Educational Administration Quarterl

Educational Administration Quarterly
46(5) 671-
706
© The University Council for
Educational Administration 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10377347
http://eaq.sagepub.com
377347EAQ
1University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Kenneth Leithwood, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252
Bloor St. West, Toronto ON M5S 1V6, Canada
Email: [e-mail]
Testing a Conception
of How School
Leadership Influences
Student Learning
Kenneth Leithwood,1 Sarah Patten1,
and Doris Jantzi1
Abstract
Purpose: This article describes and reports the results of testing a new conception
of how leadership influences student learning (“The Four Paths”).
Framework: Leadership influence is conceptualized as flowing along four
paths (Rational, Emotions, Organizational, and Family) toward student learning.
Each path is populated by multiple variables with more or less powerful
effects on student learning. Leaders increase student learning by improving the
condition or status of selected variables on the Paths. Research Methods:
Evidence includes teacher responses to an online survey (1,445 responses)
measuring distributed leadership practices in their schools (N = 199) and
variables mediating leaders’ effects on students. Grade 3 and 6 math and
literacy achievement data were provided by the province’s annual testing
program. The 2006 Canadian Census data provided a composite measure of
school socioeconomic status. Path modeling techniques were used to test six
hypotheses. Results: The Four Paths model as a whole explains 43% of the
variation in student achievement. Variables on the Rational, Emotions, and
Family Paths explain similarly significant amounts of that variation. Variables
on the Organizational Path were unrelated to student achievement. Leadership
had its greatest influence on the Organizational Path and least influence
Article
Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Gazi University on February 1, 2015
672 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)
on the Family Path. Implications: School leaders and leadership researchers
should be guided much more directly by existing evidence about school,
classroom, and family variables with powerful effects on student learning as
they make their school improvement and research design decisions.
Keywords
leadership, mediating variables, academic press, collective teacher efficacy,
professional learning communities
School leaders are capable of having significant positive effects on student
learning and other important outcomes (Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd, 2009;
Silins & Mulford, 2002; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Estimates of
the size of these effects vary by type of study: modest in the case of largescale
empirical evidence, quite large in the case of qualitative studies of outlier
schools—schools in need of being turned around (e.g., Murphy, 2009) or
schools that perform significantly beyond expectation (e.g., Mulford, Johns,
& Edmunds, 2009). Indeed, enough evidence is now at hand to justify claims
about significant leadership effects on students that the focus of attention for
many leadership researchers has moved on to include questions about how
those effects occur.
Because it is widely understood that the effects of school leadership on
students are largely indirect (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Jantzi,
1999; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003), answering these “how” questions
means searching for the most powerful mediators of leadership influence on
students. In a summary of mediators used in leadership research up to about
15 years ago, for example, Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified school goalsetting
processes and goal consensus, school culture and climate, decisionmaking
processes, programs and instruction, resources, teachers’ expectations,
commitment and attitudes toward change, instructional organization, sense of
community, and an orderly environment.
Most individual empirical studies aimed at identifying significant leadership
mediators since that review have examined only a single or very small
number of mediators (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006),
whereas the few more comprehensive accounts of potential mediators (Leithwood
et al., 2004; Silins & Mulford, 2002) are likely too complex to act as ready
guides to practice. Furthermore, the basis on which mediators are selected for
attention by researchers often remains unclear; there seems little consensus
about which ones hold the greatest potential.
Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Gazi University on February 1, 2015
Leithwood et al. 673
Such approaches to the identification of powerful leadership mediators provide
little guidance to practicing leaders who, just like researchers, are in the
business of deciding where best to focus their efforts. As a response to these
limitations, this article first describes and then provides an initial and partial
test of a new conception, metaphorical in nature, of how leadership influences
student learning; the term new refers not to the details of the conception
but to its overall structure. This conception of how leadership influences student
learning is intended to be relatively comprehensive in its account of
variables mediating leader effects yet simple and compelling enough to provide
practical guidance.
A New Conception of How Leadership
Influences Student Learning1
The new conception is premised on assumptions about leadership as the exercise
of influence and the indirect nature of its effects on students. Drawing on
recent empirical evidence, this conception includes four distinct “Paths” along
which leadership influence flows to improve student learning: Rational,
Emotions, Organizational, and Family Paths. Each Path is populated by distinctly
different sets of variables (potential mediators of leadership influence)
with widely varying levels of impact on students’ experiences. Selecting the
most promising of these variables (a task requiring knowledge of relevant
research as well as local context) and improving their status or condition are
among the central challenges facing leaders intending to improve learning in
their schools, according to this conception. As the status of variables on each
Path improves through influences from leaders and other sources, the quality
of students’ school and classroom experiences is enriched, resulting in greater
learning. Over an extended period of time, leaders should attend to variables
in need of strengthening on all Paths.
The Rational Path
Variables on the Rational Path are rooted in the knowledge and skills of
school staff members about curriculum, teaching, and learning. In general,
exercising a positive influence on these variables calls on leaders’ knowledge
about what some refer to as the “technical core” of schooling (Murphy
& Hallinger, 1988), their problem-solving capacities (Robinson, 2010), and
their knowledge of relevant leadership practices.
The Rational Path includes both classroom- and school-level variables.
Since there is now a considerable amount of evidence available about the
Downloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Gazi University on February 1, 2015
674 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)
effects on student learning of many such variables, school leaders are able to
prioritize those known to have the greatest chance of improving their students’
learning. In the classroom, Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of evidence, reported as
effect sizes (d), implies that school leaders carefully consider the value of
focusing their efforts on improving, for example, the extent to which teachers
are providing students with immediate and informative feedback (0.73),
teachers’ use of reciprocal teaching strategies (0.74), teacher-student relations
(0.72), the management of classrooms (0.52), and the general quality of teaching
in the school. Effect sizes for these variables are among the highest reported
for all classroom-level variables, whereas at least some variables currently
the focus of considerable effort by school leaders have much smaller effect
sizes; individualized instruction, as one example, has an effect size of 0.23.
Many school-level variables on the Rational Path have reported effects on
student learning as large as all but a few classroom-level variables. Both academic
press2 and disciplinary climate3 stand out among these especially consequential
variables and were selected to represent the Rational Path in this
initial test of the new conception of how leaders influence student learning.
Academic press. Of the more than 20 empirical studies that have been published
since about 1989, by far the majority have reported significant, positive,
and at least moderate relationships between academic press and student
achievement, most often in the area of math but extending to other subjects
such as writing, science, reading, and language as well (e.g., Goddard, Hoy,
& Hoy, 2000). Some recent work positions academic press as an element of
organizational health (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). These and related studies (Ma &
Klinger, 2000; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy,
2007) concluded that increases in a school’s academic press are positively
related to increased math and reading achievement, the size of the relationship
competing with socioeconomic status (SES) in its explanatory power
(Smith & Hoy, 2007). So there is relatively strong evidence that increasing
academic press, either alone or in combination with other variables, results in
increased student achievement.
A small number of studies have identified some of the leadership practices
likely to increase a school’s academic press (e.g., Alig-Mielcarek, 2003; Jacob,
2004; Jurewicz, 2004). Included among those practices are, for example, promoting
school-wide professional development; monitoring and providing
feedback on the teaching and learning processes; developing and communica

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Administrasi pendidikan kuartalan46(5) 671-706© Dewan University untukPendidikan administrasi 2010Izin dan cetakan ulang: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0013161 X 10377347http://eaq.sagepub.com377347EAQ1University Toronto, Ontario, KanadaSesuai penulis:Kenneth Leithwood, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252Bloor St. West, Toronto ON M5S 1V6, Amerika SerikatEmail: [e-mail] konsepsiBagaimana sekolahPengaruh kepemimpinanBelajar siswaKenneth Leithwood, 1 Sarah Patten1,dan Doris Jantzi1AbstrakKegunaan: Artikel ini menjelaskan dan laporan hasil pengujian konsepsi barudari bagaimana kepemimpinan pengaruh pembelajaran ("The empat jalur").Kerangka: Pengaruh kepemimpinan dikonseptualisasikan sebagai mengalir sepanjang empatjalan (rasional, emosi, organisasi, dan keluarga) menuju belajar siswa.Masing-masing jalur dihuni oleh beberapa variabel dengan lebih atau kurang kuatefek pada pembelajaran siswa. Pemimpin meningkatkan pembelajaran dengan meningkatkankondisi atau status variabel-variabel yang dipilih pada jalan. Metode penelitian:Bukti meliputi tanggapan guru survei online (1.445 tanggapan)mengukur praktek kepemimpinan didistribusikan di sekolahnya (N = 199) danvariabel menengahi pemimpin efek pada siswa. Kelas 3 dan 6 matematika dandata prestasi keaksaraan disediakan oleh provinsi tahunan pengujianprogram. Data Kanada sensus 2006 disediakan ukuran kompositSekolah status sosial ekonomi. Jalan pemodelan teknik yang digunakan untuk menguji enamhipotesis. Hasil: Empat jalan model sebagai keseluruhan menjelaskan 43% darivariasi prestasi siswa. Variabel-variabel pada rasional, emosi, danKeluarga jalan demikian pula menjelaskan sejumlah besar bahwa variasi. Variabeldi jalan organisasi tidak berhubungan dengan prestasi siswa. Kepemimpinanmemiliki pengaruh terbesar pada jalur organisasi dan setidaknya pengaruhArtikelDownload dari eaq.sagepub.com di Universitas Gazi pada 1 Februari 201546(5) kuartalan 672 administrasi pendidikandi jalan keluarga. Implikasi: Sekolah para pemimpin dan peneliti kepemimpinanharus dibimbing lebih langsung oleh bukti-bukti yang ada tentang sekolah,kelas, dan keluarga variabel dengan efek yang kuat pada belajar sebagai siswamereka membuat perbaikan sekolah dan penelitian desain keputusan mereka.Kata kuncikepemimpinan, mediasi variabel, academic press, efektivitas kolektif guru,Komunitas belajar profesionalSekolah para pemimpin mampu memiliki efek positif yang signifikan pada siswabelajar dan hasil-hasil penting lainnya (Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd, 2009;Silins & Mulford, 2002; Perairan, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Perkiraanukuran efek bervariasi oleh jenis studi: sederhana dalam kasus berskalabukti-bukti empiris yang cukup besar dalam hal penelitian kualitatif outlierschools—schools in need of being turned around (e.g., Murphy, 2009) orschools that perform significantly beyond expectation (e.g., Mulford, Johns,& Edmunds, 2009). Indeed, enough evidence is now at hand to justify claimsabout significant leadership effects on students that the focus of attention formany leadership researchers has moved on to include questions about howthose effects occur.Because it is widely understood that the effects of school leadership onstudents are largely indirect (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood & Jantzi,1999; Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003), answering these “how” questionsmeans searching for the most powerful mediators of leadership influence onstudents. In a summary of mediators used in leadership research up to about15 years ago, for example, Hallinger and Heck (1996) identified school goalsettingprocesses and goal consensus, school culture and climate, decisionmakingprocesses, programs and instruction, resources, teachers’ expectations,commitment and attitudes toward change, instructional organization, sense ofcommunity, and an orderly environment.Most individual empirical studies aimed at identifying significant leadershipmediators since that review have examined only a single or very smallnumber of mediators (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006),whereas the few more comprehensive accounts of potential mediators (Leithwoodet al., 2004; Silins & Mulford, 2002) mungkin terlalu rumit untuk bertindak sebagai siapPanduan untuk berlatih. Selain itu, dasar pada mediator yang dipilih untukperhatian oleh peneliti sering tetap tidak jelas; tampaknya ada konsensus keciltentang apa yang orang-orang memegang potensi terbesar.Download dari eaq.sagepub.com di Universitas Gazi pada 1 Februari 2015Leithwood et al. 673Pendekatan tersebut untuk identifikasi mediator kepemimpinan yang kuat memberikansedikit bimbingan untuk berlatih pemimpin yang, seperti peneliti, dibisnis untuk memutuskan mana yang terbaik untuk fokus upaya. Sebagai respon terhadap iniketerbatasan, artikel ini menjelaskan pertama dan kemudian memberikan awal dan parsialtes baru konsepsi, metafora di alam, bagaimana pengaruh kepemimpinanpembelajaran; istilah baru tidak menunjuk rincian konsepsitetapi untuk keseluruhan struktur. Konsep bagaimana pengaruh kepemimpinan pelajarpembelajaran ini dimaksudkan untuk menjadi relatif komprehensif dalam rekening yangvariabel menengahi pemimpin efek namun sederhana dan menarik cukup untuk memberikanpetunjuk praktis.A konsepsi baru bagaimana kepemimpinanPengaruh siswa Learning1Konsepsi baru didasarkan pada asumsi tentang kepemimpinan sebagai latihanpengaruh dan sifat tidak langsung dampaknya pada siswa. Menggambar padabukti empiris yang baru, konsep ini mencakup empat yang berbeda "jalan" sepanjangkepemimpinan yang mempengaruhi arus untuk meningkatkan pembelajaran siswa: rasional,Emotions, Organizational, and Family Paths. Each Path is populated by distinctlydifferent sets of variables (potential mediators of leadership influence)with widely varying levels of impact on students’ experiences. Selecting themost promising of these variables (a task requiring knowledge of relevantresearch as well as local context) and improving their status or condition areamong the central challenges facing leaders intending to improve learning intheir schools, according to this conception. As the status of variables on eachPath improves through influences from leaders and other sources, the qualityof students’ school and classroom experiences is enriched, resulting in greaterlearning. Over an extended period of time, leaders should attend to variablesin need of strengthening on all Paths.The Rational PathVariables on the Rational Path are rooted in the knowledge and skills ofschool staff members about curriculum, teaching, and learning. In general,exercising a positive influence on these variables calls on leaders’ knowledgeabout what some refer to as the “technical core” of schooling (Murphy& Hallinger, 1988), their problem-solving capacities (Robinson, 2010), andtheir knowledge of relevant leadership practices.The Rational Path includes both classroom- and school-level variables.Since there is now a considerable amount of evidence available about theDownloaded from eaq.sagepub.com at Gazi University on February 1, 2015674 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)effects on student learning of many such variables, school leaders are able toprioritize those known to have the greatest chance of improving their students’learning. In the classroom, Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of evidence, reported aseffect sizes (d), implies that school leaders carefully consider the value offocusing their efforts on improving, for example, the extent to which teachersare providing students with immediate and informative feedback (0.73),teachers’ use of reciprocal teaching strategies (0.74), teacher-student relations(0.72), the management of classrooms (0.52), and the general quality of teachingin the school. Effect sizes for these variables are among the highest reportedfor all classroom-level variables, whereas at least some variables currentlythe focus of considerable effort by school leaders have much smaller effectsizes; individualized instruction, as one example, has an effect size of 0.23.Many school-level variables on the Rational Path have reported effects onstudent learning as large as all but a few classroom-level variables. Both academicpress2 and disciplinary climate3 stand out among these especially consequentialvariables and were selected to represent the Rational Path in thisinitial test of the new conception of how leaders influence student learning.Academic press. Of the more than 20 empirical studies that have been publishedsince about 1989, by far the majority have reported significant, positive,and at least moderate relationships between academic press and studentachievement, most often in the area of math but extending to other subjectssuch as writing, science, reading, and language as well (e.g., Goddard, Hoy,& Hoy, 2000). Some recent work positions academic press as an element oforganizational health (Hoy & Tarter, 1997). These and related studies (Ma &Klinger, 2000; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006; Hoy et al., 2006; Smith & Hoy,2007) concluded that increases in a school’s academic press are positivelyrelated to increased math and reading achievement, the size of the relationshipcompeting with socioeconomic status (SES) in its explanatory power(Smith & Hoy, 2007). So there is relatively strong evidence that increasingacademic press, either alone or in combination with other variables, results inincreased student achievement.A small number of studies have identified some of the leadership practiceslikely to increase a school’s academic press (e.g., Alig-Mielcarek, 2003; Jacob,2004; Jurewicz, 2004). Included among those practices are, for example, promotingschool-wide professional development; monitoring and providingfeedback on the teaching and learning processes; developing and communica