured that the instructional roles were effectively done in their schools by their juniors. This, therefore, concurs with Hallinger (2005) that many studies show that school principals’ effect on classroom instruction operates through a school culture and modeling rather than direct supervision and evaluation of teaching and learning in the classroom. It was found that principals have no hands-on direct supervision in the classroom but ensure that these roles were done by their deputies, heads of department (HODs) and directors of studies (DOS). Since school principals are argued to have less expertise in the subject areas handled by other teachers (Marshall, 1996), involving teachers in instructional roles accomplishment had some sense of expertise, hence improving the effectiveness of instructional leadership.

The study found that the controlling function (day-to-day instructions) had an impact on 51% of student learning outcomes in secondary schools. This implies that controlling function practices influence learning outcomes, which concurs with the finding by Ayeni and Akinfolarin (2014). The 51% impact implies that as a managerial role of the instructional leader (Hallinger, 2005), controlling function influences a greater percentage of student learning outcomes while the remaining 49% of student learning outcomes are influenced by other education-related factors in secondary schools. This shows that performances of secondary schools in Rangwe Sub County are also influenced by different factors although controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) have a greater influence.

Consequently, classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in the classroom significantly influence student learning outcomes in secondary schools (p = 0.005, t = 3.087) with a positive β coefficient of 0.525. This implies that a unit increase in the number of classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning accounts for a 52.5% increase in student learning outcomes. This supports the previous findings that classroom visits and observation of teaching and learning in classrooms improves performance in institutions (Kieleko et al., 2017; Nyambuto and Njoroge, 2014; Nzoka and Orodho, 2014; Oluremi, 2013).

Staff development and interactions through staff appraisal were also noted to have positively influenced student learning outcomes (p = 0.004, t = 3.100) with a positive β coefficient of 0.576. This implies that an increase in performance of staff appraisal increases student learning outcomes achievement by 57.6%. It shows that staff appraisal improves performance as asserted by Elliott (2015). It further concurs with scholars who asserted that staff appraisal influences performance in schools (Dos and Savas, 2015; Ouda et al., 2018). This, therefore, implies that properly conducted staff appraisals with the aim of teacher development and interaction have a role in school improvement.

Limitations of the study

The students were not included in the study though they are the recipients in the education system. Their inclusion could have revealed further the consistency of the feedback received from the teachers and the school principals.

The study was also limited in the targeted respondents whereby school principals, their deputies, HODs, and DOS were targeted for the study at the expense of other teachers. This was because these teachers were thought to have more experience in administration than their colleagues.

Differentiating the research data by school or by respondents’ formal position could take account of contextual and personal variables and could have revealed differences if any by the school or respondents’ formal position. This was not done since the researcher was not in a position to differentiate the data by school or by respondents’ formal position.

The study was limited to determining how the controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) influence student learning outcomes and did not look at other factors that equally may impact student learning outcomes.

Conclusion

Based on the related literature, findings, and discussions in this study, the following observations were made:

The original instructional framework was limited to the principal (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Robinson et al., 2008). The study revealed that school principals involved their deputies, HODs, and DOS to ensure instructional leadership practices in their schools. The approach adopted by school principals in the study area illustrates a move away from the traditional thinking of the school principal as a sole instructional leader towards a distributive leadership approach. Marks and Printy (2003) and Heck (2000) describe how over time instructional leadership had grown to be inclusive of principals and others. Therefore, the study concluded that instructional leadership can itself be distributive.

This study revealed that school principals involved the expertise of their immediate juniors and ensured that instructional leadership roles were effectively done. This shows that school principals in the study were involved in instructional leadership, although they had limited direct involvement in instructional matters in classrooms. This finding is contrary to numerous research into administrative practices in schools that found unmistakable patterns whereby school principals tended to avoid the instructional role even in the face of contrary normative expectation (Cuban, 1988; Hallinger, 2005). This study, therefore, give evidence of school principals being actively involved in instructional leadership with limited in-classroom matters.

In 1980, popular images of instructional leadership portrayed school principals as evidencing active hands-on involvement in classroom instruction (Hallinger, 2005). This study revealed that school principals involved the expertise of their immediate juniors and ensured that instructional leadership roles were effectively done although there was no evidence of school principals being actively involved in hands-on directed supervision of teaching and learning in classrooms. This study joins many pieces of literature reviewed by Hallinger (2005) which revealed little evidence about school principals being involved in hands-on directed supervision of teaching and learning in classrooms, which they did 25 years ago (Hallinger, 2005). It was, therefore, concluded that over time growth of instructional leadership from hierarchical and procedural notions towards an inclusive approach (Heck, 2000; Marks and Printy, 2003) seemingly have taken a course in different schools globally.

The preponderance of studies suggested that school principals’ effects on classroom instruction operate through the school’s culture and by modeling rather than through direct supervision and evaluation of teaching (Hallinger, 2005). The study revealed a positive relationship between controlling function practices (day-to-day instructions) and student learning outcomes amidst school principals having limited direct involvement in instructional matters in classrooms. Therefore, this study advocates for the school principal to act as an instructional improvement catalyst and overall instructional supervisor without necessarily being involved in hands-on classroom instruction supervision.

Researchers agree that improving schools in the 21st century requires that principals exhibit strong skills and expertise in instructional leadership (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2008). There has been a consensus in the literature that supports the adoption of instructional leadership (Bodnarchuk, 2016), but there is still speculation and lack of consensus about instructional leadership practices (Bodnarchuk, 2016). Looking at controlling function practices which are instructional (Sule et al., 2015), gives a good move towards achieveing principals with strong skills and expertise in instructional leadership matters. Therefore, this study will elicit important arguments to bring about consensus on instructional leadership practices.

Recommendations

Based on the research findings, discussions, and conclusions, the researcher recommends the following:

School principals should be able to utilize the expertise of their immediate juniors to achieve instructional improvement in schools. This will solve the challenges encountered by school principals in secondary schools as far as subject expertise is concerned. Therefore, distributive leadership should be in practice to achieve instructional improvement in secondary schools.

As a result of new reforms in education globally and in Kenya, there has been a lack of consensus on what the school principal has to do and not do as an instructional leader. For consensus, this study recommends the school principal becoming an overall instruction supervisor and instruction improvement catalyst for quality instruction delivery and proper implementation of instructional leadership in schools.

The Ministry of Education and TSC should ensure the professional development of all teachers. Furthermore, educators need professional development as it provides them with professional growth, confidence, new perspectives, expertise, and new techniques which would help them to take new roles which are more demanding and challenging, at times complicated, overloaded, and unclear.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author appreciates all the respondents and any other person who contributed to the success of this research.

Data availability

The research data used to support the findings in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

John James Juma

References

Agih

(2015) Effective school management and supervision: imperative for quality education service delivery. African Research Review 9(3): 62–74.

Ayeni

Akinfolarin

(2014) Assessing principals coordinating and controlling strategies for effective teaching and quality learning outcome in secondary schools in Ondo state, Nigeria. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research 7(1): 180–200.

Bodnarchuk

(2016) The role of principal as instructional leader. SELU Research Review Journal 1(1): 5–15.

Brech

EFL

(2003) British Management Writings Before the First World War. New York: Thoemmens Continuum.

Bush

(2013) Editorial. Leadership development for school principals: specialized preparation or posthoc repair? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(3): 253–255.

Bush

Jackson

(2002) Preparation for school leadership: international perspective. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 30(40): 417–429.

Charles

(2018) Epistemological dynamics and incorporation of appraisal practices in Kampala archdiocesan secondary schools. Open Access Library Journal 5(1): 1–13.

Chiedozie

Victor

(2017) Principals’ application of instructional leadership practices for secondary school effectiveness in Oyo State. Journal of the Nigerian Academy of Education 13(1): 32–44.

Chukwumah

(2015) Developing a quality strategic plan in secondary schools for successful school improvement. Journal of Education and Practices 6(21): 136–154.

10.

Cruz

CDP

Villena

Navarro

Belecina

Garvida

(2016) Towards enhancing the managerial performance of school heads. International Review of Management and Business Research 5(2): 705–714.

11.

Cuban

(1988) The Managerial Imperative and The Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

12.

Dos

Savas

(2015) Elementary school administrators and their roles in the context of effective schools. SAGE Open Publisher 5(1): 1–11.

13.

Duke

Stiggins

(2008) Instructional leadership requires assessment leadership. The Phi Delta Kappan 90: 285–291.

14.

Dunning

Heath

Suls

(2004) Flawed self-assessment: implication for health education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(3): 69–106.

15.

Elliott

(2015) Teacher performance appraisal: more about performance or development? Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40(9): 102–116.

16.

Fink

Resnick

(2001) Developing principals as instructional leaders. The Phi Delta Kappan 82(8): 598.

17.

Fullan

(2000) The Role of the Principal in School Reform. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

18.

Glick

(2011) The Instructional Leader and the Brain: Using Neuroscience to Inform Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

19.

Hallinger

(2005) Instructional leadership and the school principal: a passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 221–239.

20.

Hallinger

(2011) Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration 49(2): 125–142.

21.

Hallinger

Heck

(2010) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management 30(2): 95–110.

22.

Hallinger

Murphy

(1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal 86(2): 217–247.

23.

Hallinger

Murphy

(2012) Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin 97(1): 5–21.

24.

Harris

(2005) Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37(3): 255–265.

25.

Heck

(2000) Examining the impact of school quality on school outcomes and improvement: a value-added approach. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(4): 513–552.

26.

Horng

Loeb

(2010) New thinking about instructional leadership. The Phi Delta Kappan 92: 66–69.

27.

Kieleko

Kanori

Mugambi

(2017) Secondary school principals’ workload and instructional supervision practices in Kenya: a case of Lower Nyatta Sub County, Kitui County. International Journal of Humanities, Social Science, and Education 4(2): 68–80.

28.

Koontz

O’Donnell

(1964) Principals of Management: An Analysis of Managerial Function. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

29.

Kotirde

Yunos

Anaf

(2014) The role of principals in sustaining/management of quality secondary school education in Nigeria. GSE-e-Journal of Education 1(2): 1–8.

30.

Kumari

Yadav

(2018) Linear regression analysis. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences 3(1): 33–36.

31.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management 28(1): 27–42.

32.

Madukwe

Owan

Nwannunu

(2019) Administrative networking strategies and supervisory effectiveness in secondary schools in Cross River State, Nigeria. European Center for Research Training and Development UK. British Journal of Education 7(4): 39–48.

33.

Mahlangu

(2014) Strategies for principal-teacher development: a South African perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(20): 1378–1384.

34.

Marks

Printy

(2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.

35.

Marshall

(1996) How I confronted HSPS (hyperactive superficial principal syndrome). Phi Delta Kappan 77(5): 336–345.

36.

Mestry

(2017) Empowering principals to lead and manage public schools effectively in the 21st century. South African Journal of Education 37(1): 11.

37.

Mockler

(1970) Readings in Management Control. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.

38.

Mugenda

(2013) Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press.

39.

Musingafi

MCC

Zebron

Kaseke

Chaminuka

(2014) Applying management theory into practice at secondary school in Zimbabwe: teachers impressions of classical management functions at Mapakomhere Day Secondary School in Masvingo. European Journal of Business and Management 6(39): 102–103.

40.

Ndungu

Allan

Bomett

(2015) Influence of monitoring and evaluation by principals on effective teaching and learning in public secondary schools in Githunguri district. Journal of Education and Practice 6(9): 10–17.

41.

Nyambuto

Njoroge

(2014) Parental Involvement in Pupil’s Performance in a Public School in Kenya. Rome: MCSER Publishing.

42.

Nzoka

Orodho

(2014) School management and students’ academic performance: how effective are strategies being employed by school managers in secondary schools in Embu North District, Embu County, Kenya? International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4(9): 86–99.

43.

Oluremi

(2013) Principals’ organizational management and students’ academic achievement in secondary schools in Ekiti state Nigeria. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies 2(2): 76–84.

44.

Ombonga

Ongaga

(2017) Instructional leadership: a contextual analysis of principals in Kenya and southeast North Carolina. Journal of Education and Practice 8(17): 169–179.

45.

Onuma

(2016) Principals’ performance of supervision of instruction in secondary schools in Nigeria. British Journal of Education 4(3): 40–52.

46.

Onyeike

Maria

(2018) Principals’ administrative and supervisory roles for teachers’ job effectiveness in secondary schools River State. British Journal of Education 6(6): 38–49.

47.

Osakwe

(2013) Supervisory functions of secondary school principals and factors competing with these functions. Journal of Research & Method in Education 1(3): 13–19.

48.

Osiri

Piliiyesi

Ateka

(2019) School administration and students’ KCSE performance in public secondary schools in Kamukunji Sub County, Nairobi County, Kenya. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management 6(3): 636–647.

49.

Ouda

Ndanu

Didinya

(2018) Effect of performance appraisal of teachers on academic performance of students in public secondary schools in Hamisi Sub County Vihiga County, Kenya. Journal of Popular Education in Africa 3(2): 1–16.

50.

Palinkas

Horwitz

Green

Wisdom

Duan

Hoagwood

(2013) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42(5): 533–544.

51.

Quah

(2011) Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools in Malaysia. International Research Journals 2(12): 1784–1800.

52.

Robinson

Rowe

Lloyd

(2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.

53.

Simon

Goes

(2013) Ex post facto research. Dissertation and scholarly Research: Recipes for Success. Seattle, Washington: Dessertation Success, LLC.

54.

Southworth

(2002) Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management 22(1): 73–92.

55.

Spillane

(2005) Distributed leadership. The Education Forum 69: 143–150.

56.

Sule

Ameh

Egbai

(2015) Instructional supervisory practices and teachers’ role effectiveness in public secondary schools in Calabar South local government area of Cross River State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice 6(23): 43–46.

57.

Teachers Service Commission (2018) Career Progression Guidelines for Teachers. Nairobi: Government Printer.

58.

Timperley

(2005) Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37: 395–420.

59.

Tripathi

Reddy

(2007) Principles of Management (3rd edn). New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

60.

Uko

(2015) Principalship and effective management of facilities in secondary schools in Cross River State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research and Reflection 3(1): 64–76.