contact usirep.iium.edu.my/36472/1/distributed_leader_1.pdfdr. sunil kumar mishra associate...

www.ijmra.us March 2013

Volume-3, Issue-3

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

ISSN: 2249-0558

Contact Us:

[email protected]

[email protected] www.ijmra.us

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ijmra.us/


Volume-3, Issue-3


Chief Patron Dr. JOSE G. VARGAS-HERNANDEZ

Member of the National System of Researchers, Mexico

Research professor at University Center of Economic and Managerial Sciences,

University of Guadalajara

Director of Mass Media at Ayuntamiento de Cd. Guzman

Ex. director of Centro de Capacitacion y Adiestramiento

DR. RAMACHANDRAN GURUPRASAD Scientist, Knowledge and Technology Management Division (KTMD),

National Aerospace Laboratories.

Patron Dr. Mohammad Reza Noruzi

PhD: Public Administration, Public Sector Policy Making Management,

Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran

Faculty of Economics and Management, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran

Young Researchers' Club Member, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran

Chief Advisors Dr. NAGENDRA. S. Senior Asst. Professor,

Department of MBA, Mangalore Institute of Technology and Engineering, Moodabidri

Dr. SUNIL KUMAR MISHRA Associate Professor,

Dronacharya College of Engineering, Gurgaon, INDIA

Mr. GARRY TAN WEI HAN Lecturer and Chairperson (Centre for Business and Management),

Department of Marketing, University Tunku Abdul Rahman, MALAYSIA

MS. R. KAVITHA Assistant Professor,

Aloysius Institute of Management and Information, Mangalore, INDIA

Dr. A. JUSTIN DIRAVIAM

Assistant Professor,

Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Sardar Raja College of Engineering,

Alangulam Tirunelveli, TAMIL NADU, INDIA


Volume-3, Issue-3


Dr. Krishan kumar Dean,

School of Life Sciences, Singhania University Rajasthan, INDIA

Dr. G. D. Singh

Certified Manager - Cambridge Association of Managers, England,

Founder & President, The Indian Management Academy - IMA

Dr. Sorinel Capusneanu

Associate Professor,

Faculty of Finance and Accounting, “ARTIFEX" University, Bucharest, ROMANIA

Benard Okelo Nyaare

Assistant Lecturer,

Bondo University College, Bondo, KENYA

Dr. Meenakshi Gupta


Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University- Katra, INDIA

International Editorial Board

Dr. N. Kavitha

Department Of Management,

College Of Business And Economics, Mekelle University, ETHIOPIA

Dr. Roli Pradhan

Mechanical Engg. Deptt., Nitttr Bhopal, INDIA

Dr. Pranam Dhar


Department Of Commerce & Management, West Bengal State University, INDIA

Dr. Sanjay Aswale

Head And Research Guide,

Department Of Commerce, Scs College Omerga

Dr. Farah Naaz Gauri Associate Professor, Department Of Commerce,

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad 431 001, (M.S), India.

Prof. Dr. Badar Alam Iqbal Professor,

Department Of Commerce, Aligarh Muslim University, 202002 (Up) India.

Dr. Jigar VITthalbhai Patel Associate Professor,


Volume-3, Issue-3


Kalol Institute Of Management, Affiliate With Gujarat Technological University (Gtu)

Dr. Manisha Singhai Assistant Professor,

Prestige Institute Of Management And Research, Indore, INDIA

Prof. (Dr.) Bharat Raj Singh

Director (R & D) And Hod-ME, School Of Management Sciences,

Kashimpur-Biruha, Near Gosainganj, Nh-56, Lucknow-227125, Up, India

Dr. Gajendra Singh

Associate Professor, School Of Management,

Doon University, Mothrowala Road, Kedarpur, Po Ajabpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001, India

Dr. S. N. TAKALIKAR

Principal,

St. Johns Institute of Engineering, PALGHAR (M.S.), INDIA

Dr. RAMPRATAP SINGH

Professor, Bangalore Institute of International Management, (BIIM),

Banglore University, Bangalore - 560 059, KARNATAKA

Prof GURSEL ILIPINAR

ESADE Business School,

Department of Marketing, Av. Pedralbes, 60-62, E-08034, BARCELONA, SPAIN

Dr. ZEESHAN AHMED

Software Research Eng,

Department of Bioinformatics, Biocenter, University of Wuerzburg, GERMANY

Dr. Y. LOKESWARA CHOUDARY

Asst. Professor Cum Head (Academics) PG & Research,

SRM B-School, SRM University, Vadapalani, CHENNAI, INDIA

Prof. Dr. TEKI SURAYYA

Professor and Head, Department of Management Studies, Adikavi Nannaya University,

Rajahmundry-533105, ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA

Dr. T. DULABABU

Professor & Principal, Nimra College of Business Management,

The Oxford College of Business Management, BANGALORE- 560 102, INDIA

Dr. A. ARUL LAWRENCE SELVAKUMAR

Professor, Department of Computer Science Engineering,

Adhiparasakthi Engineering College, MELMARAVATHUR, TN.

Dr. S. D. SURYAWANSHI

Lecturer, Mech. Engg. Department,

College of Engineering Pune, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411005(MAHARASHTRA), INDIA

Dr. S. KALIYAMOORTHY


Volume-3, Issue-3


Professor & Director,

Alagappa Institute of Management, Alagappa University, KARAIKUDI, INDIA

Dr Sandeep Bansal Dept of Commerce,

Indira Gandhi National College Ladwa, Kurukshetra,INDIA

Prof SANJAY ASATI

Dept of ME,

M. Patel Institute of Engg. & Tech., GONDIA(M.S.)

Dr. Gajendra Singh


School of Management, Doon University, Mothrowala Road, Kedarpur, Dehradun, INDIA

Dr.R.P.C.S.Rajaram

Assistant Professor ,

Kalasalingam University, 91/C,P.K.S.A.Arumuga Nadar Road, Sivakasi

Dr. D. R.Prajapati Assistant Professor,

Mech. Engg. Deptt., PEC University Of Technology, Sector-12, Chandigarh, INDIA

Dr A. Justin Diraviam


Sardar Raja College Of Engg, Alangulam, Tirunelveli, INDIA

Dr.V.S.Sreebalaji

PRINCIPAL,

Thamirabharani Engineering College, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu 627 357, INDIA

Dr.B.C.M.Patnaik


School Of Management, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, INDIA

Technical Advisors

Mr. Rajan Verma Lecturer, Department of Computer Science, Ambala, INDIA

Mr. Ankit Jain

Department of Chemical Engineering, NIT Karnataka, Mangalore, INDIA

Mr. Anil Chandra Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam, INDIA

Prof. Bharati Veerendra

Asst. Professor - MCA, K. J. Somaiya's SIMSR,, univeristy of Mumbai, Mumbai, INDIA


Volume-3, Issue-3


Mr. Gagandeep Singh Department of Biotechnology, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, INDIA

Associate Editors Dr. SANJAY J. BHAYANI

Associate Professor ,Department of Business Management, RAJKOT, INDIA

MOID UDDIN AHMAD

Assistant Professor, Jaipuria Institute of Management, NOIDA

Dr. SUNEEL ARORA

Assistant Professor, G D Goenka World Institute, Lancaster University, NEW DELHI

Mr. P. PRABHU

Assistant Professor, Alagappa University, KARAIKUDI

Mr. MANISH KUMAR

Assistant Professor, DBIT, Deptt. Of MBA, DEHRADUN

Mrs. BABITA VERMA

Assistant Professor, Bhilai Institute Of Technology, DURG

Ms. MONIKA BHATNAGAR

Assistant Professor, Technocrat Institute of Technology, BHOPAL

Ms. SUPRIYA RAHEJA

Assistant Professor, CSE Department of ITM University, GURGAON


Volume-3, Issue-3


International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering

(ISSN: 2249-0558)

CONTENTS Sr.

No. TITLE & NAME OF THE AUTHOR (S) Page

No.

1 Evaluating Customer Satisfaction for Training Provider in Johor Bahru.

Mohd Saiful Izwaan bin Saadon and Anizan binti Ali 1-11

2 MVAS – Potential Growth Driver For Social And Economic Sector In Rural India.

Sudip Bose and Dr Gagan Pareek 12-22

3 The Application Of Quality Function Deployment For Recruiting New Government Staff.

Dina Azleema binti Hj Mohamed Nor and Mohd Saiful Izwaan bin Saadon 23-31

4 Integration Of New Technological Developments Into Technical College Auto- Mechanics Course

Curriculum For Enhancing Job Readiness Of Automotive Students.

Abdul Latib , A. B, Inti, M.M, & Ahmad, A.D.

32-46

5 CHANGING CUSTOMER ATTITUDES IN RURAL MARKETS (A Holistic Perspective in changing

Indian Economic Scenario).

Dr.Y. Vinodhini and Azam Khan Mahammed

47-51

6 Innovation In Management Of Foreign Currency Reserves In The Globalisation Era.

Dr.A.Muthuchamy and SRP.Vijaya 52-57

7 A Comparative Study of Non Performing Assets of Public and Private Sector Banks in India.

Dr. ANITA SHARMA 58-74

8 A Performance Analysis of TQM and ISO 9000 for an Organizational Excellence.

Dr.G.Ramadoss and Dr.G.Muthuvel 75-89

9 Analysis of Global Financial Crisis and Its Impact on Indian Economy.

Dr.G.Ramadoss and Dr.G.Muthuvel 90-98

10 Visual Rerank: Applying to Large Scale Image Search as a Soft Computing Approach.

Pushpanjali Chouragade and Dr. Prashant Chatur 99-115

11 Challenges in Initiating Small Enterprises: Lessons from Single Retail Shops in Arusha Municipality

Tanzania.

Isaac Kazungu, Benson Otieno Ndiege and Penina Matolo

116-128

12 Influence Of Distributed Leadership On School Effectiveness.

Salisu Abba Yangaiya and Hairuddin Mohd Ali 129-140

13 Mobile Phone An Effective Tool For Management Process Of ADHD.

Maryam Najafi moghadamnejhad and Fatemeh Khoshnavay fomani 141-151

14 Behaviourial Consequences Creating An Impact On Work-Life.

H. GEETHA 152-164


Volume-3, Issue-3


15 Fundamental Issues in the Ethics of Marketing.

Brijesh Goswami and Dr. Rajkumari 165-171

16 Dynamics Of International Marketing Strategies.

Dr.Mohan Kumar T.P and Shivashanthi.S 172-189

17 Efficient Peer-To-Peer Video Streaming For Cooperative Networks.

S.Srithar, Student and Mr.S.AthiNarayanan 190-206

18 Document Filtering:Intelligent Inference System For Web.

Miss.Rasika G.Charate, Dr.P.N.Chatur and Dr.P.N.Chatur 207-222

19 Test Estimation.

Shyam Sunder 223-234

20 Silently Struggle: Everyday Divergence in Surviving in Textile & Apparel Industries in India.

Dr. Mallikarjunappa N.L. 235-251

21 Performance Evaluation Of Urban Co-Operative Banks (UCBS) In India.

Dr.P.S.Ravindra, Dr.O.Narayana Murthy and Mr.Ch.Trinadha Rao 252-264

22 Foreign Direct Investment In Indian Retail Sector.

Benny J. Godwin, Dr. D. Kalapana and Shanmuga Valli 265-274

23 Review of Workflow Scheduling Algorithms in Cloud/Grid Computing.

Salisu Musa Borodo and Aboamama Attahir Ahmed 275-288

24 Optimized Design of Wideband Wilkinson Balun Using Composite Right/Left-Handed Transmission

Line.

Gagandeep Singh, Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon and Sanjay Marwaha

289-298

25 Data Mining Application: Classification of Load Pattern Analysis for Electricity Customers.

Rupali Meshram, Prof. A. V. Deorankar and Dr. P. N. Chatur 299-309

26 Defying Voices, Defining Voices: The Poetic Voice Of Forough Farrokhzad.

K. Tejaswani 310-330

27 Survey On Prefetching Techniques In P2P Video On Demand Systems.

Ms.D.Sugandhi Mariyal 331-344

28 Mining Frequent Itemsets with diverse Association Rule Mining: A Survey.

Dr. P.N. Chatur, Prof. R.V. Mante, D.S. Asudani and A.R. Khobragade 345-352

29 Research Issues In Management Of Defence Funded Schools.

R Sharma 353-361

30 A Study On Risk-Return Relationship Of Mutualfund Equity Schemes.

Dr.R.SARADHAMANI 362-374

31 Wireless Mesh Network: An Enabling Technology.

Abhishek Kumar Gupta, Princi Chauhan and Amit Kumar Chauhan 375-385


Volume-3, Issue-3


32 Analysis For Image Retrieval Of Texture ,Color And Shape Features.

Amanbir sandhu and AARTI KOCHHAR 386-394

33 Customer Perception Towards SMS Advertising.

Aluregowda 395-405

34 Self-Adaptive System Quality Modeling.

Muhammad Imran Habib, Ahsan Raza Sattar, Muhammad Azam Zia, Adnan Munir, Hasnat Ahmad Husni and

Waseem Baig

406-429

35 India and Central Asia: 16th to 21st Century Contacts: An appraisal of Historical contacts.

Dr Darakhshan Abdullah 430-440

36 Relationship Of Economic Growth And Environmental Performance Index: A Study Of Select

Developing Countries.

Dr Namita Rajput, Ms Parminder Kaur and Ms Akanksha Khanna

441-453

37 Design of Smartphone application for Character localization and recognition.

Snehal Charjan, Prof. R. V. Mante and Dr. P. N. Chatur 454-464

38 Effectiveness Evaluation Of Regression Models For Predictive Data-Mining.

Dr. Chatur P. N., Khobragade Anish R. and Asudani Deepak S. 465-483

39 Impact of Government Spending on Industrial Sector productivity in India.

Rajni Pathania 484-497

40 Implementation of Fuzzy – ART Network Using VLSI.

Ashwini S. Gawarle 498-513

41 Security Enhancement of AODV Protocol for Mobile Ad hoc Network.

Ms. Darshana Patel and Ms. Vandana Verma 514-523

42 Competency mapping - A case study of Wipro BPO (Jurisdiction like Kolkata/Bangalore etc).

Utpalendu Mondal and R. K. Patra 524-531

43 Environmental, Economic & Social Impacts of Sustainable Ecotourism Development in Iran & India.

Sayed Ebrahim Mousavi, Dr. G. M. Pondhe and Dr. Ravindra G. Jaybhaye 532-544

44 Cognition Model Based Adaptive Multilevel Filter for Removal of Impulse Noise.

A.Radha and Ms.M.Brindha 545-554

45 Attrition Management in Private Sector Industries in Indian Context.

Abhisek Sarkar 555-561

46 Design of optimized saw filter using Heuristic method.

Neha Yadav and Er. Mohit Mehta 562-574

47 The Buying Behavior & the Future Intensions of Customers of the Retail Sector.

Fayza 575-578

IJMIE Volume 3, Issue 3 ISSN: 2249-0558 __________________________________________________________

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories Indexed & Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gage as well as in Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A.

International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering http://www.ijmra.us

129

March 2013

INFLUENCE OF DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP ON

SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS

Salisu Abba Yangaiya

Hairuddin Mohd Ali*

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship between distributed leadership (DL) and school

effectiveness (SE), It examines which sub-scale of distributed leadership best explains school

effectiveness. Questionnaires were used to get the needed data from secondary school teachers

in Katsina state Nigeria. The questionnaires were adopted from Devis (2009) and Hulpia et al.

(2010) and Oregon County Public Schools (OCPS), for distributed leadership inventory and

school effectiveness scale respectively. Data was obtained from teachers of 227 sample schools.

In all, 499 secondary school teachers sample was used in this study. Findings indicated that all

the five subscales of distributed leadership predict school effectiveness. The predictors

explained 48.4% variance of distributed leadership. Besides, it was revealed that principal

leadership and participative decision making subscales, best predict school effectiveness.

Key words: Distributed leadership, School effectiveness, Correlation, Multiple regressions.

International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)




130

March 2013

Introduction

Leadership can be viewed as the process of identifying, acquiring, allocating and utilizing

material and human resources in order to make condition necessary for innovation and changes

in effective teaching and learning (Spillane 2005). According to Ross, et al. (2005), in the past

leadership theory and studies have focused more on the characteristics, behaviors and outcomes

of the work of a single leader. In other words the task of moving the organization forward rested

squarely on the shoulders of single person, i.e. the person occupying leadership position.

But of recent, there has been a challenge to the dominance of individualized view of

leadership (Ross, et. al., 2005). The challenge for a single leader running an organization is more

pronounced in educational setting compared to other organizations, because of the rise in

demand for education, government policies among other reasons

Moreover, it should be stressed that the practice of heroic leadership cannot be sustained

in today’s world, due to many reasons, such as transfer, turn over, retirement on the part of both

the leaders and followers among others. Harris (2008a), states that the need for change in school

and school systems cannot be overemphasized, as there are several world, national and local

trends that will make significant changes in school and schooling inevitable. For instance,

globalization, employment issues and departure from the ways of engaging school leaders are

some of the factors that will make changes necessary.

The above scenario pave the way for the emergence of new leadership concepts and

practice that will take care or at least minimize some of the challenges organizations especially

educational organizations are facing. There is consensus that the old organizational structures of

schooling simply do not fit the requirement of leading in the twenty-first century (Harris 2005).

Additionally, the problems our schools are facing today will obviously require more distributed

form of leadership, as long as we want effective teaching and learning to be realized and

sustained in those schools (Harris 2008b).

This study is aimed at investigating whether the five constructs of distributed leadership

predict school effectiveness. In addition the study want to investigate which among the five

constructs predicts DL best, within the Nigerian context. To realize the above objectives, two

research questions were formulated. The questions are:




131

March 2013

1. Do the five constructs of distributed leadership predict school effectiveness? And how much

variance in school effectiveness does the five subscales explained?

2. Which among the five subscales of distributed leadership best predict school effectiveness?

Theoretical Framework

Distributed leadership

Today’s schools require a shift from the way they are being governed if effective teaching and

learning are to take place. As noted earlier, the schools are facing serious challenges, like;

teacher burnout, teacher attrition, over crowed classrooms to mention just few. To tackle some

of the problems mentioned, the schools need to be reformed. However, as a result of complexity

of the challenges schools are facing, there are doubts if single heroic leader, can single handedly

spearhead the reforms.

The solution to the above problem is dispersed leadership. This type of leadership is not

new (Gronn, n.d), and though it is the present idea (Harris, 2008a), cannot be said to be a new

leadership technique but rather an intellectual level that emphasizes the fact that leadership needs

an effort and inputs of most members of the organization (Oduro, 2004). As Gronn (2008) notes

there were limits to the ability of principal to tackle the challenges associated with implementing

the needed reform.

According to Spillane (2006) it is not possible for one person to single-handedly lead reform

efforts to improve teaching and learning in a complex organization as a school. Furthermore,

Harris (2008a) opines that school heads and or principals can no longer be able to handle critical

areas requiring leadership in schools. As a result different leadership structures and practice are

past emerging. In addition, Harris (2005) argued that if distributed leadership is in place, more

of the knowledge, skills and talent of staff will be identified, developed and put to use than under

a more traditional hierarchical pattern of leadership.

Moreover, it has been claimed that student’s outcomes are more likely to improve where

leadership sources are shared or distributed throughout the school and where teachers are

empowered in decisions related to teaching, learning and assessment (Silins & Mulford, 2002).

Lashway (2006) claimed that, if distributed leadership is a threat to the established way of doing

things, but it provides respite to the over-crowded job of the principal. At a time when principal

is over stretched, the idea of sharing the challenges across organizational members is tempting.




132

March 2013

Distributed leadership is a form of lateral leadership where the practice of leadership is

stretched within organizational members. In distributed leadership, organizational influence and

decision-making is the responsibility of all members of the organization rather than one

individual direction (Harris, 2008b). Furthermore, Spillane (2006) notes that in distributed

leadership, leadership is no more viewed as the responsibility of school principal and other

formal and informal leaders but the connection and interaction of leaders, followers and their

situations that results to leadership practice.

It is worth noting that distributed leadership goes beyond heroic leader, i.e. single

charismatic or transformational leader. Angelle (2010) argues that distributed leadership is

beyond the single talented and influential leader who changes an organization. It is the stage

where by leadership is shared by the most organizational members for the betterment of the

organization. Distributed leadership can also be viewed as activities carried out by most

members in the organization. Ross, et al. (2005), looks at distributed leadership as a collective

effort of all members of the organization. In other words it is the responsibility of all members of

the organization, not restricted to certain individuals who are occupying the leadership positions.

According to spillane (2006), distributed leadership perspective provides another way of

viewing leadership in our schools, by stressing the aspect of leadership practice and by assuming

that leadership practice is the product of interaction between leaders, followers, and their

situations. In other words, distributed leadership provides a platform and a background for

looking at leadership in another way.

Distributed leadership, which is sometime described as post- heroic leadership model is a

leadership model that empowers the staff as a result of their involvement in almost all what the

organization does. Hulpia and Devos (2010), argues that distributed leadership is also seen as

post heroic leadership model, in this model, leadership is viewed as a team level activities where

leadership is distributed among the school team. Moreover, Oduro (2004), states that post-heroic

leadership encourages teamwork, participation, empowerment, risk-taking and de-emphasizes

control over others.

It should be stressed that educators, researchers as well as policy makers described post-

heroic leadership in different terms; such as dispersed, collaborative, shared, to mention just few.

However, in some cases, these terms are used alternately with distributed leadership to mean the

same thing (Oduro, 2004) but, in some cases, they slightly differ. According to Harris (2008b)




133

March 2013

different related terms of distributed leadership means that leadership is more often than not used

as a short form to explain any form of stretched, collaborative or dispersed leadership practice in

schools.

Relationship between distributed leadership and school effectiveness

School effectiveness can be viewed as the academic standing of the school which can be

explained in terms of output of the school. The output is usually assessed in terms of average

academic achievements of the students in that school at the end of certain period of their formal

schooling (Scheerens 2000). In other words, before a school can be term effective, academic

standing of its students must be looked into at a certain period of their academic pursuits.

In educational setting, school effectiveness research started of in the early 1970’s as a

way of checking the impact of schools and education on students’ educational performance

(Mujis, 2006). There are a number of factors that influences organizational effectiveness, but the

most influential and critical is leadership. As Huber and Mujis (2010) note leadership has since

been recognized as a critical factor in organizational effectiveness. Moreover, Leithwood et al.

(2004) explain that effective educational leadership makes a difference in improving students’

learning. Leithwood et al., further argued that there is nothing new or controversial about that

idea.

However, because of the challenges our schools are facing, there is doubt on the ability of

a single leader to successfully run school toward realization of it’s objective of effective teaching

and learning. According to Lashway (2003), changes being witnessed in schools has

compounded the work of the principal such that the old idea that principal alone can effectively

run school single handedly is no longer tenable. In other words, today’s educational challenges

cannot be effectively tackled by the principals. They need to share, stretch and disperse

leadership in order to move their respective schools forward.

Additionally Pont et al. (2008) opines that distributing leadership across different people

within the organization and organizational structure can tremendously help in tackling most

challenges our schools are facing and more importantly improve school effectiveness.

Furthermore, Harris (2008) argues that distributed leadership has been found to be a factor that

enhances school effectiveness and school improvement. Moreover Angelle (2010) found that in

a school where distributed leadership is practiced, teachers exhibit some features that aid




134

March 2013

students’ achievement. These features are; teachers efficacy, trust, job satisfaction and intention

to stay.

Method

Research instruments

In this study Davis (2009) and Hulpia et al (2010) distributed leadership inventory and Oregon

County Public Schools (OCPS), school effectiveness scale were used to get the needed data from

teachers in the sample secondary schools in Katsina state, Nigeria. The questionnaires were rated

using seven point Likert scale. The rating is 1 = strongly disagree (SD), 2 = moderately disagree (MD), 3

= slightly disagree (SD), 4 = neither agree nor disagree (N), 5 = slightly agree (SA), 6 = moderately agree

(MA) and 7 = strongly agree (SA). Besides, the distributed leadership inventory consist of five

dimensions. Two of the dimensions; artefacts and teacher leadership were adopted from Devis

(2009), while the remaining three; cooperation of leadership team, participative decision making

and principal leadership were adopted from Hulpia et al. (2010). Furthermore, the school

effectiveness scale was adopted from OCPS. The scale contains seven dimensions. These

dimensions are; safe and orderly environment, climate of high expectation for success,

instructional leadership, opportunity to learn and students’ time to task, clear and focused

mission, frequent monitoring of students’ progress and home-school-relation.

Sample

The distributed leadership inventory and school effectiveness scale questionnaires were

administered to seven hundred and fifty teachers of both junior and senior secondary schools in

Katsina state Nigeria. Five hundred and fifty or 73% of the questionnaires were returned, out of

which thirty six or 6.5% of the questionnaires contained serious missing information. These

questionnaires with missing values were excluded from the data set for this study. The decision

to exclude them from the study was because it has been argued that if quite a number of

questions were left unanswered, it is better not to include them in the data set for analysis

(Creswell 2010, Sekeran & Bougie 2010). Furthermore, out of the five hundred and fourteen

retained, fifteen were identified as multivariate outliers and removed from the data set.

Table. 1




135

March 2013

Respondents Background Characteristics

SN Characteristics Frequency Percentage

1 Gender

Male 336 67.3%

Female 163 32.7%

Total 499 100%

2 Age

20-30 189 37.9%

31-40 155 31.9%

41+ 155 31.9%

Total 499 100%

3 Working Experience

1-5 193 38.7%

6-10 161 32.3%

11+ 145 29.1%

Total 499 100%

Table. 1 above shows the respondents background characteristics. In all 499 respondents

were used in this study. Three hundred and thirty six (336) or 67.3% of the respondents were

male while one hundred and sixty three (163) or 32.7% of the respondents were female. The age

of the respondents ranged from 20 to 62 years with an average of 35 years. Moreover, one

hundred and ninety three or 38.7% have 1-5 years working experience; one hundred and sixty

one equivalents to 32.3% have 6-10 years working experience while one hundred and forty five

or 29.1% have more than eleven years working experience. The working experience of the

respondents ranged from 1- 35 years with an average of 9 years.

Result

Table 2 below shows the mean, standard deviation and correlations of the independent variables

(subscales of distributed leadership) and dependant variable (school effectiveness). An

examination of the means of the independent variables indicated that artifacts (ART) received




136

March 2013

the highest score (M = 5.9), followed by; participative decision making (PDCM) (M = 5.4),

teacher leadership (TC. L) (M = 5.4). The subscale with the lowest mean was principal

leadership (PRIN.L) (M = 5.2). Additionally the Pearson correlation matrix revealed that all the

independent variables were statistically and positively correlated with dependant variable SE.

The correlations range from 0.242- 0.532.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable Mean S.D 2 3 4 5 6

1.COLT 5.24 .967 .464 .502 .532 .521 .437

2.PCDM 5.43 1.72 .428 .462 .424 .242

3.PRIN L 5.22 1.73 .404 .421 .257

4.ART 5.87 1.44 .479 .304

5. TC. L 5.40 1.65 .356

6.TotalSE 5.16 1.55

Variables 1-5 subscales of distributed leadership

All correlations are statistically significant p< 0.001

Multiple regression analysis was conducted for identify whether the five subscales of distributed

leadership predicts school effectiveness and which among the five subscales best predicts school

effectiveness. Table 3 below shows the result of the multiple regression analysis. It should be

stressed that in the regression all the five subscales of DL were used. The analysis indicated that

all the five subscales of DL, cooperation of leadership team, participative decision making,

principal leadership, artifacts and teacher leadership were statistically significant predictors of

school effectiveness. The subscales explained 48.4% of the variance of school effectiveness (F.

(5, 493) = 92.38, p = .001.

Furthermore, examination of the table indicated that among the five subscales of

distributed leadership, principal leadership (PRIN.L) (standardized coefficient .23), makes the

strongest unique contribution in explaining the school effectiveness, when the variance explained




137

March 2013

by all other variables is controlled. The next subscale that contributes most is participative

decision making (PDCM) (standardized coefficient .22) and the last is cooperation of leadership

team (COLT) (standardized coefficient .13).

Table 3

Regression coefficients and F-test value for school effectiveness

Variable B SE β Sig. F R2

Constant 2.026 .156 .000 92.38

(5.493)

0.484

COLT .076 .022 .134 .001

PDCM .123 .021 .220 .000

PRIN.L .152 .027 .227 .000

ART .109 .023 .187 .000

TC.L .132 .022 .217 .000

Discussion and conclusion

The findings of this study with regards to the mean of the five subscales of distributed leadership

indicated that; artifacts recorded the highest mean (M = 5.87, SD = 1.44), followed by

Participative decision making (M = 5.43, SD = 1.72), TC.L (M = 5.40, SD = 1.65), COLT (M =

5.24, SD = .967) and PRIN.L (M = 5.22, SD = 1.73). These findings implies that teachers more

often than not uses available tools like examination results among others to improve teaching

and learning (artifact), participate fully in decision making (participative decision making), feel

that they play an important role in moving the school forward (teacher leadership) cooperate with

one another to move the school forward (cooperation of leadership team). However, the

dimension that recorded lowest mean is principal leadership. That notwithstanding, the findings

of the study also revealed that the independent variables (subscales of DL) positively and

statistically predicted the dependant variable school effectiveness. The subscales explained

48.4% variance school effectiveness (F. (5,493) = 92.38, p = .0001. The present study also




138

March 2013

found that among the five subscales of distributed leadership, principal leadership and

participative decision making are the strongest predictors of school effectiveness standardized

coefficient .23 and .22 respectively. But, cooperation of leadership team appears to be the

weakest predictor of school effectiveness, standardized coefficient .13.

. The findings supports Pont et al (2008) who argues that if leadership is distributed across

people and structure, it will help minimize school challenges and improve school effectiveness.

The findings equally supports similar findings ( Angelle 2010, Leithwood et al. 2004, Mujis

2006, Spillane,2006).

The study has practical implication, in that it brought to the fore the need for our

educational administrators at the ministry, zonal offices and school level to appreciate the

importance of distributing leadership in our schools and consequently devise means of

encouraging the principals at school levels to do so. This will go along way in enhancing

effective teaching and learning in our secondary schools and ultimately make them effective.

Moreover, the study being one of the few conducted in Nigeria in general and Katsina state in

particular, has contributed theoretically to the literature, regarding the influence of distributed

leadership on school effectiveness within Nigerian context.

However, the study has some limitations. First, the study was conducted in secondary

schools; as such there is need for research to be conducted in primary and possibly in tertiary

institutions, so as to determine whether same result may be obtained. Similarly, the present

study excluded teachers from private secondary schools; therefore, more research is needed to

incorporate all teachers of secondary schools in the state.




139

March 2013

References

Angelle, P. S. (2010). An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a middle

school. ProQuest Education Journals, 33(5), 1-16.

Creswell, J. W. (2010). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and

Qualitative Research, New jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Davis, M. W. (2009). Distributed Leadership and School Performance. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis,

George Washington University USA.

Gronn, P. (n.d). The significance of distributed leadership, Retrieved on 8th

June, 2011, from

www.scotlandschoolleadershipevent.com.

Harris, A. (2005). Leading or Misleading? Distributed Leadership and School Improvement, Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 37(3).

Harris, A. (2008a). Distributed School Leadership, Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders, London,

Routledge.

Harris, A. (2008b). Distributed leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Educational

Administration, 46(2). 172.

Hulpia, H., Devos, G. & Keer, H. V. (2010). The influence of Distributed leadership on Teachers’

Organizational Commitment: A Multilevel Approach. Journal of Educational Research. Vol.

103, 40-52.

Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed leadership, Research Round up 19(4). Clearing house on educational

policy and management.

Lashway, L. (2006). Distributed leadership, in Smith, S. C. & Piele, P.K, (eds) School leadership (4th

edition), California, Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S. & Wahlstron, K. (2004). How leadership influences students

learning. Retrieved from www.wallacefoundation.org, on 29th

July, 2010.

Mujis, D. (2006). New direction for educational leadership research: towards school effectiveness

without schools, Journal of educational change, 7, 141-160.

Oduro, G. K. T. (2004). Distributed leadership in Schools: What English headteachers say about the

‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association

Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September.

http://www.scotlandschoolleadershipevent.com/

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/




140

March 2013

Oregon County Public Schools (OCPS) (n.d). School Effectiveness Survey. Retrieved

from:https://www.ocps.net/cs/services/accountability/improvement/pages/SIProcess.aspx, on

12th

February, 2011.

Pont, B., Nusche, D. & Moormen, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership Volume 1: Policy and

Practice, Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) Retrieved on June

11, 2011 from www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigends. prescription? International Journal of

Educational Management, 25(1).

Ross, L., Rix, M. & Gold, J. (2005). Learning Distributed Leadership: Part 1, Industrial and

Commercial Training, 37 (3).

Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness; Fundamentals of educational planning; Vol. 68,

retrieved from http// www.unesco.org//iiep, on 8th

December 2010.

Sekaran, U & Bougie, R (2010). Research Methods for Business: A skill building approach. United

Kingdom, John Willey & Sons Ltd.

Silins, H. & Mulford, W. (2002). Leadership and School Results. Dordretcht, the Nertherland. Kluwer.

Spillane, J.P. (2005). Distributed Leadership. The Educational Forum, 69.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

http://www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigends

http://www.unesco.org/iiep

contact usirep.iium.edu.my/36472/1/distributed_leader_1.pdfdr. sunil kumar mishra associate...

Documents