Berihun Eshetu

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF EDPM
Principals‘ Discharge Their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

Schools of Ephratanagidim Woreda.
By: Berihun Eshetu Awake
A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University College of Education and Behavioral

Studies Department of EDPM in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Program
of MA in School Leadership (SCL)
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
June, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF EDPM
Principals‘ Discharge Their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

Schools of Ephratanagidim Woreda.

of MA in School Leadership (SCL)
Advisor : Kenenissa Dabi (PhD)
June, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF EDPM
Principals‘ Discharge their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

School of Ephratanagidim Woreda.

of MA in school leadership (SCL)
Approved by:
Advisor Signature Date
Dr. Kenenissa Dabi ________________ _____________
Internal Examiner Signature Date

_______________ _________________ _______________
External Examiner Signature Date
_______________ _________________ _______________
Statement of Declaration
I, Berihun Eshetu, have carried out independently a research work on the topic entitled
―Primary school principals‘ discharge their instructional leadership roles and challenges.
The case of Ephratanagidim Woreda in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
program of ma in school leadership (SCL) with the guidance and support of the research
advisor Dr. Kenenissa Dabi.
This study is my own work that has not been submitted for any degree or Master program
in this or any other institutions.
Berihun Eshetu Awake
Signature _____________
Date _____________
Statement of Certification
This is to certify that Berihun Eshetu has carried out this research work on the topic
entitled Primary school principals‘ discharge their instructional leadership roles and
challenges. The case of Ephratanagidim Woreda‖ under my supervision. This work is
original in nature and it is sufficient for submission for the partial fulfillment for the
award of Degree of Masters for school leadership.
Dr. Kenenissa Dabi

Signature ____________________
Date ________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Pursuing an MA, study is both painful and enjoyable experience. It‘s just like climbing a
high peak, step by step, accompanied with hardship, frustration, encouragement and trust
and with so many people‘s kind help. Though it will not be enough to express my
gratitude in words to all those people who helped me I would still like to give many
thanks to all these people.
First of all, I‘d like to give my sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr Kenenissa Dabi for the
valuable professional and technical assistance as well as his support and constructive
criticism he gave me all through my work, thus making the writing of this research a real
success.
Special thanks are also given to my wife, W/ro Zehara Seid for her enormous moral
support, encouragement and help made me feel confident to fulfill my desire and to over
conceiver difficulty. It is not sufficient to express my gratitude with only a few words.
I would like to convey my sincere gratitude to my organization, Ataye preparatory and

secondary. School‘s principal Ato Yirga Feleke and supervisor Ato Mamush Sikefagn for
their immeasurable render in financial, moral and technical support.
My appreciation also extends to my colleague and staff members in, Ataye preparatory
and secondary school for their precious time in facilitating my study in one way or
another.
Finally, I would like to thank all principals and supervisors who helped me to conduct my
surveys and Interviews at their respective schools.
Contents
INTRODUCTION1
1.1 Background of the study ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research questions .................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Objectives of the study .............................................................................................. 6
1.4.1 General objective of the study ............................................................................ 6
1.4.2 Specific objectives of the study .......................................................................... 6
1.5 Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 7
1.6 Delimitation of the study ........................................................................................... 7
1.7 Limitation of the study .............................................................................................. 8
1.8 Definitions of operational terms ................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................ 10
2.1 Concept of instructional leadership ......................................................................... 10
2.2 Overview of instructional leadership ...................................................................... 11
2.3 Overview of instructional leadership in Ethiopia .................................................... 12
2.4 Instructional leadership framework ......................................................................... 13
2.5. The roles of principals as instructional leader ........................................................ 15
2.5.1. Defining and communicating the school goals.............................................. 16
2.5.2 Managing curriculum and instruction............................................................... 17
2.5.3 Supervising and evaluating instruction............................................................. 17
2.5.4 Monitoring instructional program .................................................................... 18
2.5.5 Creating conducive and healthy school climate ............................................... 18
2.6 Practice of instructional leaders .............................................................................. 19
2.6.1. Program coordination ...................................................................................... 19
2.6.2 Direct assistance ............................................................................................... 20
2.6.3 Action research ................................................................................................. 21
2.6.4 Curriculum development .................................................................................. 21
2.6.5 Principals as professional development ............................................................ 22
2.7 Instructional leadership effectiveness ..................................................................... 22
2.8. Instructional leadership and teaching and learning. ............................................... 23
2.9 Challenges for instructional leadership effectiveness ............................................. 23
2.10 Summary on review of related literature ............................................................... 25
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 26
3.1 Research design ....................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Data source .............................................................................................................. 27
3.3 Sample population and Sampling technique ........................................................... 27
3.4 Data collection instruments ..................................................................................... 31
3.4.1 Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 31
3.4.2 Interview ........................................................................................................... 31
3.4.3 Focused Group Discussion (FGD) ................................................................... 32
3.4.4 Document Analysis........................................................................................... 32
3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Instruments ............................................................. 32
3.5.1 Pilot test ............................................................................................................ 32
3.5.2 Validity of the Study......................................................................................... 33
3.5 Data collection procedure........................................................................................ 33
3.6 Method of data analysis .......................................................................................... 33
3.7 Ethical consideration ............................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER FOUR
4. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................... 35
4.1 Characteristics of respondents ................................................................................. 35
4.1.2 Biography of Respondents................................................................................ 35
4.2. Presentation and discussion of data ........................................................................ 39
4.2.1 Instructional Leadership roles Viewed by Principals and teachers .................. 39
4.2.2 Dimensions of Instructional Leadership ........................................................... 39
4.2.2 Instructional Leadership effectiveness ............................................................. 50
4.2.3 Challenges of Instructional Leadership effectiveness. ..................................... 53
CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
........................................................................................................................................... 61
5.1. Summary ................................................................................................................ 61
5.2 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 66
5.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 66
List of Figures
Figure 1: Hollinger &Murphy instructional leadership framework .................................. 15
Figure 2: distribution of leaders in leadership effectiveness level for each dimension .... 52
List of Tables
Table 1: Target population and sample size in selected schools ...................................... 29
Table 2: Total target population and sample size ............................................................. 30
Table 3 : characteristic of respondents.............................................................................. 35
Table 4 : Respondents by qualification and field of specialization ................................ 36
Table 5 : Respondent by experience ................................................................................. 38
Table 6 : Levels of instructional leader by using mean value ........................................... 39
Table 7 : defining and communicating school goals ........................................................ 40
Table 8 : managing the curriculum and instruction .......................................................... 42
Table 9 : supervising and evaluating instructional program ............................................. 44
Table 10 : monitoring the instructional program .............................................................. 46
Table 11 : creating positive school climate....................................................................... 49
Table 12 : distribution of leaders in the leadership effectiveness level for each dimension
........................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 13 : Lack of skill and Training................................................................................ 54
Table 14 : Lack of cooperation and commitment ............................................................. 56
Table 15 : lack of resource availability and allocation ..................................................... 58
Table 16 : Lack of vision, will and courage...................................................................... 59
Abbreviation and acronyms
B.A Bachelor of Arts
B.ed Bachelor of Education
B.Sc Bachelor of Science
EDPM educational planning and management
ESDP Education sector development program
FGD Focus Group Discussion
M.A Masters of Arts
M.Sc Masters of Science
MOE Ministry of Education
SCL school leadership
UNESCO united nation education science and culture organization
WEO Wereda Education Office

Primary school principals’ discharge their instructional leadership roles and challenges
in the case of Ephratanagidim woreda
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the primary school principals’ discharge
their instructional leadership roles and challenges in government primary schools of
Ephratanagidim woreda, North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia,
Leader’s engagement in the dimensions such as defining and communicating the school
goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and evaluating instruction,
monitoring instructional program and creating a conducive learning climate were used
to understand how discharge their role and its effectiveness of primary school
instructional leadership. The major challenges that used to measure their constraints on
leadership effectiveness were, lack of knowledge, will, and courage, lack of skill and
training, lack of cooperation with stake holders and lack of resources were considered.
The research methodology employed in the study was both quantitative and qualitative
approaches .For quantitative portion, a questionnaire was prepared to be filled by
teachers, principals, unit leaders and department heads. For the qualitative portion,
interviews, document analysis and FGD were administered. The study was conducted in
16 primary schools selected from 16 clusters by using a cluster sampling technique. The
questionnaires were distributed to sample size of 192 teachers, 20 school principals and
vice principals, 48 department heads and 20 unit leaders. 256 out of the 280 distributed
questionnaires were returned, producing an overall 91.43% return rate. Interview
respondents and FGD were properly 100% participated. Data obtained through
questionnaires were analyzed using statistical tools such as frequency, percentage; mean
value, and t-value. The findings from the data analysis revealed that most school leaders
were not strong (effective) neither in each dimension nor in their overall instructional
leadership role. The study also tells us they more give emphasis for administrative role
than that of instructional role due to lack of qualification in the profession, lack of
training, and lack of resource. Finally, based on the findings and conclusions,
recommendations were made for WEO, principals and other responsible bodies to do
their instructional work effectively.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter starts with background information that led to the statement of the problem;
and then elaborates the objective of the study, significance of the study, scope of the
study, and finally operational definition of key terms.
1.1 Background of the study

Educational Organizations give product and services to the society. School systems are
the bases for the production and provision of qualified human resources. They are in
charge of achieving educational objectives to shape pupils in accordance with the needs
and interest of beneficiaries. It is generally believed that a society‘s future layer depends
on the success of schools, Harris et al (2005).
In order to accomplish their purpose or to deliver learning through effective teaching and
the success is determined by school leaders (Krug, 1992:432). This indicates they are less
efficient without leaders. To this end, Kets de Vries (2006:1) point out that
"Organizations are like Automobiles, they do not run themselves except downhill‖. This
implies that any organization needs the right people to make them work.
As a result, a leader is the person who is influencing his/her follower so that they strive
willingly and enthusiastically towards the accomplishment of goals Ezeuwa (2005).When
we say leadership, one need to distinguish between the traditional and modern view of
the term. The traditional view of leadership emphasized on hierarchical and procedural
notions and assumed that leadership is the sole responsibility of school principals. And it
was also advocated that for many decades, the major duties of principals were performing
management routine tasks as planning, organizing, monitoring evaluating budgeting,
scheduling and facility maintaining. These tasks were evidenced in giving orders, dealing
with school budget, arranging classrooms timetables, monitoring attendance and absence
of teachers and students. (Noonan & Hellsten, 2013; Blase & Blase, 1999). The old
image of the principal‘s roles dominated most schools for a long period of time, but now,
it is the time to move and take series steps to change this image.
1
Instructional leadership is one of the new images of principals‘ role which is defined
differently by different scholars in different manner. ‗‗Instructional leadership is a model
of leadership which is directly related to the process of instruction, teachers, learners, and
the curriculum that focuses on students learning and achievement through development
of others, and also invests incapacity building by developing social and academic capital
for students and all intellectual, professional capital for teachers‘‘ (Harris 2005; Leithood
& Jantzi 1999). Therefore, from this definition of instructional leadership, four key
emphases are found: students, teachers, teaching and learning activities, and principals.
This means that instructional leadership is directly related with teaching and
improvement of student learning in schools.
Instructional leadership can also be defined as ‗‗those actions that principals take, or
delegate to others, to promote growth in students‘ learning‘‘ (Bush, 2003). In practice,
this means that the principal ensures educational achievement by making instructional
quality the top priority of the school. Fullan (1991:161) also explains that ‗‗instructional
leadership is an active, collaborative form of leadership where the principal works with
teachers to shape the school as a workplace in relation to shared goals, collaboration,
learning opportunities, teacher commitment, and student learning‘‘. (Rowe, 2007) also
defined that ‗‗Instructional leaders spend most of their time dealing strictly with curricula
matters rather than administrative functions‘‘
In relation to the role expected from the school leaders for effective instructional
leadership, different authors and researchers have developed different conceptual
frameworks based on the characteristics of effective schools and effective principals.
Snyder. (1983: p.32), for instance, conceptualized instructional leadership in terms of
planning, staff and program development and evaluation activities using such
organizational properties, however may not entirely capture the normative dimension of
school social organization without which the instructional leadership tasks of leaders
could not influence the quality of instruction as well as student achievement. Considering
such limitation of Snyder‘s conceptual model, Hallinger and Murphy (1987:p.56)
developed a three dimensional conceptual frame work which embraces eleven functional
categories framing goals, communicating goals, Knowledge of curriculum and
instruction, coordinating curriculum, supervising and evaluating instruction, monitoring
2
progress, setting standards, setting expectations, protecting time and promoting
improvement.
Recent authors and researchers, however, reframed the conceptual framework of

instructional leadership in to five dimensions based on Halingers and murphys functional
categories and other similar studies, these dimensions that are defining and
communicating the school goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising
instruction, monitoring instructional program and promoting school learning climate
(krug,1992:p.431).
To this end, the Ethiopia Educational and Training Policy, (MOE, 1994: p: 29-30) states
that educational management should be democratic, professionally coordinated, efficient
and effective. In addition, the management of teachers and other educational personnel
will be organized based on professional principle, professional code of ethics, has been
organized based on professional principles including professional code of ethics, working
condition, incentives and professional growth and over all right and duties.
Therefore , regarding the role of principal as instructional leaders, government of

Ethiopia has prepared a guide line which incorporate principals instructional leadership
role and criteria for recruitment and selection of competent principals at primary schools
with higher standard in academic readiness, well experiences in instructional activities
and commitment aspects of teachers to be school principals (MOE.2005:11-12). The
government of Ethiopia also has given an opportunity for principals to get instructional
leadership and EDPM course in order to improve principals‘ instructional leadership
duties.
Although an attempt has been made to make the educational administration system
professional, in my opinion still a lot remain to be done, particularly in the area of
principals‘ instructional leadership role. Therefore, from the actual challenges of
instructional leadership and the need to have effective schools, which provide quality
education, a study of primary school principals‘ instructional leadership role and
challenges in Ephratanagidim woreda of North Shoa Zone have a vital significance from
the perspective of policy and the need of the societies.
3
1.2 Statement of the problem
Instructional leadership has a particular importance in educational administration because

of its far reaching effects on the accomplishment of school programs, objectives, and
educational goals (Fullan: 1991). In light of this, primary school principals are expected
to perform well with instructional leadership activities. However, in most schools the
principals‘ day is filled with activities of management like scheduling, reporting, and
handling relations with parents and community, dealing with multiple crisis and special
situations that are inevitable in schools (Akinyi 2013). Most principals may spend
relatively little time in classrooms teaching and learning and even less analyzing
instruction with teachers (Murphy, 2009). They may not implement the instructional
leadership as expected to bring changes in the school systems as effective as possible.
In most cases the problem with instructional leadership is related to the fact that many
schools leaders are not educational experts. Moreover, there are some school leaders who
perceive their role to be administrative and, as such, they purposely distance themselves
from the classroom environment.
UNESCO, 2013 research confirmed that ―Majority of school principals in Ethiopia, were
incapable in performing instructional leadership practices. They have not been trained in
professional disciplines that make principals in primary schools ineffective and
inefficient in performing instructional leadership activities as expected of them‖ There
are also some researches that verify the instructional leadership acictivities in Ethiopia.
Studies like (e.g., Addisu Chonde (2012), Tesfaye Nigussie, 2010; Alemayehu Tesema,
2011) have been conducted nationally on issues related to practice and challenges of
instructional leadership.
However, most of them are different in numerous ways from the current study. For
example, a study by Tesfaye Nigussie (2010) entitled as ―the role of instructional
leadership in building organizational climate of secondary schools of Bale Zone‖ , by
Alemayehu Tesema (2011) entitled as ―a comparative study of instructional leadership
roles of principal in some selected government and Catholic secondary schools in Addis
Ababa‖ Addisu Chonde(2012) entitled as― practice and challenges of instructional
leadership in selected preparatory schools of Hadiya Zone, SNNPRS‖ and
4
UNESCO.(2013) entitled as― A Survey Study of school factors affecting quality of
education in secondary schools of Ethiopia‖ are the four prominent studies, in different
regions, Oromia, Amhara, Addis Abeba administrative town and in Ethiopia as a whole,
certify that the practice was not effective. The four researchers indicated above generally
identified the following four factors, namely teacher resistance to change; pressure from
none instructional jobs; lack of instructional feedback and lack of staff cohesiveness, lack
of training and inefficiency in administration are the major hindrances for unsuccessful
implementation of instructional leadership in the secondary and preparatory schools.
However, they are different from this study in three different ways. Firstly, they focused
on secondary and preparatory schools not focusing primary schools which are the
stepping stone for quality education. Secondly, the methodology they emphasized was
quantitative, whereas, this study is both qualitative and quantitative. Thirdly this study
focuses on primary school principals instructional leadership roles and challenges in
woreda level not in zonal and regional level to become more specific.
Regarding the principals‘ discharge their role , since the researcher himself has been
working in Epratanagidim woreda secondary and preparatory schools as teacher,
department head and school vice principal for ten years, he has got a chance to participate
in woreda‘s educational meeting and listening of woreda‘s educational reports. From
their report, they were not mostly focusing on instructional part. Rather they focus on
performing management routine tasks as planning, organizing, monitoring evaluating
budgeting, scheduling and facility maintaining, in giving orders, dealing with school
budget not focusing about teaching and learning. Because of this there were complaints
from educational officials at the Woreda and Zonal levels regarding the poor performance
of principals and low achievements of students in relation to their leadership
responsibilities.
The researcher also has a chance to observe students‘ performance coming from primary
schools to high school. Since primary schools are the stepping stone for quality
education doing research on primary school especially on instructional part can
contribute its own value for improvement of quality education. However, to the best of
my knowledge, until now no studies were identified that show discharge their role and
challenges primary school principals in the woreda.
5
Thus based on the above back ground and assumption the researcher want to undertake
this study in order to assess how primary schools principals discharge their instructional
leadership roles and the challenges to discharge their instructional leadership. Though,
such problems seem to be prevalent in the study area primary schools and the researcher
taken as a serious problem.
Therefore, this study attempts to make an assessment on primary school principals‘

discharge their instructional leadership roles and challenges in Ephratanagidim Woreda,
North Shoa Zone, Amhara Regional sate of Ethiopia. In the process of the study the
researcher would attempt to answer the following basic questions:
1.3 Research questions
1) To what extent do primary school principals discharge their instructional

leadership role?
2) How do primary school principals be effective to discharge their instructional
leadership role?
3) What are the challenges of primary school principals that constrain instructional
leaderships?
1.4 Objectives of the study
1.4.1 General objective of the study
To investigate the primary school principals‘ discharge their instructional

leadership roles and challenges in Ephratanagidim Woreda.
1.4.2 Specific objectives of the study
• To identify the extent of primary schools principals‘ instructional leadership

practice in Ephratanagidim Woreda.
• To examine the effectiveness of primary school principals‘ instructional

leadership in Ephratanagidim Woreda.
• To find out major challenges of primary school principals‘ instructional

leadership in the area under the study is carried out.
6
1.5 Significance of the study
It is expected that from the finding of this study, educational leaders of primary
schools and other co-managerial bodies got some important information about primary
school principals‘ instructional leadership roles and challenges. Thus, this study will be
important for the following points:
• The study will provide information for higher officials of the regional, zonal
and Woreda level, regarding how the primary school principals discharge
his/her instructional leadership roles.
• It will also serve as information source for educational officials at different

levels of the education hierarchy regarding the primary school principals‘
instructional leadership effectiveness in Ephratanagidim Woreda.
• The study will also provide information to Zonal and Woreda educational
leader regarding major challenges of primary school principals‘ instructional
leadership effectiveness in the area under the study is carried out.
• It will also provide valuable information to the primary school principals

about how do they discharge instructional leadership roles and enable them to
take corrective actions for the major challenges they faced.
• The finding of the study will serve as a spring board for initiating further
studies in the area.
1.6 Delimitation of the study
Delimitation defined as ‗‗arbitrarily narrowing the scope of the study and focusing only
on selected aspects of the problem, certain areas of interest, a limited range of subjects
and level of sophistication involved‘‘ Kumar (2005, p.38).This study was delimited to
assess primary school principals' instructional leadership roles and challenges in
government owned primary schools of Ephratanagidim woreda.
Instructional leadership deals with diversified dimensions. Including all dimensions

would be beyond the researcher‘s resources capacity. Therefore, the scope of the study is
delimited to five dimensions of instructional leadership consisting of defining and
7
communicating the school goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and
evaluating of instruction, monitoring instructional program and promoting conducive
school climate of the primary schools.
The study was delimited on Ephratanagidim woreda found in North Shoa Zone of
Amhara region, Ethiopia. It comprised 24 kebeles and one administrative town in it. In
this woreda there are 78 governmental primary schools and one non-governmental
school. Taking this in to account, this study was delimited in 16 schools out of 49
government primary schools having first and second cycles in order to get full
information about primary schools. The remaining 29 government primary schools are
not be included because the schools are newly established, the teachers and principals
are not well experienced, and their teachers numbers are less than 20. Moreover, the
non-governmental school is not also included as a study sample because of their variation
in their management, recruitment, supervision, and salaries from the government schools.
1.7 Limitation of the study

This study has a number of its own limitations. The first important limitation was lack of
access of internet and lack of related literatures. The researcher feels that, had it been
possible to access review literatures. It would have been possible to substantiate, the
practice and challenges of instructional leadership more, and come up with better work.
The second limitation was the research limited only to 16 primary schools as the result it
may affect generalization of the findings to all schools in the woreda. Other important
constraints of this study was failure to incorporate students, Parent Teacher Association
and Kebele Education and Training Board members as data sources who are important
stakeholders of education system and who are believed to have some information
regarding overall process of instructional leadership. This exclusion was due to shortage
of time to collect data from this source. As the result of these above mentioned
limitations, the outcomes of the study were not as completed as it was initially
anticipated.
8
1.8 Operational definitions of key terms
Clustered Schools : A cluster is a group of schools that work together to share

experience, resources and training and resolve common problems in order to create
opportunities for continual professional development, most of the training and
development comes from the teachers themselves
Instructional leadership dimension: Refers to the main pillars or frame works of

responsibilities, competence and the roles that instructional leaders performs to achieve
improved inputs (Krug, 1992)
Instructional leadership Effectiveness: Frequency of leaders‘ engagement in the role

behavior (or practices) used to represent the five instructional leadership dimensions
(Hollinger and Murphy, 1987, p.98).
Instructional leadership: A leadership activity carried out by the school principals with
special consideration to teaching and learning process in the school environment.
Leadership: refers to the process of influencing individual and staffs in the activity of
goal-setting and attainment of school goals.
Primary school: Refers to the school system established to offer four years of first cycle
(1-4) and four years second cycle (5-8).
Principal: is an instructional leader appointed at the top position in the school to manage,
operate and lead the whole activities of the school.
9
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Demands for improving student learning and performance is increasing and educational
leaders are being urged to focus their effort on the core business of school teaching and
learning (Leithwood et.al, 2006). Instructional leadership can be conceptualized as a
major part of a total operation of a school geared to bring about improvement in teaching-
learning process. In the complex field of modern educational administration and
management, the instructional leader acts as an essential means of expression for
improving instruction and developing teachers‘ initiative, responsibility, creative, internal
commitment and motivation. It has a pivotal position in improving quality of education
and student growth.
2.1 Concept of instructional leadership

Different scholars‘ defines instructional leadership in different manner. ‗‗Instructional
leadership is a model of leadership which is directly related to the process of instruction,
teachers, learners, and the curriculum that focuses on students learning and achievement
through development of others, and also invests incapacity building by developing social
and academic capital for students and all intellectual, professional capital for teachers‘‘
(Harris 2005; Leithood & Jantzi 1999). Therefore, from the review on definitions of
instructional leadership, four key emphases are found: students, teachers, teaching and
learning activities, and principals. This means that instructional leadership is directly
related with teaching and improvement of student learning in schools.
Instructional leadership can also be defined as ‗‗those actions that principals take, or
delegate to others, to promote growth in students‘ learning‘‘ (Bush, 2003). In practice,
this means that the principal ensures educational achievement by making instructional
quality the top priority of the school.
The principals as instructional leaders should at all times strive for excellence in teaching
and learning with the sole purpose of improving student achievement. In order to secure
legitimacy in the eyes of the teachers, principals should have sufficient teaching
experience and should understand with firsthand experience the instructional challenges
faced by teachers (Hargreaves & Fink 2006).
10
Instructional leadership is a change from conventional management practice of the
schools, in which principals were seen as general managers of the schools, to a new type
of leadership Hallinger and Murphy (1985)
2.2 Global experience in instructional leadership
Since 1980s, the instructional leadership has been a demand to be implemented in an

effective school as the result of the external policies in some countries like in North
America and has gained some interests in Britain and also some countries in Asia
(Hallinger, 1985, p. 223).
Moreover, Hallinger (1985) states that ―In the United States, instructional leadership
became strongly identified as a normatively desirable role that principals who wished to
be effective should fulfill‘‘ (Hallinger, 1985, p. 223). During the 1980s, the policymakers
in education urged the schools‘ principals to implement instructional leadership in order
to develop the schools. The policymakers believed that by doing so, it would enable the
schools to enhance the students‘ learning outcome and make the school more effective.
(Hallinger, 1985, p. 223.)
Furthermore, since the year 2000 until now, the policymakers still urge the principal to
exercise the instructional leadership as the US National Association of Elementary
School Principals proposes that high standards for student achievement call for high
standards of performance from the adults involved in education process and suggests that
principals must be leaders in improving instruction and student achievement (Ezenne, A.,
2010, p. 182).
Throughout Africa, there is no formal requirement for principals to be trained managers.

They are often appointed on the basis of a successful record as teachers with an implicit
assumption that this provides a sufficient starting point for school leadership. In Kenya,
for example, ―deputy principals as well as good assistant teachers are appointed to the
leadership without any leadership training. But good teaching abilities are not necessarily
an indication that the person appointed will be a capable educational leader‖ (Kitavi &
van der Westhuizen, 1997). Principal ship in schools is one of the influential
administrative positions in the success of school plans with respect to the historical back
ground of principal ship, authorities give their own argument. The position developed
11
from classroom teacher with a few administrative duties to principal teacher and then to
supervising principal.
2.3 National experience in instructional leadership
The history of Ethiopian education system traces back its origin to the introduction of
Christianity about fourth century A.D. However, the western type of education system
was formally introduced into Ethiopia in 1908 with the opening of Menelik second
school. In 1943 the first high school which was dominated by expatriates was opened.
According to Ahmed at its early stage the history of principal ship in Ethiopia was
dominated by foreign principals. In all government owned schools that were opened
before and few years after the Italian occupation expatriates from France and Britain
were assigned as school principals. After the restoration of independence in 1942,
education was given high priority which resulted in opening of schools in deferent parts
of the country. However, there was not enough educated Ethiopians to teach and run
schools, most of the teachers and principals in school were from foreign countries such as
USA, Egypt and India. According to MOE (2002) prior to 1962 expatriate principals
were assigned in the elementary and secondary schools of different provinces of Ethiopia.
Gradually, the history had developed in to a new phase where Ethiopians began to
replace expatriates which started in 1964. According to Teshome, 2013 (cited in Ahmed,
2006) this new phase of principal ship started with supervising principals such leaders
were responsible for the school and the education system of the community where the
schools located. From 1960s the Ethiopian schools principals were directly assigned in
elementary school without competition among candidates. Only educational level and
teaching experience were given highest priority for principal ship. However, during the
first few years of 1960s it was understood that those graduates of certificate in teaching
were directly assigned in primary schools. On the other hand, the promotion that were
issued from 1973-1976 show that primary school principals were those who had at least
worked for a limited time as a unit leader, department heads or teacher. It is also stated in
the job description of the MoE issued in 1989 that primary school principals should have
certificate in school administration and supervision including sufficient work
experiences. But in Ethiopia most principals are appointed by the government without
enough training, experience and development in leadership.
12
Major problems of primary school principals in instructional leadership are: lack of
professional training for principal ship, lack of required qualification and commitment in
making maximum use of environment resources and negative attitude toward leadership
MOE (2002). This shows that instructional leadership as professions has been given little
attention.
Generally, considering education as key elements for economic, social and technological
development, many countries invest substantial amount of their national resources for the
improvement of their education. Similarly the government of Ethiopia recognizing the
role of education in economy, the ministry of education has placed great emphasis on
professional development for school principals, vice principals, department heads,
teachers as well as officers in charge of education at different levels. In its education
sector development program ESDP-IV (2010:12) the ministry of education stated that
although the decentralization reforms have been implemented some years ago and
important responsibilities have been transferred to the woreda offices and school
functioning also needs further improvement in particular concerning school leadership.
MoE, 2008 acknowledged that educational leadership are professional by their own with
established theories and practices and indicated that those who assumed these roles
should be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to exhibit proper
professional ethics that are necessitated at school levels. Instructional leadership play
roles to improve students‘ learning outcomes, teachers‘ profession and produce well
educated citizens at all levels. Finally the approaches of instruction and create an
environment and situation which can lead them to practices effective instructional
leadership role in their respective schools.
2.4 Instructional leadership framework
According to Leithwood et al. (2006), there have been 125 studies published between
1980 and 2000 regarding the foundational model of instructional leadership. These
authors concluded that ― Hallinger and Murphy (1985) model was the most fully
specified model and by far the most empirical evidence concerning the nature and effects
of that model in practice‖.
13
The Hallinger and Murphy (1985) framework of instructional leadership was among the
first to identify specific, key behaviors enacted by principals in an attempt to more
carefully define the construct of instructional leadership. The research team adopted this
framework as a conceptual framework to guide the research, data analysis, and
interpretation because it is the dominant and most widely affirmed school leadership
terminology for the past quarter of a century and has been used most frequently in
empirical investigations (Hallinger, 2008;Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al.,
2006).
This definition of instructional leadership is comprised of three dimensions, each

accompanied by sub-scale dimensions or functions. The three primary dimensions
include: (a) Defining the School‘s Mission, (b) Managing the Instructional Program, and
(c) Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate.
Based upon this conceptual framework, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) developed the
instructional leadership model by examining the instructional leadership functions of
school principals through collecting information from principals, school staffs and central
administration supervisors, via a common questionnaire and other school data to
supplement instructional leadership roles. From the synthesis of questionnaire and the
organizational information, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) created a framework of
instructional management with three dimensions and eleven job descriptions.
Another authors and researchers Weber (1996), however, reframed the conceptual
framework of instructional leadership in to five dimensions and eleven job descriptors.
based on Hollinger and Murphy functional categories. The first dimension instructional
leadership is defining and communicating school goals by the principal job descriptors of
framing school goals and communicating the goals to stakeholders. The second
dimension is managing the curriculum and instruction which involve working directly
with teachers in areas related to curriculum and instruction by supervising and evaluating
instruction, coordinating school curriculum, and monitoring student progress. The third
dimension is supervising and evaluating the instructional program which involve
frequently conduct class room observation in order to see teachers‘ professional and gives
feedback to teachers soon after class – supervision. The last dimension is promoting a
positive school climate by protecting instructional time, promoting professional
14
development, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers, enforcing
academic standards, and providing incentives for students.
Figure 1: Hollinger &Murphy instructional leadership framework
2.5. The roles of principals as instructional leader
The successes of any instructional leadership role are mainly determined by the extent to
which instructional leadership dimensions are implemented within the schools.
Therefore, the most important dimensions such as defining and communicating the
school goals, managing curriculum and instructional program, supervising and evaluating
instruction, managing and monitoring instructional program, monitoring student
15
progress, promoting professional development and creating positive school learning
climate (Murphy,1990).
2.5.1. Defining and communicating the school goals.
There are two functions that include this dimension; framing the school‘s goals and
communicating the school‘s goals. This dimension focuses on the principal‘s role in
establishing the main purpose of the school. The school‘s goals can be determined by the
principal or in cooperation with the school staff. This dimension concentrates on the
principal‘s role working with the school staff to make sure that the school has clear,
measurable, time-based goals focused on the academic progress of students ( Ayalew. S
,2000). The principal is also responsible to declare and spread the goals through the
whole school stakeholders so that they will support and integrate the goals into their daily
practice.
The principal along with the staff members need to assess the past and present status of
students' performances past experience of the school and resource flexibility while
developing them (Robinson.et.al, 2008: 21). Adjacently, leaders of effective schools
frame the school goals in terms of staff and student responsibilities to ensure their
achievement (Hallinger, 1985: 218). After defining the school goals, leaders are expected
to build understanding of and commitment to those goals by communicating them widely
and systematically to teachers, students and parents (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985: 79).
To this end, leaders discuss and revise the goals with staff on a regular basis during the
school year, especially in the context of instructional, curricular and budgetary decisions
(Hallinger, 1985: 218). Both formal communication channels (eg. displaying on notice
board, placing up over the entrance of the school, the school handbook, assemblies) and
informal ones (eg. parent conferences, teacher conferences, curricular meetings, other
discussions with staff) can be used to communicate the schools primary purpose (Weber
(1996). The leader, therefore, through his/her articulation and dissemination of goals, can
promote both accountability and instructional improvement in the school. This in turn
improves students' achievement (Hallinger and Murphy, 1987: 57).
16
2.5.2 Managing curriculum and instruction
This dimension integrates three leadership functions; supervising and evaluating

instruction, coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress. Basically, the
second dimension aims at the integration and control of instruction and curriculum. The
principal is required to have proficiency in teaching and learning at school and also to
have commitment in developing the school. The principal needs to be highly involved in
encouraging, directing, and observing teaching and learning at school. (Hallinger and
Heak, 2010, p. 158.)
Managing the instructional program involves working directly with teachers in area
related to curriculum and instruction (Hallinger and Murphy 1985).Therefore,
instructional leaders promote quality instruction by conducting teaching conferences and
evaluating, visiting classroom, providing specific suggestions and feedback on the
teaching-learning process and determining teachers assignments in the best interests of
the student learning.
2.5.3 Supervising and evaluating instruction
Various writers emphasize instructional supervision as fundamental component of

instructional leadership, viewing this role as imperative to improve instruction and
students achievements. They are also pointed out that there is general agreement among
writers that, the focus of instructional supervision is the enhancement of students learning
but it is in the practice that they differ. Glickman, et.al (2001:23) states that supervision
as a phase in school administration that mainly focuses on the provision of instruction in
the classroom to achieve educational standards formally set. It involves integration of
class room instruction and management with teachers, curriculum development, and team
development and action research, all for improving learning outcomes (Sergiovanni and
starratt, 2001:254)
Observing and improving instruction starts with the principal establishing trusting and
respectful relationship with the school staff. (Weber.J, 1996) proposed that observations
are opportunities for professional interaction. These interactions provide professional
development opportunity for both the observer and the one being observed. Generally,
the task and functions of instructional leadership are used at the school level to improve
17
the quality of education, teachers and instruction and create well educated citizens at all
levels.
2.5.4 Monitoring instructional program
The schools‘ primary product is a population of the graduates who have the technical and
life skills they need to cope up in increasing competitive world. Good instructional
leaders to be aware of the variety of the ways in which students‘ progress can and should
be assessed. Even more importantly, principals need to use assessment results in ways
that help teachers and students improve and that help parents understand where and why
improvement is needed. Assessing the instructional program is essential for improvement
of the instructional program (Weber.J, 1996). The instructional management job function
of monitoring student progress refers to the principal use of test results for setting goals,
assessing the curriculum, evaluating instruction, and measuring progress toward school
goals (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985).
The instructional leader initiates and contributes to the planning, designing, administering
and analysis of assessments that evaluates the effectiveness of the curriculum. This
continuous scrutiny of the instructional program enables teachers to effectively meet
students need through constant revision and refinement (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985).
2.5.5 Creating conducive and healthy school climate
School leaders‘ ability to select their teaching staff is central to their ability to establish a
school culture and capacity conducive to better student performance. Lack of school
leader involvement in recruiting and dismissing teachers may reduce their capacity to
respond and it is difficult to hold school leaders accountable for learning outcomes when
they have no say in selecting their staff (Weber. J, 1996).
A growing number of educators are focusing their efforts on improving the work
environment of teaching. In place of the typical school's norms and practices that isolate
teachers from one another, some schools are initiating new norms and practices that
encourage teachers to cooperate with one another and with administrators on school
improvement. The School leaders can promote collaboration by such simple expedients
as involving school members in setting the agenda for school meetings, giving school
committees a meaningful role in matters of curriculum and instruction, and helping
18
teachers to coordinate their schedules so that they have time to observe each other teach
and provide each other with feedback on their observations. Although formal structures
and strategies can facilitate collaboration, collaboration ultimately depends on the
development of norms of cooperation among the school's personnel.
According to Weber.J, (1996), healthy school environment for teaching and learning
reflect confidence, trust and mutual respect for cooperation between staff, students,
governments, parents and wider community is essential for purposeful effort and
achievement. Best school leaders encourage good working relationship and overcome the
worst effects by contrasting on developing positive environment, high achievement and
progress. Murphy, (1990) indicated that good school leadership advocate, nurture and
sustain school environment and instructional program conducive to students‘ learning and
professional growth.
According to MOE (2006) parents can play an important role in improving and
maintaining the school, including the classrooms, the sports field, the tree plantations, the
vegetable gardens, the nursery, etc. this can be particularly important if parents feel that
their contributions of knowledge, contribute to a building fund, to enable schools to
increase their classrooms. This is usually done through a monetary contribution.
2.6 Practice of instructional leaders

Regarding to this idea, South worth (2008) states that, the instructional leaders have to
play the following important practices in the schools. These practices of instructional
leaders are as follows: program coordination, direct assistance, curriculum development,
program evaluation, action research.
2.6.1. Program coordination
In the role of program coordination instructional leaders coordinate program, groups,

materials and reports. Since it is assumed that the instructional leaders is knowledgeable
about the details of the teaching-learning process to guide and direct teachers
(Glickman,2004).In order to promote the professional growth of the staff, the
instructional leader has to plan, organize, evaluate and conduct in service programs for
teachers in consultation with the school management and teachers.
19
2.6.2 Direct assistance
Supervision is the key to the principals‘ role in the effective classroom. It is also central
to the improvement of the quality of teaching in a school and if educators are well led and
are aware of the benefits in supervision, they need to be amenable towards supervision.
Lovell and Wiles (1983:4) define an instructional supervision as a subsystem of the
educational organization, which is formerly provided by the organization to interact
directly with teaching behavior to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of teaching.
It is noted that most researchers are in agreement about the importance of supervision in
the delivery of education. The key person in the supervision exercise is the principal. It is
therefore important for the principal, as the supervisor, to have a shared perception of
what is supposed to be happening in the classroom with the teacher.
As Bondi and Wiles (1986:148) pointed out that in improving instruction through
supervision, the principal should become more clinical in reviewing the processes and
procedure of the classroom. They further argued that it is essential that the supervisor and
the teacher develop a shared reality that can become the basis of professional dialogue.
This indicates that the principal should in a systematic way, draw the connection between
curriculum and instruction for the teacher. This will help in enabling the principal to
understand the teachers‘ classroom concerns and be in a position to provide necessary
assistance. That means the principal is an instructional specialist and his expertise should
help novice educators by actually going into classrooms to demonstrate how prepared
lessons should be presented. Direct assistance or class visits and observation consists of 4
stages:
Pre-Conference: Principal and educator aims to reach a common understanding of the
objectives, approaches to learning and teaching and intended outcomes in a lesson.
Classroom observation: Principal gathers information through observation while the
educator conducts the lesson planned.
Analysis and reflection: Principal and educator reflect in and draw inferences from
what transpired and was observed.
Post-Conference: Principal and educator meet to share their analysis and draw
implications, intentions on the part of the educator and the basis for discussion and
judgments are provided. This clearly indicates that supervision is focused on improving
20
professional performance so as to deliver the valued outcomes of the school which
includes increased student achievement.
2.6.3 Action research

It helps to gather data to assess the gap between the community vision of the school and
current reality, plan for change aimed at bridging the gap, integrate the task of leadership
to bring about change, evaluate results, and revise action plan in the cycle of continuous
improvement (Glickman, 2004).
2.6.4 Curriculum development

The principal does not necessarily have to teach and may not have an in depth knowledge
of various subjects offered in his/her school. However, as the chief administrator of the
school, Curriculum development is primarily concerned with promoting quality learning
and teaching in the classroom. Hall, MacKay and Morgan (1986:16) view the principal
as the key element in dealing with both educational policy and curricular matters in his
school. They suggest that all activities connected with the setting of the main aims and
objectives of the school, the provision of an academic and pastoral curriculum to meet the
needs of the whole range of pupils, and the management and methods of teaching, rests
with the principal. This shows that principals are thus the linkage between the desired
ends identified in a departmental plan and the delivered curriculum as found in the
classroom.
According to Bondi and Wiles (1986:108) principals are perfectly positioned to observe
curriculum planning and implementation because they operate at the school and the
classroom level. They further state that principals must ensure that the desired change is
occurring, that improvements are directional and that the results obtained are those
projected in the planning process. This emphasizes the fact that every principal should be
directly involved in all curricular related matters of his/her school. The principal should
therefore keep himself updated with new developments in education pertaining to
curricular planning, development, monitoring and evaluation. The principal, working
with his educators should have a bird's eye view of the curriculum development process.
Failure by the principal to perform these responsibilities will likely render his school
ineffective
21
2.6.5 Principals as professional development
In every school it is the principals‘ responsibility to see that teacher development in their
work. The starting point for development is induction. In support of this view Dean
(1987:81) puts the responsibility of teacher development on the shoulders of the
principal. She suggests that the principal must encourage the formation of groups because
they offer a situation in which the inexperienced can learn from the experienced. Through
the staff development process individuals are provided opportunities to engage in self-
evaluation and capacity building.
Dean (1991:28) suggests that every school needs a development program, arising out of
school review and evaluation activities in which everyone has been involved. It is
assumed that the program for school development would be meaningless without
incorporating considerable opportunities for professional development which involves all
the educators.
2.7 Instructional leadership effectiveness

The clear purpose of leadership is common to all organizations. This purpose is
organizing and influencing every stakeholder of the organization towards the
achievement of goals. However, it does not mean that there are no differences in the
system of managing different organizations differ from one another in the functions or
tasks they carry out that require special skill from employees and abilities and skill
required by the leader. On the other hand, leadership effectiveness is believed to be
crucial for the overall success of any organizations.
According to Hallinger and Murphy (2000), there are a few types of leadership behaviors
that became popular in education: namely, transformational leadership, shared leadership,
teacher leadership, servant leadership, instructional leadership and distributed leadership.
Among these, instructional leadership is the strongest, direct and focused on the
curriculum and instruction; it also shifts the debates between instructional, managerial
and transformational practice to a new conception of creating accountable learning
systems in schools (Robinson, et al., 2008). Instructional leadership has dominated the
field of education since school leaders are directly attributed to classroom teaching and
learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 2000).
In order to compare instructional leadership with other styles of leadership, the researcher
Hallinger found that Robison on her study compared the mean effect of transformational
22
leadership and instructional leadership on school performance and concluded that
instructional leadership has a mean effect of over 0.4, while that of transformational
leadership ranges below 0.15.
2.8. Instructional leadership and teaching and learning.
In-depth studies of teachers perceptions about characteristics of school principals that

influence teacher‘s classroom instruction have conclude that the behaviors associated
with instructional leadership positively influence classroom instructions (Lirson Knight
2000). Especially (Blasé and Blasé, 1999) findings indicate that when instructional
leaders monitor and provide feedback on the teaching learning process, there were
increases in teacher reflection and reflectively informed, in implementations of new
ideas, greater variety in teaching strategic, more responses to students diversity, lessons
were prepared and planned more carefully teachers were more likely to take risks and
more focus on the instructional process, and teachers used professional discretion to
make changes in classroom practice, teachers also indicated positive effects on
motivation, satisfaction, confidence and sense of security. Instructional leadership
behaviors associated with promoting professional growth and staff development yield
positive effects on classroom practice, (Sheppard, 1996, Blasé and Blasé, 1998). In
particular leaders that engage in behaviors that inform staff about current trends and
issues, encourage attendance at workshops, seminar and conferences, build a culture of
collaboration and learning, promote coaching, use inquiry to drive staff development, set
professional growth goal with teachers, and provide resources foster teacher innovation
in using a variety of methods, materials, instructional strategies, reflective practice, and
technology in the classroom. This in turn, increases the student achievement. A principal
that define and communicate shared goals with teachers provides organizational
structures that guide the school toward a common focus. This common focus on
academic press challenges teacher‘s performance with in the class room, which leads to
more effective schools (Book Binder, 2001; Blasé and Blasé, 1998).
2.9 Challenges for instructional leadership effectiveness

Instructional leaders are often faced with a number of roadblocks: the following were
cited as challenges to the effectiveness of instructional leadership practices: lack of skill
and training, lack of cooperation from superiors and community, lack of time, lack of
23
adequate resources, and lack of vision, will and courage. In addition, incompetence in
educational leadership, lack of incentive for teachers, problems related with teachers‘
promotions, lack of administrative skills and commitment of those assigned as school
leaders, shortage of educational materials or finance are among problems frequently cited
as factors that hinder effective performance of teachers (MoE, 2004).
Lack of Skills and Training: As Sergiovanni (2001) stated that, technical, human and
educational skills, abilities and knowledge are essential properties that instructional
leaders have to possess. Instructional leaders without adequate skills and training in
educational leadership and professional development of teachers can do little or no for
the improvement of learning (Lineburge, 2010).
Lack of Cooperation from Superiors and Community: Teacher‘ cooperation is
essential for effective instructional leadership. The cooperation of teachers, students, and
parents could be available in school climate where the leaders exercise democratic
leadership‘‘ (MoE, 2002).
Lack of Time: Principals have multiple roles they have play. For instance information
over load, paper work, too many reports, many non-academic demands and work over
load consume much of the principals time. Therefore only principals committed to
instructional improvement can choose and use their time for the enhancement of the
classroom instruction and teacher development (Harris, 2002).
Lack of Adequate Resources: Lack of adequate resources of all type and support from
central offices discourages instructional leaders. Bureaucratic management that hampers
timely assignment human, financial and materials resources required can be restricted the
success of the schools and limits development of the teachers (Dimmock, 2000).
Lack of Vision, Will and Courage: Nothing can affect instructional improvement more
than lack of leaders will. Instructional leaders have to spend more time on improving the
teaching learning, initiating changes and encouraging others to achieve educational goals.
However lack of vision, will and courage could hinder the effectiveness of leadership
performance (Sergiovanni, 2001).generally the barriers of instructional leadership hinder
the leaders‘ performance, sabotage principals‘ attempts and finally bring a serious
problem on the quality of education.
24
2.10 Summary on review of related literature
The chapter addressed the concept of instructional leadership, overview of instructional
leadership, overview of instructional leadership in Ethiopia, the role of principal as
instructional leadership, practice of instructional leadership, instructional leadership
effectiveness, instructional leadership in teaching and learning and challenges to
instructional leadership effectiveness to answer the following basic questions. To this
end, to understand the current roles of instructional leadership, dimensions of
instructional leadership such as setting school vision and defining school mission,
managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and evaluating instruction, monitoring
instructional program and creating a conducive learning climate were addressed. With
regard to major problems that affected leadership effectiveness, lack of knowledge, will,
and courage, lack of skill and training, lack of cooperation of instructional leadership
with stake holders and lack of resources were consulted. Thus, the reviewed literature
helped the researcher to get the insight about the issues in detail.
25
CHAPTER TRHEE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Under this chapter, the design of the study, source of data, sample population and
sampling technique, data collection instrument, validity and reliability, pilot study,
procedure of data collection, method of data analyses and ethical consideration are
treated.
3.1 Research design
Research design is the overall plan for collecting data in order to answer the research
question and also the specific data analysis techniques or methods that the researcher
intends to use. The design employed for this study is predominantly descriptive survey
research. Descriptive survey method was selected because the nature of the problem
needs wide description and investigation. It also enables to gather data from a relatively
large number of study subjects within a short period of time, minimum cost and helps to
assess the roles and challenges of principals and make generalization. The
appropriateness of this approach for such study was noted by Best. Johan and
James&Kahan (1989) who stated a descriptive survey design permits a researcher to
gather information or opinion from a large sample of respondents quickly and
inexpensively. In addition to this, Seyoum and Ayalew, 1989:17 by the title
Fundamentals of educational research for student and Beginning researcher expressed
that ―descriptive survey method of research was more appropriate to gather several kinds
of data of such a broad size.‖
Mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative methods) were used. The reason why
this method was used because the researcher need to collect and analyze quantitative
and qualitative data: Most of the quantitative data were collected by using close-ended
and open-ended questionnaire while the qualitative data was acquired through individual
interview of woreda education office heads and FGD of supervisors were used to
confirm findings from different data sources. According to Croswell (2012), the mixed
methodology focuses on collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data in
a single study.
26
3.2 Data source
This study employed a combination of primary and secondary sources of data. Primary
sources are sources that bring first hand information. Primary data sources for these study
were collected from teachers, principals; department heads, Supervisors and Woreda
Education office heads in selected government primary schools of Ephratanagidim
Woreda because the respondents were selected as primary sources of data purposely
based on the expectation that they had better information and experience regarding the
issues. Secondary sources were also included as sources of data in this study. These
sources of data include essential data, various books, reference material, journals, and
other published and unpublished written material.
3.3 Sample population and Sampling technique
The determination of sample schools is based on the 2009 E.C annual statistical report
(unpublished) of Ephratanagidim woreda. According to these reports there were 78
governmental primary Schools and 1 non- governmental primary school in 24 kebeles. In
these schools there were 78 main principals, 4 vice principals, 1262 teachers, and 16
supervisors. The number of vice principal was determined by the number of students in
the school.
It was impractical and unmanageable to include all the population in the study but it was
advisable to come up with the representative sample and generalized the findings to the
population. Thus, 29 primary schools out of 78 primary schools from the government
were not included as a population because these schools were newly established, the
number of teachers is less than 20, teachers and principals were not well experienced. In
addition, the non-governmental schools were also not included as population because
their management, recruitment, supervision and salary were different from government
schools.
Thus, the target population became 49 out of 78 primary schools in the woreda. Out of
these populations, 16 primary schools were selected from each cluster using cluster
sampling techniques through lottery system to give the schools equal chance of being
included as a sample schools.
27
Following the sample school selection, the next step was selection of the respondents of
the study. The respondents of the study comprised five groups in each sample schools.
These were principals, department heads, supervisors, teachers and woreda education
office heads. All principals, department heads, supervisors and woreda education office
head were taken as a sample (subject) using available sampling technique. Robson,
2002:26 states that purposive sampling techniques is a non-probability sampling
techniques where the selected sample under sampled schools were involved in the study
purposefully. In addition Croswell 2011 indicates that100% of the population makes up
an adequate sample if the total population is less than 100 and 50% of the population
makes up an adequate sample if the total populations are in between 100-500. So this
study used 100% of school principals (including vice-principals), cluster supervisors,
department heads, unit leaders and Woreda education office head as a target sample
because their total population were less than 100 and 50% of teachers were used as a
target sample study because their total population are between 100 and 500 .
That means 20 (100%) school principals (including vice-principals), 16 (100%) cluster

supervisors, 48 department heads, 20 unit leaders, and 2 woreda education office were
taken as a sample. Totally 106 (100%) principals, supervisors, department heads, unit
leaders, and woreda education office head were included to the samples for this study.
Regarding the selection of the sample teachers from a total of 384 teachers found in
selected sample school, 192(50%) teachers were taken as a sample by using proportional
stratified sampling to get proportional sample from each school. Proportion for each
primary school made by using William (1977) formula to represent equal proportion of
sample teachers in each primary school. Hence it was done by dividing the targeted
sample teachers (192) with the total number of teachers in the sample primary schools
(384) and multiplied by total number of teachers in each school.
Mathematically; Ps= X (no of teacher in each school)
Where, Ps = Proportional allocation to size

n = Total teachers‟ sample size (192)
N = Total number of teacher in the sixteen selected sample school (384)
After this, the researcher was employed simple random sampling technique by the
assumption that it gives equal chances for the respondents to participate in the research,
28
therefore, especially lottery method was employed, to select the representative teachers in
each school. List of teachers were prepared under each selected sample schools.
Table 1: Target population and sample size in selected schools
Supervisors
Department
Principals
Teachers
No Name of the
leaders
-Heads
schools
Unit-
P S P S P S P S P S
1 Effeson no 1 32 16 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
2 Effeson no 2 26 13 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 Allala 24 12 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
4 Birkitu 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
5 Zenbo 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
6 Jwuha 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
7 Karakori 30 15 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
1
8 Selelo 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
9 Abaloferes 30 15 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
10 Dulit 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
11 Bergibi 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
12 Keseyat 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
13 Mehal%wonz 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
e 1
14 Layignaw 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
mehalwonze 1
15 Meskelber 24 12 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
1
16 Lulge 22 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1
1
359 384 192 48 48 20 20 20 20 16
Total
16
50% 100% 100% 100% 100%
KEY: p- Population, S- Sample
29
As shown in the table above, from 384 teachers‘ population, 192 (50%) sample teachers
were selected randomly from selected schools by using proportional stratified sampling.
Totally 298 sample populations were taken as a sample for the study from a total of 488
population found in selected sample schools including two woreda education office
heads.
Table 2: Total target population and sample size
population in
population
instrument
gathering
respondent
population
Target
technique
Sampling
Types of
Data
Sample
Sample
percent
Teachers 384 192 50% proportional
Questionnaires
stratified sampling
and then simple
random sampling
100%
Questionnair
Principals 20 20 Purposive
and vice sampling technique
principals
es
100%
Departmen 48 48 Purposive Question
t heads sampling technique naires
100%
Question
Unit 20 20 Available sampling

naires
leaders technique
100%
discussio
Supervisor 20 20 Purposive
Focus
group
s sampling technique
n
100%
Woreda 2 2 Purposive
education sampling technique
Interview
office
heads
30
3.4 Data collection instruments
Four instruments were used in the process of gathering the necessary data for the study.
These are questionnaire, interview, FGD and document analysis.
3.4.1 Questionnaire
Questionnaire was used as a main source of data gathering instruments in this study,
because questionnaire was less expensive, offer greater anonymity of respondents and
appropriate for collecting factual information (Kumar, 2005:130). In addition, it helps the
respondents to choose one option from the given scales that best aligns with their views.
Questionnaire comprised both open ended and closed ended (Likert type) question. Forty-
nine 5-point likert scale items were prepared and administered to teachers, principals, unit
leaders and department heads. Items in the questionnaires reflect instructional leadership
roles and its effectiveness. In the cause of this 5-point likert scale like
strongly disagrre ---5 disagree --4 undecided --3 agree---2 strongly agree---1 were
used.
Moreover, the questioners were also containing challenges of principals‘ instructional

leadership effectiveness. In the cause of this 5-point likert scale like Very high ---5
High --4 Moderate --3 Low---2 Very low---1 were used. The five point scales reflect
the degree of availability each challenge in the school.
3.4.2 Interview
Interview was the second important data gathering instrument in this study. This data
gathering instrument is selected with the belief that deeper information is obtained on
issues critical to the study underway. It was also being used to cross-check the responses
obtained through questionnaire and it let the interviewee to express her/his feeling freely
and knowledge of people in a program in depth ( Kummar, 2003). In order to obtain
deeper information related to the practices of instructional leadership in the study area, a
semi structure interview was held with Woreda Education Office Heads to reflect on
some (12) guiding questions related with the roles and challenges of instructional
leadership implementation in the study area. Two respondents were selected for interview
in the ground that more information can possibly obtained from them due to their position
31
in the instructional leadership and daily engagements in the core activities of instructional
leadership.
3.4.3 Focused Group Discussion (FGD)

This instrument also employed to strengthen the information gained with questionnaire
and allows collecting information about the practices of instructional leadership in the
study area. FGD is held with 16 supervisors by grouping them in to two that have 8
members for each group depending on the location they found. Thus, 7-items were
prepared to reflect the roles and challenges of instructional leadership implementation in
the study area.
3.4.4 Document Analysis

Document analysis was the other essential data collecting tool. Various documents
including school performance reports, guidelines of the MoE, minutes that show what
leadership decisions made and discussed, and records were explored in the process of the
study. It is believed that the data obtained in this method was used to validate and
substantiate the information gathered by the questionnaire and semi-structured interview.
3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Instruments
3.5.1 Pilot test
Before the final questionnaires were administered, pilot testing was conducted in Effeson
no 3 primary school and Majete primary schools which were not included in the sample
study. It was helped to ensure that the respondents understand what the questionnaire
wants to address and were done with the objectives of checking whether or not the items
contained in the instruments could enable the researcher to gather relevant information, to
identify and eliminate problems in collecting data from the target population. The draft
questionnaires were distributed to 2 school principals, 6 department heads and 10
teachers of the above stated primary school were selected purposively. After the
questionnaires were filled and returned the reliability and validity of items were measured
by using Crobanch‘s alpha method by the help of SPSS version 20. The obtained test
result was 0.85. Then as the result indicated it was a good indication of the internal
consistency of items. That is the instrument was found to be reliable as statistical
literature recommend a test result of 0.65 (65% reliability) and above as reliable.
32
3.5.2 Validity of the Study
To be sure of the face validity, senior colleagues were invited to provide their comment.
The participants of the pilot test was also be first informed about the objectives and how
to fill, evaluate and give feedback on the relevance of the contents, item length, clarity of
items, and layout of the questionnaire. Based on their reflections, the instruments were
improved before they were administered to the main participants of the study. As a result
of the comment, two irrelevant items were removed; two lengthy items were shortened,
and some unclear items were made clear. Moreover, to verify the content validity of the
instrument, the questionnaire with sufficient number (256 copies) of items addressing all
objectives of the study was administered to large number of primary school teachers in
Ephratanagidim woreda and then, 189 copies were collected with high return rate of
94.5%. Triangulation of data gathering tools was executed by using semi structured
interview. Information sources were also be multi-faceted by using variety of respondents
such as, principals, vice principals, Supervisors, head departments, teachers and Woreda
education office heads. Finally, after the necessary improvement made, the
questionnaires were duplicated and distributed with necessary orientations by the
researcher to be filled by respondents. Then interview and document analysis were also
carried out by the same time.
3.5 Data collection procedure
At the beginning, contact was made with principals of each school by orienting the
purpose of the study to create rapport with them. After securing necessary willingness the
current lest of total population of the teaching staff were obtained. Then respondents who
fill in the questionnaire were identified by simple random sampling techniques. The
distribution, continuous follow up and the collection of questionnaire were made by the
principals and unit leaders. To maximize the quality of responses of the respondents and
the rate of return, convenient time gap were arranged. Interviews with supervisors were
administered by the researcher.
3.6 Method of data analysis
The gathered data was classified and tally in the respective groups and schools.
Following that, the data of each group was arranged and organized in each tables and
33
problem areas. Data obtained from open ended questions were used for interpreting the
problem areas under consideration and for suggestions. Thus the organized data was
analyzed and interpreted using descriptive statistics. Different statistical techniques were
employed on the basis of the basic questions stated and on the nature of the data
collected. The data collected through questionnaires were tabulated and analyzed by
using percent, mean, standard deviation and t-test. The percentage was used to interpret
the characteristics of the respondents. Mean values were used for organizing and
summarizing sets of numerical data collected by Likert type scales in the questionnaires.
These mean values were used because they were generally considered as the best
measures of a sample record on a particular measure (Best and James, 2004). The t-test
will also use to test whether there is any significance difference happened in responses of
the two groups. To this end, descriptions will make based on the results of the tables. The
results that were obtained from the interviews were used for the purpose of strengthening
the analysis made based on the questionnaires.
3.7 Ethical consideration
Efforts were made the research process professional and ethical. To this end, the
researcher were tried to clearly inform to the respondents about the purpose of the study
i.e., purely for academic. As he introduced its purpose in the introduction part of the
questionnaire and interview guide to the respondents, he was confirming that subjects,
confidentiality be protected. In addition, The researcher also not personalized any of the
response of the respondents during data presentations, analysis and interpretation.
Furthermore, all the materials used for this research were duly acknowledged.
34
CHAPTER FOUR
4. DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The purpose of the study was to analyze the instructional leadership roles and challenges.
Particularly, in government primary schools of Ephratanagidim woreda. This chapter will
present findings of the study and include a description of the response rate and
respondents, an analysis and presentation of the findings.
4.1 Characteristics of respondents
A total of 280 questionnaires were distributed to 192 teachers, 48 department heads‘, 20

unit leaders‘ and 20 principals‘ and vice principals‘ respondents; out of this 24 of them
didn‘t return it. This reduces the sample size to 256 (91.43%). Among 2 interviews 2 FGD
respondents were properly 100% participated and gave necessary information on the issue
under investigation.
Thus, the analysis was on the basis of information obtained from the returned
questionnaire 256 (100%) 171 teachers‘, 46 department heads‘, 19 unit leaders‘ and 20
principals‘ and vice principals‘ respondents. Interview held with 2 woreda education
office heads, FGD 2 groups (8 members each ) to a total of 16 supervisor and document
analysis was used as supplementary.
4.1.2 Biography of Respondents

Table 3 : characteristic of respondents
ITEM Teacher Principal Dept head Unit leader

Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
SEX M 106 62 17 85 29 63 11 57.9
F 65 38 3 15 17 37 8 42.1
T 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
AGE 21-30 39 22.8 3 15 10 21.7 4 21.1

31-40 58 33.9 11 55 16 34.8 8 42.1
41-50 48 28.1 5 25 14 30.4 5 26.3
51 and 26 15.2 1 5 6 13.1 2 10.5
above
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
35
As shown in the above table from the respondents 62% of teachers were males and 38%
of teachers were females, whereas 85% of principals were males only three (15%) of
female were found in principal position. Hence, the respondents‘ response showed that it
needs effort to empower women to come in position. This is not a new finding; rather it
has been reported by various researchers and organizations who have involved in
educational affairs in the country. MoE (2005) also witnessed that participation of
females in education had been low and this has resulted in lower rate of employment.
Regarding the age distribution teachers and leaders have almost the same pattern.22.8%
of teachers and 15 % of leaders were between 20—30 years old, 33.9% of teachers and
55% of leaders were between 31– 40 years old, 28.1% of teachers and 25% of leaders
were between 41-50 years, whereas the remaining 15.2% of teachers and 5% of leader‘s
age range from 51 and above. The supervisors participated in FGD were, however,
mainly over 30 years, which may be due to their long years of services in their previous
positions as teachers and school leaders.
Table 4 : Respondents by qualification and field of specialization
ITEM Teacher Principal Dept head Unit leader

Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
DIPLOMA 153 89.5 12 60 44 95.7 17 89.5
qualification
BA/BSC 12 8.2 8 40 2 4.3 3 10.5
Others 4 2.3 - - - - - -
TOTAL 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100

Field of Edpm major 4 2.3 8 40 - 0 - 0
specialization Different 33 19.4 5 25 16 34.8 8 42.1
social
science fields
Different 71 41.5 4 20 15 32.6 7 36.9
natural
science fields
Language 63 36.8 3 15 15 32.6 4 21
fields
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
36
Regarding the educational level (qualification) of respondents, the data on the part of
teachers reveal that majority of teachers (89.5%) are diploma holders, a negligible
number (8.2%) hold a bachelor degree and (2.3%) certificate and TTI, thus, there seem to
be a significant number of under qualified teachers teaching in primary school of the
woreda. On the part of the principals 60% were diploma holders and 40% bachelor
degree holders. It may, therefore, be inferred that majority of the principals and
considerable number of teachers did not satisfy the standard set by MoE (1996:8) which
requires at least bachelor degree for principals, supervisor and teachers of primary school.
Thus, it would be possible to assume the placement of these principals was on
appointment basis rather than on proper educational background.
In terms of their field of study, the data on the part of teachers shows that 36.8% were
from language fields, 41.5% were from natural science fields, 19.5% were from the social
science fields, the reaming 2.3% teachers were graduated in Educational Planning and
Management. Although, these were trained for principal ship, they were not assigned to
the right position.
As regard to the principals (15%) were from language fields, 20% were from natural
science fields, 19.4% were from the social science fields, (40%) were graduated in
educational planning and management. As the data shows, majority (60%) of schools are
not headed by professional principals. The key element in school leaderships is the
principal. Without well qualified principal the goal of achieving high standard of
educational plans will be threatened (Mc Ewen, 2003:p.57)
37
Table 5 : Respondent by experience
teaching ITEM Teacher Principal Dept head Unit leader

Freq % Freq % Fre % Freq %
q
5 and below 8 4.6 - - 4 8.7
6-10 years 45 26.3 5 25 22 47.8 2 10.5
11-15 years 75 43.6 9 45 16 34.8 11 57.9
16-20 years 33 19.2 6 30 3 6.5 6 31.6
25 and above 11 6.3 - - 1 2.2 - -
years
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
Work experience in
assistant No service 162 94.7 16 80 46 100 19 100

principal 5 and below 7 4.1 4 20 - - - -
6-10 years 2 1.2 - - - - - -
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
unit No service 129 75.4 4 20 29 63 - -
leader 5 and below 39 22.8 14 70 17 37 15 28.9
6-10 years 3 1.8 4 10 - - 4 21.1
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
No service 131 76.6 2 10 - - 7 36.8
department 5 and below 34 19.9 15 75 42 91.3 9 47.4
head 6-10 years 6 3.5 3 15 4 8.7 3 15.8
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
School No service 160 93.6 18 90 46 100 19 100
Supervisor 5 and below 9 5.3 2 10 - - - -
6-10 years 2 1.2 - - - - - -
Total 171 100 20 100 46 100 19 100
Apart from professional preparation, the selection and placement of leaders commonly
requires work experience on the job as well as on related tasks such as teaching, unit
leader, department head and other responsibilities (MOE: 1996:7). This was so because
of the belief that such experiences improve the competency as well as effectiveness of
leaders in their position. The data in table 3 also states to this tendency. About 25% of
leaders have served 6 to 10 years in teaching and 45% leaders have served 11 to 15 years
the remaining 30% served for over 16-20 years in teaching.
Similarly, 90 % of leaders have served as department head and 80% of them also served
as a unit leader. Hallinger and Murphy (1987), findings and conclusion the length of
experience as teacher, previous administrative experience and even the number of years
38
at the principal ship position have significant relationship with leadership effectiveness.
Thus, it can be concluded that most leaders included in the study have gained a great deal
of work experience in teaching, unit leader and department head responsibilities prior to
their present position. However, consensus has not yet been reached about the
contribution of such experiences to instructional leadership effectiveness. This debatable
fact initiated the researcher to consider the relationship of such experiences and
instructional leadership effectiveness. The information obtained from teachers will
increase the reliability of the study.
4.2. Presentation and discussion of data
After the demographic information of teachers, the researcher presents the descriptive
analysis subsequently the opinions of the respondents.
4.2.1 Instructional Leadership roles Viewed by Principals and teachers
Instructional leadership role scores in this research are considered to be a continuous

variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00) with two
trisecting scores 2.33 and 3.66.
In the course of discussion of data open ended items in the questionnaires, interviews
and document analysis were summarized and used to support the finding from Likert
scales type.
Table 6 : Levels of instructional leader by using mean value
Mean values used to combined index Formed index

combine the index
from 1.00 – 2.33 strongly disagree and Disagree

disagree
from 2.34 – 3.66 Undecided Undecided
from 3.67 – 5.00 Agree and strongly agree Agree
4.2.2 Dimensions of Instructional Leadership
The successes of any instructional leadership role are mainly determined by the extent to
which instructional leadership dimensions are implemented within the schools.
39
Therefore, the most important dimensions such as defining and communicating the
school goals, managing curriculum and instructional program, supervising and evaluating
instruction, managing and monitoring instructional program, monitoring student
progress, promoting professional development and creating positive school learning
climate and their implementation in the study area are discussed below.
A. Defining and communicating School goals
This section was discussed with principals instructional leadership role associated with
communicating school goals.
Table 7 : defining and communicating school goals
N Items Respondents
O Teachers Principals s
Undecided
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Total
Total
The school principal Freq 84 126 26 236 6 12 2 20
1 design the school‘s
% 35.6 53.4 11 100 30 60 10 100
goals more focusing on
Mean 1.75 1.8
class room teaching
and learning.
t-value .091
2 communicates the
school‘s goals to % 31.8 44.5 23.7 100 30 45 25 100
teachers, students and Mean 1.92 1.95
parents. t-value 1.058
3 reflects school‘s goals
% 27.5 40.3 32.2 100 30 40 30 100
in highly visible
displays in the school. Mean 2.05 2.0
t-value 1.209
As the data in table 7, Item 1, indicates that 53.4 % teachers and 60% principals‘
response in designing the schools‘ goals more focusing on class room teaching and
learning role were undecided whereas 35.6% teachers and 30% principals were disagree.
But negligible proportion (11% teachers and 10% principals) were found to be agree. A
large majority of teachers‘ response in open-ended questionnaires document analysis also
40
clearly reflected that annual school goal was not mainly focused on students teaching and
learning.
As the data in Table 7, Item 2, indicates that 31.8 % teachers and 30% principals
response in communicating the schools‘ goals to teachers, students and parents role were
disagree whereas 44.5% teachers and 45% principals were undecided and 23.7% teachers
and 25% principals were found to be agree.
----“For the question do the school principals display the school goals? One of
the supervisors in FGD noted that most principal were not volunteer to display
the school goals in the school but at present display the school goal was at
much improving condition. The other supervisors participated on FGD also
agreed on it”.
As the data in table 7, Item 3, indicates that the response in reflecting schools‘ goals in
highly visible display in the school role of primary school principals 27.5% teachers and
30% principal‘s respondents were disagree whereas 40. 3% teachers and 40% principals‘
respondents were undecided and 32.2% teachers and 30% principals were found to be
agreed.
Generally total calculated mean scores of teacher 1.75, 1.92, 2.05 and principals 1.8,
1.95, 2.0 of all the data respectively in table 7 gave us, the dimension defining and
communicating school goals were low even though there is a variation in the score of
each functions. In table 7, the computed t-value is (t(2,12)=1.209,p=0.25). (0.25<0.05(12)
1.209) thus All the t-value of table 7 indicated that t-value is less than t-critical (1.96).
This shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the responses of
these two groups of respondents.
B. Managing the curriculum and instruction.
managing curriculum and instruction. It is considered to be a continuous five point Likert
scale variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00).
41
Table 8 : managing the curriculum and instruction
N Items Respondents
Undecided
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Total
Total
1 The school principal Freq 119 83 34 236 13 5 2 20
has experience to
% 50.4 35.2 14.4 100 65 25 2 100
spend more time in
class room teaching Mean 1.64 1.45
and learning rather t-value 1.607
than administrative.
ensures that the % 36.9 48.7 14.4 100 30 65 5 100
instructional program
going according to the Mean 1.78 1.75
school calendar.
t-value 1.712
role model by
working hard % 35.6 52.1 12.3 100 30 50 20 100
themselves with staff. Mean 1.77 1.9
t-value 1.05
follows up teachers to % 48.7 25.5 25.8 100 45 35 20 100
avoid problem of
curriculum coverage Mean 1.77 1.75
with the given time. t-value 1.407
encourages teachers
to evaluate and % 50.4 33.4 16.2 100 70 15 15 100
improve their Mean 1.66 1.45
curriculum. t-value 1.206
As depicted in item 1 of table 8, the majority (50.4 % teachers and 65% principals)
responses were disagreeing in principals‘ role about primary school principals‘
experience to spend more time in class room teaching and learning rather than
administrative activities .whereas 35.2 teachers and 25% principals were undecided and
14.4% teachers and 2% principals were found to be agreed.
In interview session the the woreda education office heads and in FGD session
supervisors were asked the question about principal weather they spend more time for
42
instructional activities or not. The two groups of respondents replied with similar manner
for the questionnaires. They approved that:
----“The sampled school principals were not spend more time for instructional
activities rather they spend more time on administrative activities like planning,
directing controlling, reporting, meeting e.t.c. They added that school principals
paid little attention to academic activities than that of administrative work”. The
other agrees on it.
As the data in table 8, Item 2 indicates that the majority (48.7% teachers and 65%
principals) responses were undecided about the response in ensuring that the instructional
program going according to the school calendar role of primary school principals.
Whereas 36.9% teachers and 30% principal‘s respondents were disagree and 14%
teachers and 5% principals were found to be agreed. Supervisors and woreda education
office head on interview also noted that most principal were not follow up the
instructional program.
As the data in table 8, Item 3 indicates that the majority (52.1% teachers and 50%
principals) responses were undecided in principals‘ role of being role model by working
hard themselves with staff. Whereas 35.6% teachers and 30% principals‘ respondent
were disagree and 12.3% teachers and 20% principals were found to be agree.
As the data in table 8, item 4 reveals that, the majority (48.7% teachers and 45%
principals) response show that primary school principal did not follow up teachers to
avoid problem of curriculum coverage with the given time. Whereas 25.5% teachers and
35% principals‘ response show they give moderate emphasis for it and 25.8% teachers
and 20% principals‘ response indicate they follow up teachers to avoid problem of
curriculum coverage with the given time.
As the data in table 8, item 5 reveals that the majority (50.4% teachers and 70%
principals) primary school principals did not encourage teachers to evaluate and improve
their curriculum. Whereas 33.4% teachers and 15% principals‘ response show that they
give moderate emphasis for it. But 16.2% teachers and 15% principals‘ response indicate
they encourage teachers to evaluate and improve their curriculum. These data from all
instruments imply that the school principals gave limited concern teachers to evaluate and
improve their curriculum.
43
Generally total calculated mean scores of teacher 1.64, 1.78, 1.77, 1.77, 1.66 and
principals 1.45, 1.75, 1, 9, 1.75, 1.45 of all the data respectively in table 8 gave us, for the
dimension managing curriculum and instruction; the selected sample school principal had
problem. All the t-value of table 8 also indicated that t-value is less than t-critical (2.179).
This shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the responses of
these two groups of respondents.
C. Supervising and evaluating the instruction
supervising instruction and monitoring student progress. It is considered to be a
continuous five point Likert scale variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to
―relatively highest‖ (5.00).
Table 9 : supervising and evaluating instructional program
N Items Respondents
O Teachers Principals
Undecided
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Total
Total
1 Frequently conduct Freq 119 93 24 236 16 3 1 20
class room % 50.4 39.4 10.2 100 80 15 5 100
observation in order
to see teachers‘ Mean 1.59 1.25
professional growth
instead of using it
for the evaluation t-value 1.214
and career
structure.
2 Gives feedback to Freq 119 80 37 236 9 7 4 20
teachers soon after % 50.4 33.9 15.7 100 45 35 20 100
class – supervision.
Mean 1.65 1.75
t-value 1.705
3 Informs the Freq 68 87 81 236 7 10 3 20
students result to % 28.8 36.9 34.3 100 35 50 15 100
stockholders in a
report form. Mean 2.06 1.8
t-value 1.123
44
As the data in table 9, Item 1 indicates that, the majority response (50. 4% teachers and
80% principals) for primary school principals‘ class room observation in order to see
teachers‘ professional growth instead of using it for the evaluation and career structure
were disagree. Whereas 39.4% teachers and 15% principals were undecided. But
negligible proportion (10.2% teachers and 5% principals) were found to be agree.
The open- ended questionnaires made clear for the question do school principal
supervise and evaluate the teaching and learning frequently? The qualitative data
approved that principal did not supervise and evaluate the teaching and learning
frequently because they were too busy with administrative work. They also
revealed that the principal was mostly delegated this task to senior teachers.
Sometimes they conduct class room observation to use as a means for teachers’
evaluation and career structure not teacher’s improvement. This also supported by
supervisor on FGD and the woreda education office on interview.
As the data in table 9, item 2 reveals that, most primary school principals (50.4% teachers
and 45% principals‘ response) show they did not give feedback to teachers soon after
class – supervision whereas 15.7% teachers and 20% principals‘ response show that they
give feedback to teachers soon after class – supervision. But a negligible proportion
(33.9% teachers and 35% principals‘ response) indicate they found to be undecided.
As the data in table 9, item 3 reveals that, the majority (36.9% teachers and 50%
principals‘ response) primary school principals found to be undecided. Whereas 28.8%
teachers and 35% principals did not informs the students result to stockholders in a report
form and 34.3% teachers and 15% principals inform the students result to stockholders in
a report form.
One of the supervisors in the interview also indicated that informing the student
results to stock holders was not as such problem of principals. At least the student
results can inform to stock holders twice a year in a report form but at present at
much improving condition. The others supervisors also agree on it.
Generally total calculated mean scores of teacher 1.59, 1.65, 2.06, and principals 1.25,
1.75, 1, 8, of all the data respectively in table 9 gave us, for the dimension supervising
and evaluating the instructional program dimension the selected sample school principals
45
had problem. All the t-value of table 8 also indicated that t-value is less than t-critical
(1.645). This shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the
responses of these two groups of respondents
D. Monitoring the instructional program.
monitoring student progress. It is considered to be a continuous five point Likert scale
variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00).
Table 10 : monitoring the instructional program
N Items Respondents
decid
decid
agree
agree
Total
Total
Agre
eAgre
Dis
Dis
Un
Un
ed
e
e
1 The principal follow Freq 117 71 48 236 12 5 3 20
up teachers‘
continuous evaluation % 49.6 30.1 20.3 100 60 25 1 100
of their student in 5
order to see their Mean 1.71 1.55
progress.
0.30
2 The principal interact Freq 56 112 68 236 5 10 5 20
with students to
% 23.7 47.5 28.8 100 25 50 25 100
discuss about their
academic progress Mean 2.05 2.0
0.93
3 The principal support Freq 90 75 71 236 8 9 3 20
teachersto engage in
professionaldevelopm % 38.1 31.8 30.1 100 45 4 15 100
ent and Professional 0
growth by doing cpd Mean 1.94 1.7
in the school.
0.54
4 The principal arrange Freq 92 63 81 236 11 5 4 20
program for staff
training to create a % 39 26.7 34.3 100 35 25 20 100
spirit of cooperative Mean 1.95 1.65
working. 0.12
5 The principal provides Freq 95 70 71 236 12 6 3 20
adequate time for
professional skill % 40.3 29.7 30.0 100 60 30 10 100
development. Mean 1.88 1.65
0.96
46
As depicted in item 1 of table 10 shows that, the majority (49.6 % teachers and 60%
principals) primary school principals were not give attention to follow up teachers‘
continuous evaluation of their student in order to see their progress. Whereas 30.1%
teachers and 25% principals were undecided and 20.3% teachers and 15% principals
were found to be agreed. Supervisors and woreda education office head on interview and
from open- ended questionnaires majority of the principal were follow up teachers‘
continuous evaluation of their student at the end of the semester for the sake of teachers‘
evaluation. They see the student result twice a year for reporting and evaluating their
teachers instead of following up the students‘ progress.
As the data in Table 10, item 2 reveals that, majority (47.5% teachers and 50%
principals) primary school principals were found to be moderate. Whereas 23.7%
teachers and 25% principals‘ response show that selected primary school principal were
not interacting with students to discuss about their academic progress and 28.5% teachers
and 25% principals‘ response show that they interact with students to discuss about their
academic progress.
As the data in Table 10, item 3 reveals that majority (38.5% teachers and 65% principals)
selected primary school principals were found to be undecided. Whereas 31.8% teachers
and 20% principals‘ response show that they support students by giving guidance and
counseling in order to bring progress. But 29.7% teachers and 15% principals‘ response
show that primary school principal did not support students by giving guidance and
counseling in order to bring educational and behavioral progress.
As the data in table 10, item 4 reveals that majority (45% teachers and 38.1% principals)
primary school principal did not give emphasis to professional development and their
professional growth. Whereas 40% teachers and 31.8% principals‘ response show
undecided and only 15% teachers and 30.1% principals‘ response indicate they give
emphasis to professional development and their professional growth.
…“Inaddition most of supervisors in FGD agreed that the principal

themselves did not have professional knowledge to support professional
growth of teachers. But two supervisors said that if the principals have
47
motivation to support their teachers professional knowledge is not as much
problem they can improve it by long and short turm training”.
As the data in table 10, item 5 reveals that, the majority (55% teachers and 39%
principals) primary school principal were disagree. Whereas 25% teachers and 26.7%
principals‘ response show undecided for it. But 20% teachers and 34.3% principals‘
response indicates agree.
As the data in table 10, item 6 reveals that, the majority (60% teachers and 40.3%
principals) primary school principal disagrees. Whereas 30% teachers and 29.7%
principals‘ response show undecided for it. But 10% teachers and 30% principals‘
response indicate they give emphasis to providing adequate time for professional skill
development.
Generally total calculated mean scores of teacher 1.71, 2.02, 1,94, 1.88 and principals
1.55, 2.05, 1, 7, 1.65 of all the data respectively in table 10 gave us, for the dimension
monitoring the instructional program dimension the selected sample school principal had
problem to following up teachers‘ continuous evaluation of their student in order to see
their progress, primary school principals had also problems in supporting teachers to
engage in professional development and professional growth by doing cpd in the school
and providing adequate time for professional skill and arranging program for staff
training to create a spirit of cooperative working. But interacting with students to discuss
about their academic progress, supporting students by giving guidance and counseling in
order to bring educational and behavioral progress were moderate problem. . All the t-
value of table 10 also indicated that t-value is less than t-critical (1.96). This shows that
there is no statistically significant difference between the responses of these two groups
of respondents.
E. creating a positive school climate
creating a positive School Climate. It is considered to be a continuous five point likert
scale variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00). The
mean score in this section was calculated to be used as a measure of instructional
leadership effectiveness associated with creating a positive school climate.
48
Table 11 : creating positive school climate
NO Items Respondents
Teachers Principals s
Undecided
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Total
Total
1 The principal Freq 140 63 33 236 14 4 2 20
ensure the timely
% 59.3 26.7 14.0 70 20 10 100
allocation of
resources. Mean 1.55 1.4
0.92
2 The principal Freq 85 107 44 236 9 11 - 20
effectively interact % 36.1 45.3 18.6 100 45 55 0 100
with community.
Mean 1.83 1.55
0.70
3 Freq 54 116 66 236 4 12 4 20
The principal treat % 22.9 49.1 28 100 20 60 20 100
school community
equitably and Mean 2.05 2.0
fairly. 0.16
mobilize the
higher officials % 22.5 59.3 18.2 100 30 60 10 100
to support the Mean 1.96 1.8
instructional 0.83
program.
5 The principal have Freq 60 124 52 236 3 12 5 20
a good conflict
% 25.4 52.5 22.1 100 15 60 25 100
resolving skill.
Mean 1.97 2.1
1.24
motivate teachers % 52.5 30.5 17.0 100 40 30 30 100
for their best Mean 1.64 1.9
performance.
1.05
delegate powers to % 47.9 22.9 29.2 100 45 40 15 100
the responsible Mean 1.81 1.7
bodies. 1.21
This dimension ―creating positive school climate‖ contains 7 items. Those items are
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Most respondent for those items of numbers 1, 6 and 7
respond between the levels of strongly disagree and disagree. Whereas most respondent
49
for those items of numbers2, 3, 4 and 5 respond undecided. In connection to this, Bush,T
(2003) stated that school leaders establish and maintain open and productive relations
among the school community by working with teachers, students, parents and the
community at large and need to be able to develop and maintain positive relationship
with all.
Generally total calculated mean scores of teacher 1.55, 1.83, 2.05, 1,96, 1.97 and
principals 1.4, 1.55, 2.0, 1, 8, 2.1 of all the data respectively in table 11 gave us, for the
dimension the dimension creating positive school climate in schools were not
satisfactory. All the t-value of table 11 also indicated that t-value is less than t-critical
(1.96). This shows that there is no statistically significant difference between the
responses of these two groups of respondents
4.2.2 Instructional Leadership effectiveness
As the review of the related literature discussed in the foregoing chapters revealed that
the effectiveness of instructional leadership are mainly determined by the extent to which
instructional leadership dimensions are implemented in the organization. Thus, the
instructional leadership dimensions including defining and communicating school goals,
managing curriculum and instructional program, supervising and coordinating school
curriculum, monitoring instructional program and promoting positive school learning
climate were examined to see their implementation in the schools.
Instructional leadership effectiveness scores in this research are considered to be a

continuous variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00)
with two trisecting scores 2.33 and 3.66. In order to make the data analysis convenient
and manageable, the mean values were grouped into three effectiveness levels; ―weak
instructional leader‖ (from 1.00 – 2.33), ―moderately effective instructional leader‖ (from
2.34 – 3.66) and ―strong instructional leader‖ (from 3.67 – 5.00). The researcher was
also attracted in grouping the opinions of the respondents where strongly disagree and
disagree were combined to form an index of disagree which indicated ―weak
instructional leader‖ while, undecided ―moderately effective instructional leader‖ and
agree and strongly agree were combined to form an index of agree which indicated
―strong instructional leader‖. . In the course of discussion of data open ended items in the
50
questionnaires, interviews and document analysis were summarized and used to support
the finding from Likert scale.
Table 12 : distribution of leaders in the leadership effectiveness level for each
dimension
N Dimensions Teachers respondents Principals respondents
O response response
Undecided
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Total
Total
1 Defining and Freq 95 71 70 236 10 4 6 20
communicating
% 40.4 30.1 29.5 100 50 20 30 100
school goals
Mean 1.89 1.8
t-value 0.40
2 Managing Freq 124 72 40 236 12 5 3 20
curriculum and % 52.7 30.5 16.8 100 60 25 15 100
instruction.
Mean 1.64 2.6
t-value 1.88
3 Supervising Freq 112 76 48 236 11 5 4 20
and evaluating % 47.7 32.0 20.3 100 25 20 100
instruction.
Mean 1.75 1.65
t-value 1.35
4 Monitoring the Freq 120 71 45 236 12 4 5 20
instructional
program % 50.8 29.7 19.5 100 60 20 25 100
Mean 1.68 1.75
t-value 1.06
5 creating a Freq 107 65 64 236 10 6 4 20
positive School
Climate % 45.1 27.9 27 100 50 30 20 100
Mean 1.82 1.7
t-value 0.66
51
To maximize the reliability of the evaluation results, the scores of the two groups were
changed into a single whole score as a measure of instructional leadership effectiveness
for each leader. In doing so, the graph shown below the principal leadership effectiveness
by using percentile scores of teachers and the corresponding leaders‘ self – rating scores
on each dimension. The resulting scores were used as a measure of leader‘s effectiveness
in each dimension.
Figure 2: distribution of leaders in leadership effectiveness level for each dimension
DISTRIBUTION OF LEADERS IN LEADERSHIP

EFFECTIVENESS LEVEL FOR EACH DIMENSION
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Defining and Managing Supervising Monitoring creating a
communicati curriculum and the positive
ng school and evaluating instructional School
goals instruction instruction program Climate
DISAGREE 40.4 52.7 47.7 50.8 45.1
UNDECIDED 30.1 30.5 32 29.7 27.9
AGREE 29.5 16.8 20.3 19.9 27
As the data in table 12, item 1 and from the graph shows that, the respondents total calculated
mean scores of managing curriculum and instruction dimension were found to be 1.64 most
leaders‘ (40.4%) performance in defining and communicating school goals were disagree
whereas 29.5% of them were agree. But (30.1%) was found to be undicided. In other
words, about 29.5 percent were effective and the majority (40.4%) weak in their
engagement in defining and communicating school goals, whereas the remaining 30.1
percent were undecided in defining and communicating school goals dimension of
instructional leadership effectiveness.
52
As the data in table 12, item 2 and the respondents total calculated mean scores of
managing curriculum and instruction dimension were found to be 1.64. This reveals,
most leaders‘ (30.5%) performance in managing curriculum and instruction were
moderate whereas 16.8% of them were strong. But (52.7%) was found to be weak. In
other words, the majority (52.7%) of leaders was not strong (effective) in managing
curriculum and instruction.
As the data in table 12, item 3 the respondents total calculated mean scores of supervising
the instruction and evaluating instruction dimension were found to be 1.73. This reveals,
most leaders‘ (32%) performance in supervising the instructional program and
coordinating school curriculum dimension were moderate whereas 20.3% of them were
strong and 47.7% was found to be weak.
As the data in Table 12, item 4 the respondents total calculated mean scores of
monitoring the instructional program dimension were found to be 1.69. This reveals,
most leaders‘ (50.8%) performance in monitoring the instructional program dimension
were found to be weak whereas 19.5% of them were strong and 29.7 % were moderate.
As the data in Table 12, Item 5 reveals, total respondents calculated mean scores of
creating a positive school climate dimension were found to be 1.82. This implies most
school leaders (45.1%) were not strong (weak) enough in creating a positive school
climate. 27% of leaders were strong in creating a positive school climate whereas 27.9%
performed at a moderate level in instructional leadership effectiveness.
Generally as the data in table 12 detailed examination of leaders‘ effectiveness in each

dimension shows that the selected primary school principals were not effective for the
dimensions defining and communicating school goals and creating a positive school
climate and also had relatively high problem in the dimension supervising and evaluating
instruction, monitoring the instructional program and managing curriculum and
instruction to practice of instructional leadership.
4.2.3 Challenges of Instructional Leadership effectiveness.

Range of instructional leadership challenges can be listed depending on the context to
which each sampled schools are exposed. Four groups of challenges were selected for the
inquiry namely; lack of skills and training, lack of cooperation and commitment for
53
instructional improvement, lack of resource availability and allocation, lack of vision,
will and courage. Each of them was described with related items as shown in their respect
tables. A five point scale that ranges from very highs to very low was employed to collect
data through the close ended questionnaires shown.
A. Lack of skills and training
This section was discussed on challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness related

with Lack of skills and training. It is considered to be a continuous five point likert scale
variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00). The mean
score in this section was calculated to be used as a measure of instructional leadership
effectiveness associated with Lack of skills and training.
Table 13 : Lack of skill and training
N Items Respondents
O Teachers
Moderate
Principals s
moderate
Total
Total
High
High
Low
low
1 qualified Freq 61 76 99 236 5 4 11 20
instructional
leaders in the area % 25.8 32.2 42 100 25 20 55 100
of education Mean 2.2 2.3
2 training on Freq 59 77 100 236 6 7 7 20
instructional
leadership. % 25 32.6 42.4 100 30 35 35 100
Mean 2.2 2.1
3 in-service training Freq 41 78 117 236 4 6 10 20
and teachers % 17.4 33.1 49.5 100 20 30 50 100
development
program
Mean 2.3 2.3
4 qualified teachers Freq 42 83 111 236 2 8 10 20
in all subject area
% 17.8 35.2 47 100 10 40 50 100
Mean 2.3 2.4
As depicted in table 12, this subscale ―lack of skills and training‖ contains 4 items. Those
items are numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4.Most respondent for those items of numbers 1, 2, 3, and
4 respond between the levels of high and vary high on Likert scale. This points that, most
of the instructional leaders effectiveness were highly challenged by lack of qualified
instructional leaders, lack of training and teachers development and lack of qualified
54
teachers in subject area in sampled schools. This shows the dimension needs much effort
to improve for better teaching- learning process. As we have seen before on
characteristics of respondents on section 4.1 indicates that most the participants
(instructional leaders and teachers) to this study was not qualified with degree. So the
item selection as a high is logical.
In interview session the woreda education office heads and in FGD session supervisors
were asked the question whether they get training to improve their profession or not. The
two groups of respondents replied with similar manner for the questionnaires. They
approved that:
The offices provided many training in leadership aspects like teacher

development program, continuous professional development, community
participation etc. They stressed the problem is attached to turnover of
instructional leaders from year to year and lack commitment and moral of
instructional leaders to accomplish their tasks. Most of the supervisors agree on
it. This is contrary ideas given by that of instructional leaders and teachers
responses.
Related to this, Sergiovanni (2001) stated that the conceptual, technical and human skills
are among the most important components of skill that instructional leadership has
possessed. Therefore, it is important to think lack of skills and training was the challenges
of instructional leadership effectiveness in sampled primary schools.
B. Lack of cooperation and commitment

with lack of cooperation and commitment. It is considered to be a continuous five point
likert scale variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖ (5.00).
The mean score in this section was calculated to be used as a measure of instructional
leadership effectiveness associated with lack of cooperation and commitment.
55
Table 14 : Lack of cooperation and commitment
moderate
moderate
Total
Total
High
High
Low
low
1 principals Freq 53 93 90 236 6 9 5 20
interaction
% 22.5 39.4 38.1 100 30 45 25 100
with teachers
Mean 2.2 2.0
2 principals Freq 35 110 91 236 5 10 5 20

interaction % 14.8 46.6 38.6 100 25 50 25 100
with Students
Mean 2.2 2.0
3 principals Freq 51 83 102 236 5 5 10 20
interaction
with School % 21.6 35.2 43.2 100 25 25 50 100
boards Mean 2.2 2.3
4 principals Freq 61 78 97 236 4 6 10 20

interaction
with School % 25.8 33.1 41.1 100 20 30 50 100
communities Mean 2.2 2.3
5 principals Freq 45 105 86 236 4 10 6 20

interaction
with woreda % 19.1 44.5 36.4 100 20 50 30 100
educational Mean 2.2 2.1
managers
As it can be seen from the table 14, regarding to each items analysis, in the dimension
instructional leaders and teachers respondent respond for principals with teachers
interaction , principals with Students interaction, principals with woreda educational
managers interaction rated as moderately with mean value of 3.41, 3.42 and 3.50
respectively. This illustrates that, most of the respondents in the sampled schools were
moderately effective the challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness had either
little impacts in the practices or successful relations with the stakeholders in the
dimension. This shows that, the dimension needs much effort to improve for better
teaching- learning process and to made positive relationship with school communities
56
opinion on cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement of stakeholders.
On the other hand principals with the school community and school boards interaction
rated as high with mean values of 3.42 and 3.45. This confirms that, challenges of
instructional leadership effectiveness had highly affected the teaching learning process in
the implementations of tasks in the sampled schools. Hopkins, D. (2005: 94) asserts,
many routine and seasonal issues take away the attention of the office heads and the local
community leaders who can mobilize resource those schools had badly needed. In
connection to this, MoE, (2006: 45-51) shows the leaders were more or less capable to
involve their main stake holders to their environment in the task of school affairs, or the
leaders, particularly the principals where powerful of the theory as well as the practice of
educational leadership.
C. Lack of resource availability and allocation

with lack of resource availability and allocation. It is considered to be a continuous five
point likert scale variable running from ―relatively lowest‖ (1.00) to ―relatively highest‖
(5.00). The mean score in this section was calculated to be used as a measure of
challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness associated with lack of resource
availability and allocation.
57
Table 15 : lack of resource availability and allocation
Teachers Principals
Moderate
Moderate
Total
Total
High
High
Low
low
1 Adequacy of Freq 81 108 47 236 5 9 6 20
Instructional % 34.3 45.8 19.9 100 25 45 30 100
time
Mean 1.9 2.1
2 stationary Freq 73 83 80 236 3 11 6 20

materials for
% 30.9 35.2 33.9 100 15 55 30 100
teaching
Mean 2.0 2.2
3 Student Freq 98 80 58 236 10 5 5 20

textbook % 41.5 33.9 24.6 100 50 25 25 100
Mean 1.8 1.8
4 School Freq 41 112 83 236 4 11 5 20
furniture % 17.4 47.5 35.2 236 20 55 25 100
Mean 2.2 2.6
5 Library space Freq 45 110 81 236 7 11 2 20
and time
% 19.1 46.6 34.3 100 35 55 10 100
Mean 2.2 2.3

6 Recurrent Freq 61 68 107 236 4 6 10 20
budget
support. % 25.8 28.8 45.3 100 20 30 50 100
Mean 2.2 2.3
As it can be seen from the table 15, the response in the dimension of availability of
resources shows that how much school were suffering inadequacy of resources supply by
their respective schools. Concerning to item analysis, like enough instructional time,
students text books, furniture, library space and time and enough stationary materials for
teaching-learning process were rated as moderate with mean values 3.65, 3.1 , 31 ,3.83
and 3.5 respectively by respondents, this implies that there is moderate resource
availability in the sampled schools of instructional leadership except item 6 (Lack of
recurrent budget support.) in the dimensions rated high value which indicates that, the
resource availability had high impacts in the practices of instructional leadership
58
effectiveness. As a whole, one can conclude that neither instructional leaders nor the
teachers group believed that availability of materials in the school had been sufficient the
schools to run the teaching learning processes effectively. Therefore, it would be difficult
to expect effective instructional processes and high educational outputs without adequate
teaching materials, text books teachers guide, library space and furniture in the absence
of enough recurrent budget support.
A. Lack of Vision, Will and Courage
Table 16 : Lack of vision, will and courage
Modera
Modera
Total
Total
High
High
Low
Low
te
te
1 courage to take Freq 70 118 48 236 4 12 4 20
risks, at time for
% 29.7 50 20.3 100 20 60 20 100
the improvement
of instruction Mean
1.9 2.0
2 willingness to Freq 84 104 48 236 5 10 5 20
devote more % 35.6 44.1 20. 100 25 50 20 100
time for 3
instructional
Mean
issues
1.8 1.5
3 adequate Freq 52 110 74 236 3 10 7 20
knowledge to % 22 46.6 31. 100 15 50 35 100
lead instruction 4
Mean
2.1 2.2
4 organizing the Freq 50 60 126 236 3 4 13 20
school
% 21.2 25.4 53.4 100 15 20 65 100
community for
leadership work Mean 2.3 2.5
5 willingness to Freq 71 85 80 236 4 14 2 20

assess staff and
school capacity % 30.1 36 33.9 100 20 70 10 100
for leadership Mean 2.0
1.9
As it can be seen from the table 16, instructional leaders and teachers respondents
responses in willingness to assess staff and school capacity for leadership, willingness to
devote more time for instructional issues, courage to take risks at time for the
59
improvement of instruction and adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership
respondents were rated as moderate with mean values 3.23, 21, 3.38 respectively which
felt to moderate except item organizing the school community for leadership work,
unwillingness to assess staff and school capacity for leadership with mean scores 3.42
and 3.42 which is found to be high challenges when it compared with other items.
Additionally, the characteristics of respondents on section 4.1, indicates that most of
instructional leaders were specialized with subject matters. This may result negative
effects in teaching-learning process. Regarding to this, McEwen (2003) indicates that
realization of school vision and school mission is possible when the leaders of each
school posses‘ adequate knowledge base, willingness and courage to lead the school
towards the perceived objectives. On the other hand lack of vision, will and courage
could hinder the effectiveness of leadership performance. As a result, it can easily
conclude that, an instructional leader who lacks adequate knowledge of leadership may
not courage to take risk, improve instruction and willingness to devote their time for the
achievement of the school vision and mission in the sampled schools. Both groups
understood that the knowledge, will and courage played a great role in improving the
process of teaching and learning even thought it has not been put into practices fully as it
was intended.
Generally a combination of all the data given by respondents gave us, most of the
instructional leaders effectiveness were highly challenged by lack of qualified
instructional leaders, lack of training, lack of adequate knowledge base of instruction
leadership, willingness to devote more time for instructional issues, lack of adequate
resources supply to their respective schools, principals interaction with the school
community and school boards. Therefore, it would be difficult to expect effective
instructional processes and high educational outputs without improving principals‘ skills
and training, cooperation and commitment, resource availability and allocation, Vision,
Will and Courage. This shows that, the challenges need much effort to improve for better
teaching- learning process and to made positive relationship with school communities
and school boards.
60
CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

FINDINGS
These parts of the study deals with the summary of the major findings, general
conclusion drawn on the bases of the findings and recommendations which are assumed
to be useful to enhance primary school instructional leadership in Ephratanagidim
woreda.
5.1. Summary
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the primary school principals‘
discharge their instructional leadership roles and challenges in Ephratanagidim Woreda.
In order to summarize this study, the following basic questions were stated and answered.
To this end, an attempt has been made to see the dimensions of instructional leadership
by giving answer to the basic research questions and how this answer fit with the
teaching learning roles of instructional leaders.
1) To what extent do primary school principals discharge their instructional

leadership role?
2) To what extent do primary school principal effective in their instructional
leadership roles?
3) What are the challenges of primary school principals that constrain to discharge
their instructional leadership?
From the analysis made in chapter 4 the following major finding are summarized as
follows:
• The extent of principals’ to discharge their instructional leadership role.
A. Defining and communicating school goals
The data obtained from respondents about the current practices of instructional leadership
functions revealed that even though the functions like designing the school‘s goals,
communicating the school‘s goals to teachers, students and parents, reflecting school‘s
goals in highly visible displays in the school, informing the students result to
61
stockholders were performed better than other functions. The mean value for each
function was not greater than 3.66. This implies the dimension defining and
communicating school goals still was not performed well.
B. Managing the curriculum and instruction
The data obtained from respondents about managing curriculum and instruction show
that the selected primary school principals who participated in this study had no
experience to spend more time in class room teaching and learning. The qualitative data
also show that they almost detached from academic tasks in their schools and that these
were mostly delegated to senior teachers. This was because the principals were too busy
with administrative tasks. The study further concluded that much of principals‘ time is
allocated to administrative works which could show the tendency of principals to engage
themselves on activities that are not directly related teaching learning process
The study revealed that there were problem of managing curriculum and instruction. In
addition to this it was also found that there were problem of principals‘ initiative in
support teachers to engage in professional development and professional growth by
giving continuous support of cpd program in their schools, support teachers by frequently
conducting class room observation and giving feedback after class room observation.
The data also showed that most of primary school principals were not arranging program
for the staff training and not providing adequate time for professional skill development.
Most principals spend relatively little time in classrooms teaching and learning and even
less analyzing instruction with teachers
C. Supervising and evaluating instructional program
The data obtained from the respondents‘ response revealed that, most of the sampled
primary school principal was not supervise frequently, not conduct class room
observation, not giving feedback after class room observation and not evaluate the
teaching and learning frequently. Sometimes they did the above functions to use as a
means for teachers‘ evaluation and career structure not teacher‘s improvement.
According to Blasé & Blasé (1998, 1999) when instructional leaders monitor and
provide feedback on the teaching and learning process, teachers were likely to focus more
62
on the instructional process and teachers indicated positive effects on motivation,
satisfaction, confidence and sense of security.
MOE (1996:8) which requires at least bachelor degree for principals, supervisor and
teachers of primary school principal ship. But majority of the instructional leaders in the
sampled school were not qualified the primary school principals‘ qualification. They
were assigned without having management training, skills and knowledge in their
respective schools. In this regard, McEwen (2003:12) stated that without adequate
knowledge, technique and skills on the fields of educational management or any
leadership training, it would be difficult for the subject specialist principals to give
comments and suggestions on the technical and educational aspects of instructional
improvement. Thus, it would be possible to assume the placement of these principals
were on appointment basis rather than on proper educational background.
D. Monitoring the instructional program
The data obtained from the respondents‘ response revealed that, monitoring student‘s
progress were found to be problems of principals in their instructional leadership role.
The principals were not discuss with teachers continuously about students‘ academic
progress, instead of following their continuous assessment principals use test results to
evaluate teachers. But study by Leadwood, et.al 2004; & Leadwood and Jantzi, 2000)
stated that, the higher the involvement of the principals on instructional related activities,
the higher will be the probability of students‘ achievement and progress.
In the study from qualitative data revealed that WEO were very seriously constraining the
instructional leadership role. These were numerous reporting requirements, absence of
clear guidelines, and unwise interference in the instructional function of leadership. Other
factors such as higher officials were not providing emphasis on instructional activities,
WEO rules and regulations, untimely teachers transfer, delay substitute of deployment of
teachers, teaching material delivery problems, lack of supervisory support from WEO
and frequent reshuffling of principals by WEO were constraining instructional leadership
role.
63
E. Creating positive school climate
The study revealed that, the availability of instructional resource such as reference book
in the library, operative funds found, qualified teachers, found to be inadequate in the
school.
Generally the data obtained from respondents about the current practices of instructional
leadership functions revealed that most of the key instructional leadership functions such
as experience to spend more time for instructional activities (class room teaching and
learning ), frequently conducting class room observation, giving feedback after class
room observation, following up teachers continuous evaluation, supporting teachers to
engage in professional development and professional growth, arranging program for the
staff training ,providing adequate time for professional skill development, following up
teachers to avoid problem of curriculum coverage with the given time, encouraging
teachers to evaluate and improve their curriculum, ensure the timely allocation of
resources (Human, material, and financial) necessary for instructional process, motivating
teachers for their best performance were rated lower. This revealed that most school
leaders were strong neither in each dimension nor in their overall instructional leadership
role. The study also tells us they more give emphasis for administrative role than that of
instructional role .Similar findings like UNESCO, 2013 stated that majority of school
principals in Ethiopia, were incapable in performing instructional leadership practices
• Principals’ instructional leadership effectiveness.
According to Hallinger and Murphy (1987), effective primary school principals as

instructional leaders should accomplish five major dimensions of instructional leadership
functions such as defining and communicating school goals, managing and monitoring
instructional program, supervising the instructional program and coordinating school
curriculum, monitoring the instructional program and promoting school climate in
integrated manner for the establishment of the school.
The data obtained qualitatively from both principals and teachers responses however
revealed that, most of the principals who participated in this study did not effective in
64
most of the key instructional leadership dimensions. Furthermore the key instructional
leadership dimensions such as managing and monitoring instructional program,
supervising the instructional program and coordinating school curriculum, monitoring the
instructional program, providing incentives for teachers and monitoring student progress
were rated much lower. Quantitative data also supports this response. Qualitative data
further revealed that the principals rarely supervised and evaluated the teaching and
learning in their schools in order to evaluate their teachers not for academic purpose. To
this end, the Ethiopia Educational and Training Policy, (MOE, 1994: p: 29-30) states that
educational management should be professionally coordinated, efficient and effective.
Blasé & Blasé (1998, 1999) indicate that school leaders that did not engage in
supervising and evaluating instruction had a negative effect on teacher performance and
pupil performance. Therefore most leaders have given little attention their instructional
leadership effectiveness. As a result, instructional leadership is not provided strongly by
most instructional leaders in their respective schools.
Generally the data obtained from the respondents‘ response revealed that, most school
leaders were not strong (effective) neither in each dimension nor in their overall
instructional leadership role. The study also tells us they give more emphasis for
administrative role than that of instructional role.
Principals’ instructional leadership challenges to discharge their role.
The data obtained from the respondents‘ response revealed that, the practice of
instructional leadership effectiveness was faced by almost all of the challenges discussed
above such as, lack of adequate skill, training and knowledge, vision, will and courage,
availability of resources of instructional leaders. Whereas, cooperation, commitment for
instructional improvements which was moderately challenged and school teachers
relationship with instructional leaders were minimally challenged the practice of
instructional leadership effectiveness in the study area. Similar studies like Blase and
Blasé 2000 stated that no single function can bring about students achievement; rather
different functions of teaching and learning process. However, the result of this study
revealed that instructional leaders did not possess the necessary knowledge, training and
skills, vision, will and courage that help them in leading the school community as they
were almost all subject specialists.
65
5.2 Conclusion
From this research finding we can conclude that most of the principals in the sampled
school were not implementing their instructional leadership role and most school leaders
were not strong neither in each dimension nor in their overall instructional leadership role
because of the challenges like lack of adequate skill, training and knowledge, vision, will
and courage, Lack of availability of resources, Lack of cooperation and commitment. The
data obtained from the respondent also reveals that the selected sample school principals
were too busy with administrative tasks. They give more time for it than their
instructional role. They more give emphasis for administrative role than that of
instructional role. This implies that most of the primary school principals were not
instructional leaders rather they were administrative.
5.3 Recommendations
The following are the recommendation given to specific stakeholders in order to bring
change in instructional leadership in primary school.
The data obtained from the respondent showed that most of the selected primary
school principal not providing adequate time for professional skill development
thus the Woreda Education office, Zone and Regional education bureau need to
design sustainable and need based continuous professional development programs
at woreda level with special attention at school based and school focused
principals professional development programs. This may enable principals to
develop empirical and basic instructional leadership skills to perform instructional
role effectively because this happens due to lack of knowledge to support
teachers. The principal need also to arrange program for the staff training for
professional skill development
The study revealed that, the availability of instructional resource such as reference
book in the library, operative funds found, qualified teachers, found to be
inadequate in the school. It would also be difficult to expect effective instructional
processes and high educational outputs without resource availability and
allocation. Therefore Woreda Education office, Zone Education and office, and
community need to search resources for an opportunity to acquaint primary
66
schools with required level and standards of human and material resources to
perform instructional practice adequately.
In the study from qualitative data reveals that WEO were numerous reporting
requirements, absence of clear guidelines, and unwise interference in the
instructional function, rules and regulations, untimely teachers transfer, delay
substitute of deployment of teachers. The WEO need to avoid untimely reporting
requirements, absence of clear guidelines, and unwise interference in the
instructional function of leadership, untimely teachers transfer, delay substitute of
deployment of teachers, lack of supervisory support from WEO and frequent
reshuffling of principals.
The data obtained from respondents about managing instruction show that the
selected primary school principals who participated in this study had little
experience to spend more time in class room teaching and learning they were
more focusing on administrative activities. Thus the principal should give
emphasis to instructional activities that are directly related teaching learning
process than that of administrative work.
The data obtained from the respondents‘ response revealed that, most of the
sampled primary school principal was not supervise frequently, not conduct class
room observation, not giving feedback after class room observation and not
evaluate the teaching and learning frequently. Therefore the principal need to
conduct class room observation and give feedback after class room observation.
They also need to use it for the academic purpose instead using it for career
structure and evaluation.
The study reveals that the principals were not discuss with teachers continuously
about students‘ academic progress, instead of following their continuous
assessment principals use test results to evaluate teachers. Thus they need to
discuss with teachers about the student progress.
The data obtained from the respondent also reveals that the selected sample
school principals were too busy with administrative tasks. They need to give more
time for administrative work than their instructional role. This implies that most
of the primary school principals were not instructional leaders rather they were
67
administrative. Thus in order to bring the quality education the school principal
needs to focus more for instructional work.
Generally the success and failure of the schools depends on how principals
perform the role of instructional leadership. This study therefore recommends that
every responsible body should accomplish their responsibilities accordingly to
bring change in instructional leadership.
68
Appendix I
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
(EDPM)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS
DEAR TEACHERS
The general objective of this study is to assess primary school principals‘ instructional
leadership roles and challenges in of Ephratanagidim woreda of North Shoa Zone. The
information gathered through this questioner will use by the researcher for strictly
academic purpose. Your careful and honest response determines the success of the
researcher and the study. Thus, you are kindly requested to complete the questioner
carefully and honestly. Your responses will be kept confidential. Please read the
instructions and each in the questioner carefully before you give your response. If you
want to change any of your responses, make sure that you have cancelled the unwanted
ones.
Thank you! For the time and effort you have put in to your participation in this research
project. Your input is greatly appreciated.
General Instruction
No need to write your name;

put ‗X‘ mark in the space where alternative answers are given; If you are not
satisfying among the given alternatives, write your own possible response on the
space provided with the title ―specify if any.‖
69
Part I: Personal Information
This part of questioner contains the personal information. Thus, please fill the necessary
answer for each item properly by writing in the space prepared.
1. Name of the School _______________________________ woreda __________
2. Sex: Male ---- Female
3. Age: 21-30years 31-40years 41 41- 50 years 51 -60
4. Your highest level of education: a. Diploma b. B.A/B.Sc
c. M.A./ M.Sc d. Other
5. Field of specialization in
a. EDPM major b. Language fields
c. Different natural science fields d. Different social science fields
6. Work Experience including the present position
A. in teaching: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years e..16-20 years f. 21 and above
B. an assistant principal: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years e.16-20 years f. 21 and above
C. A unite leader a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years e..16-20 years f.21 and above
D. A department head: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
d. 11-15 years e.16-20 years f.21 and above
70
E. School Supervisor: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
F. principals: a. No service b 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
C.11-15 years d.16-20 years e. 21 and above years
E. Other specify ______
7. If your principal did not fulfill the educational requirement but now on the process of
learning EDPM course to fulfill educational requirement of the position. How many years
does he/she left to complete?
a. one year left to complete b. two years left to complete
c. three years left to complete d. completed the course
PART II: Principals’ instructional leadership roles.
This part of the questioner containing close- ended items that focused on the instructional
role. Read each statement carefully and based on the concept of each statement, please
select the option that directly represent your opinion about instructional leadership role
and mark ―X‖ on the space that represents how strongly you feel about the statement by
using the following scoring system:
Strongly agree ---5 agree -----4 undecided ---3 disagree----2 strongly disagree--
-1
Note: Instructional leadership role conceptualized as the activities of principal in
defining and communicating school goals, managing and monitoring instructional
program, supervising and evaluating instructional program, monitoring student progress
and promoting professional development ,coordinating curriculum and creating
conducive school learning climate. Each dimension is described below.
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5
The school principal……………
1 Design the school‘s goals more focusing on class room
teaching and learning.
71
2 Reflect school‘s goals in highly visible displays in the
school.
3 Communicate the school‘s goals to teachers, students and
parents.
B. Managing the curriculum and instruction.
1 Has experience to spend more time in class room teaching
and learning rather than administrative.
2 Ensures that the instructional program going according to
the school calendar.
3 Role model by working hard themselves with staff
4 Follows up teachers to avoid problem of curriculum
coverage with the given time.
5 Encourage teachers to evaluate and improve their
curriculum.
1 Frequently conduct class room observation in order to see
teachers‘ professional growth instead of using it for the
evaluation and career structure.
2 Gives feedback to teachers soon after class – supervision.
3 Informs the students result to stockholders in a report form.
D. Monitoring the instructional program.

1 Follow up teachers‘ continuous evaluation of their student
in order to see their progress.
2 Interact with students to discuss about their academic
progress
3 Support students by giving guidance and counseling in order
to bring educational and behavioral progress.
4 Support teachers to engage in professional development and
professional growth by doing cpd in the school.
72
5 Arrange program for staff training to create a spirit of
cooperative working atmosphere.
6 Provides adequate time for professional skill development.
E. Creating a positive School Climate
1 Ensure the timely allocation of resources (Human, material,
and financial) necessary for instructional process.
2 Effectively interact with community.
3 Treat school community equitably and fairly.
4 Mobilize the higher officials to support the instructional
program.
5 Have a good conflict resolving skill.
6 Motivate teachers for their best performance?
7 Delegate powers to the responsible bodies?
PART III: The instructional leadership effectiveness.
This part of the questioner containing close- ended items that focused on primary school
principals‘ instructional leadership effectiveness. Read each statement carefully and
based on the concept of each statement, please select the option that directly represent
your opinion on instructional leadership effectiveness and mark ―X‖ on the space that
represents how strongly you feel about the statement by using the following scoring
system:
Strongly agree ---5 agree -----4 undecided ---3 disagree----2 strongly disagree---1
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5

1 The school vision, mission and goals prepared by the school principal
has given equal awareness to all stockholders about the school future
dream.
2 The school vision, mission and goals prepared by the school
principal has helped stockholders to have short and long term plan
for accomplishment of their school future dream.
73
1 The support given by the school principal has helped teachers to
complete the instructional program according to the school calendar.
2 The support given by the school principal has brought change on
teachers‘ classroom management.
3 The support given by the school principal has brought improvements
on methodology of teachers.
4 The support given by the school principal has brought change to give
emphasis for teaching and learning than administrative.
1 The support given by the school principal has helped teachers not to
have problem of curriculum coverage.
2 The support given by the school principal has improved the use of
continuous assessment and evaluation mechanism of teachers.
3 The support given by the school principal has helped teachers‘
professional growth.
1 The support given by the school principal has helped students not to
have burden of makeup class at the end of the semester.
2 The support given by the school principal has brought change on
academic and behavioral progress of students.
1 The motivation given by the school principal has helped teachers to

do better.
2 The school principal has brought good relation with the community.
PART IV Challenges of Instructional Leadership Effectiveness

Instruction-4: The following issues are assumed to be the common challenges of schools
that hinder the practices of instructional leadership. The five point scales indicated below
reflect the degree of availability each challenge in your school. Please rate each item,
74
using the (1-5) scales that best describes the degree to which the challenges are
availability in your school. The numbers indicated:
Very high ---5 High --4 Moderate --3 Low---2 Very low---1
. Note: challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness is conceptualized as the lack

of skills and training, lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement,
lack of resource availability and allocation, lack of vision, will and courage. Each
dimension is described below.
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5
4.1 Lack of Skills and Training
How do you rate the following challenges of instructional

leadership in your school?
1 Lack of qualified instructional leaders in the area of

education
2 Lack of training on instructional leadership
3 Lack of in-service training and teachers development
program
4 Lack of qualified teachers in all subject area
4.2 Lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional
Improvement
How do you evaluate the school leaders’ interaction with the

following stakeholders in your school?
1 principals with Teachers interaction

2 principals with Students interaction
3 principals with School boards interaction
4 principals with School communities interaction
5 principals with woreda educational managers interaction
4.3 Lack of resource availability and allocation
How do you evaluate the availability of the following
75
resources in your school?
1 Lack of adequacy of Instructional time

2 Lack of stationary materials for teaching
3 Lack of student textbook
4 Lack of school furniture
5 Lack of library space and time
6 Lack of recurrent budget support
4.4 Lack of Vision, Will and Courage
Evaluate your leaders in relation to the following

instructional roles.
1 Lack of courage to take risks, at time for the improvement

of instruction
2 unwillingness to devote more time for instructional issues
3 Lack of adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership
4 Lack of organizing the school community for leadership
work
5 unwillingness to assess staff and school capacity for
leadership
Part V: Open ended questions

1. from your point of view do your principal focusing on instructional than
administrative work? why?-------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How do you evaluate the success of your instructional leadership roles? --------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What major challenges that hinder effectiveness of instructional leadership? ---------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.what solution do you suggest?------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. If you have any other comment please write here--------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76
APPENDIX II
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
(EDPM)
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRINCIPALS
DEAR PRINCIPALS
The general objective of this study is to assess primary school principals‘ instructional
leadership roles and chalenges in of Ephratanagidim woreda of North Shoa Zone. The
information gathered through this questioner will use by the researcher for strictly
academic purpose. Your careful and honest response determines the success of the
researcher and the study. Thus, you are kindly requested to complete the questioner
carefully and honestly. Your responses will be kept confidential. Please read the
instructions and each in the questioner carefully before you give your response. If you
want to change any of your responses, make sure that you have cancelled the unwanted
ones.
Thank you! For the time and effort you have put in to your participation in this research
project. Your input is greatly appreciated.
General Instruction
No need to write your name;

put ‗X‘ mark in the space where alternative answers are given; If you are not
satisfying among the given alternatives, write your own possible response on the
space provided with the title ―specify if any.‖
77
Part I: Personal Information
This part of questioner contains the personal information. Thus, please fill the necessary
answer for each item properly by writing in the space prepared.
1. Name of the School _______________________________ woreda __________
2. Sex: Male ---- Female
3. Age: 21-30years 31-40years 41 41- 50 years 51 -60
4. Your highest level of education: a. Diploma b. B.A/B.Sc
c. M.A./ M.Sc d. Other
5. Field of specialization in
a. EDPM major b. Language fields
c. Different natural science fields d. Different social science
fields
6. Work Experience including the present position
A. in teaching: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
B. an assistant principal: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
C. A unite leader a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
D. A department head: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
E. School Supervisor: a. No service b. 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
78
F. principals: a. No service b 1-5 years c. 6-10 years
C.11-15 years d.16-20 years e. 21 and above years
E. Other specify ______
7. If you did not fulfill the educational requirement but now on the process of learning
EDPM course to fulfill educational requirement of the position. How many years do
he/she left to complete?
a. one year left to complete b. two years left to complete
c. three years left to complete d. completed the course
PART II: Principals’ instructional leadership roles.

This part of the questioner containing close- ended items that focused on the instructional
role. Read each statement carefully and based on the concept of each statement, please
select the option that directly represent your opinion on instructional leadership roles and
mark ―X‖ on the space that represents how strongly you feel about the statement by using
the following scoring system:
Strongly agree ---5 Agree---4 Undecided ---3 Disagree---2 Strongly disagree---1
Note: Instructional leadership roles conceptualized as the activities of principal in setting
school goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising instruction, monitoring
student progress and promoting school learning climate. Each dimension is described in.
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5
1 Design the school‘s goals more focusing on class room
teaching and learning.
2 Reflect school‘s goals in highly visible displays in the
school.
3 Communicate the school‘s goals to teachers, students and
parents.
B. Managing and monitoring instructional program
79
1 You have experience to spend more time in class room
teaching and learning rather than administrative.
2 Ensure that the instructional program going according to the
school calendar?
3 Role model by working hard themselves with staff?
4 Support teachers to avid problem of curriculum coverage
with the given time.
5 Encourage and support teachers to evaluate and improve
their curriculum.
1 Frequently conduct Class room observation in order to see

teachers‘ professional growth instead of using it for the
evaluation and career structure.
2 Give feedback to teachers soon after class – supervision.
3 Inform the students result to stockholders in a report form.
1 Follow up teachers‘ continuous evaluation of their student

in order to see their progress.
2 Contact with students to discuss about their academic
progress
3 Support students by giving guidance and counseling in
order to bring educational and behavioral progress?
5 Support teachers to engage in professional development and
professional growth by doing cpd in the school?
6 Arrange program for staff training to create a spirit of
cooperative working atmosphere?
1 Ensure the timely allocation of resources (Human, material,
and financial) necessary for instructional process.
2 Interact with community and school members.
3 Treat school community equitably and fairly.
4 Mobilize the higher officials to support the instructional
80
program.
5 Have a good conflict resolving skill
6 Motivate teachers for their best performance.
7 You delegate powers to the responsible bodies.
PART III: The instructional leadership effectiveness.
This part of the questioner containing close- ended items that focused on primary school
principals‘ instructional leadership effectiveness. Read each statement carefully and
based on the concept of each statement, please select the option that directly represent
your opinion on instructional leadership effectiveness and mark ―X‖ on the space that
represents how strongly you feel about the statement by using the following scoring
system:
Strongly agree ---5 agree ----4 undecided ---3 disagree----2 strongly disagree---1
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5

Has given equal awareness to all stockholders about the school future
dream.
has helped stockholders to have common short and long term plan for
accomplishment of their school future dream.
1 Your support given to teachers has helped them to complete the

instructional program according to the school calendar.
2 Your support given to teachers has brought change on teachers‘
classroom management.
3 Your support given to teachers has brought improvements on
methodology of teachers.
4 You have brought change to give emphasis for teaching and learning
81
than administrative.
1 Your support given to teachers has helped them not to have problem of
curriculum coverage.
2 Your support given to teachers has improved their use of continuous
assessment and evaluation mechanism.
3 Your support given to teachers has helped their professional growth.
D. Monitoring the student progress
1 Your support given to teachers has helped students not to have burden
of makeup class at the end of the semester.
2 Your support given to teachers has brought change on students‘
academic and behavioral progress.
G. Creating a positive School Climate
1 Your motivation has helped teachers to do better.
2 You have had good relation with the community.
PART IV Challenges of Instructional Leadership Effectiveness

Instruction-4: The following issues are assumed to be the common challenges of schools
that hinder the practices of instructional leadership. The five point scales indicated below
reflect the degree of availability each challenge in your school. Please rate each item,
using the (1-5) scales that best describes the degree to which the challenges are
availability in your school. The numbers indicated:
Very high ---5 High --4 Moderate --3 Low---2 Very low---1
. Note: challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness is conceptualized as the lack

of skills and training, lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement,
lack of resource availability and allocation, lack of vision, will and courage. Each
dimension is described below.
82
NO Items 1 2 3 4 5
4.1 Lack of Skills and Training
How do you rate the following challenges of instructional leadership
in your school?
1 Qualified instructional leaders in the area of education
2 Training on instructional leadership

3 In-service training and teachers development program
4 Qualified teachers in all subject area
4.2 Lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional
improvement
How do you evaluate the school leaders’ interaction with the following
stakeholders in your school?
1 principals with Teachers interaction
2 principals interaction with Students
3 principals interaction with School boards
4 principals interaction with School communities
5 principals interaction with woreda educational managers
4.3 Lack of resource availability and allocation
do you evaluate the availability of the following resources in your
school?
1 Adequacy of Instructional time
2 Atationary materials for teaching
3 Student textbook
4 School furniture
5 Library space and time
6 Recurrent budget support
4.4 Lack of Vision, Will and Courage
Evaluate your leaders in relation to the following instructional roles.
1 Courage to take risks, at time for the improvement of instruction
2 Willingness to devote more time for instructional issues
3 Adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership
4 Organizing the school community for leadership work
5 Willingness to assess staff and school capacity for leadership
83
Part III: Open ended questions
.1. From your point of view do you focus on for instructional activities than
administrative work?why? -------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How do you evaluate the success/effectiveness/ of your instructional leadership
roles? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What major problems hinder effectiveness of instructional leadership? ---------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.What solution do you suggest?-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
5. If you have any other comment please write here -------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
84
APPENDIX III
Interview and FGD guidelines for supervisors
Woreda: ___________________________________________
1. Background Information Age ____________ Sex ___________
2. Year of experience (service) as a supervisor ___________________
3. Qualification Major _____________________________________
4. Level of educational attainment _________________________
5. How do you see the currently employed selection/election of leaders /for principal
ship position from professional point of view?
6. Do the principals mostly focusing on classroom teaching and learning instead of

administrative work?
7. To what extent do principals follow up the instructional process going according

to the school calendar?
8. To what extent do principals class room observations are effective in improving

teachers‘ professional growth and development?
9. Do principals give feedback to teachers soon after class – supervision?
10. Do your principals follow up teachers‘ continuous evaluation of their student in

order to see their progress?
11. How do you measure the availability of the resources in your school?
12. What are the major challenges that hinder the effectiveness of instructional
leadership activity and what mechanism do principals use to solve the problem?
85
References
Akinyi, O. M. (2013). School-based factors influencing instructional performance of

teachers in public primary schools in.
Ayalew, Shibeshi. (2000). Theories of Educational management,(EDAD 611). Addis
Ababa University: unpublished teaching material
Best.Johan W and James.V. Kahan (1989) Research in Education.New Jersey. Prentice
Hall.Inc.
Bishaw T. (1975)‖The primary School Principal ship in Ethiopia.‖ (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).
Blasé, j and Blasé J. (1998).Hand book of instructional leadership; how really good
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand oaks‘.
Blasé, J, and Blasé, J.(1999). Principals‘ instructional leadership and teacher developments
Teachers perspective.Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349 – 378.
BONDI, J. and WILES, J. 1986Practice. Bell and Howell Co.Supervision : A Guide to
DEAN, J. 1987 Helm Ltd. Managing the Primarv School. Croom
Book binder, R. (2001). The principals‘ Leadership for the effective and productive
schools.Springfield: IL Hares, Thomas publisher.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management.London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011).Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Day, C. (2007). The Impact of School Leadership on Pupils’ Outcomes: Institute of
Education: University of London.
DEAN, J. 1987 Helm Ltd. Managing the Primarv School. Croom
DEAN, J. 1991 : Professional Development in School. Open University Press.
Dimmock,Clive.(2000).Designing the Learning Centred Schools.London:Falmer Press
Ezenne, A. (2010). Leadership for School Improvement in the Caribbean. USA: In-
formation Age Publishing Inc., 181-825.
Ezeuwa,L.(2000) Issues in education management. Enuge – Hipuks additional press.
Fullan, M. (1991).The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). SuperVision and
86
instructional leadership (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P. & J.F Murphy(2000).Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to
school improvement and growth in math achievement.American Educational
Research Journal, 46(3)659-689.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985).Assessing the instructional management behaviors of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86 (2),, 217-247.
Hallinger, P. (2000). A review of two decades of research on the principal using the
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Hallinger, P. (2008, March). Methodologies for studying school leadership: A review of
25 years of research using the Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical
research.Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010a). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School
Leadership and Management, 30(2)95-110.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010b). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership
make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management
Adminstration & Leadership, 38(6)654-678.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal‘s role in school
effectiveness: Areview of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1),5-44.
Hallinger,P. ,& Murphy,F.J.(1987).Assessing and Developing Principal Instructional
Leadership Retrieved, May 3, 2011, vol 45, no3 54-61
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006).Sustainable leadership for sustainable change.San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harris A. (2005). Effective Leadership for School Improvement. Newyork: Routledge
famler
Harris, A. (2002). Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts.School
Leadership & Management22, 15-26.
Hopkins.D. (2005).Instructional Leadership and School Improvement. In Harris et.al
87
(eds) Effective Leadership for School Improvement. Rutledge Flamer 120
Kent de vries, M. (2006).The Leadership Mystique: Leading Behavior in the Human
Enterprise (2nded.). London: Pearson Education Limited
Kitavi, M.W.; van der Westhuizen, P.C. (1997). Problems facing beginning principals in
developing countries: a study of beginning principals in Kenya: International
Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 17, No.3, pp. 251-263
Krug.S.E. (1992).‘‘Instructional Leadership: A constructivist Perspective.‖ Educational
Administration QuarterlyVol.28.No.3,pp.430-443
Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners, 2nd
edition. New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia.
Larson-Knight, B. (2000). Leadership, culture, and organizational learning: in
Understanding the Schools as Intelligent System. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999).Transformational school leadership effects.School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4)451-479.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on
organizationalconditions and student engagement with the school. Journal of
EducationalAdministration, 38(2), 112-129.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful
school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. (University
of Nottingham,UK: National College of School Leadership),
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Lineburge, P. N. (2010). The influence of the instructional leadership of the principals on
change in teachers' instructional practices. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Locke, A, Edwin and Ass. (1991). The essence of leadership. New York:
Macmillan Inc.
LOVELL, J.T. and WILES, K. 1983 The School Principal:Recommendations for
Effective Leadership. State Capital,Sacramento, California.
M,Ewen &E.K (2003). Seven steps to instructional leadership thousand oaks
:California,corwin press.
MOE (2002).The Quality and Effectiveness of Teachers Education in Ethiopia. Addis
Ababa:
88
MOE 2008. Review of the Ethiopian Education Training Policyand Its Implementation.
Addis Ababa : Andact PrintersEffectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.
MOE(2005). Education Sector Development. Addis Ababa.
MoE, (1994). Educational and Training policy. Addis Ababa EMPDA.
MoE, (2006). Educational Statistics Annual Abstract 2005/6.Addis Ababa.
MoE, (2010). Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP-IV): Program Action
Plan. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education, Education Management
Information Systems (EMIS) Department.
Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. In R. Lotto, & P. Thurston (eds),
Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the
school, Vol. 1, Part b (pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Murphy, J. (2009). Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years.Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(3)8-12.
Noonan,B, and Hellsten, L.(2013).Toward Instructional Leadership.Principals
Perceptions of Large-Scale Assessment in Schools.Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy Issue no-40-University of
Saskatchewan.
Peter, S. M. (1990). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan
Management Review.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes. An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 635-674.
Rowe, K. (2007). The imperative of evidence-based instructional leadership:Building
capacity within professional learning communities via a focus on effective
teaching practice. Background paper to keynote address presented at the Sixth
International Conference on Educational Leadership. University of Wollongong, 15-16
February 2007.
Serjiovanni, T. J. and R. S. Starratt.2001. Supervision A Redefinition. New York:
McGraw- Hill, Inc.
Seyoum, T. and Ayalew, S. (1989).Fundamentals of Educational Research for Students
and Beginning Researchers.Addis Ababa: AAU Press.
89
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the mational nature of the instructional leadership.Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325-334.
Snyder, K. K. (1983). “Instructional Leadership for Productive Schools.‖ Educational
Leadership. Vol. 40, No.5 pp.32-37.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical
evidence.School Leadership and Management, 22(1)73-92.
Temesgen, M. (1997). A Study on Principals‘ Instructional Leadership Effectiveness
and Influencing Factors in Senior Secondary Schools of Amhara
Region.Unpublished MA Thesis: Addis Ababa University.
Tesfaye Nigussie, (2010).The Role of Instructional leadership in Building Organizational
Climate of Secondary School. (AAU, Unpublished MA Thesis).
UNESCO.(2013). A Survey Study of In school Factors Affecting Quality of Education in
Secondary Schools of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
Weber, J. (1996). Leading the instructional programs.In S. S. Piele, School Leadership
(pp. 253-278).Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse of Educational Management.
90

Berihun Eshetu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berihun Eshetu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Berihun Eshetu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

Principals‘ Discharge Their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

By: Berihun Eshetu Awake

A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University College of Education and Behavioral

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

Principals‘ Discharge Their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

By: Berihun Eshetu Awake

A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University College of Education and Behavioral

Advisor : Kenenissa Dabi (PhD)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES

Principals‘ Discharge their Instructional Leadership Roles and Challenges in Primary

A Thesis Submitted to Addis Ababa University College of Education and Behavioral

By: Berihun Eshetu Awake

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dr. Kenenissa Dabi

I would like to convey my sincere gratitude to my organization, Ataye preparatory and

B.A Bachelor of Arts

B.ed Bachelor of Education

B.Sc Bachelor of Science

EDPM educational planning and management

ESDP Education sector development program

FGD Focus Group Discussion

M.A Masters of Arts

M.Sc Masters of Science

MOE Ministry of Education

SCL school leadership

UNESCO united nation education science and culture organization

WEO Wereda Education Office

1.1 Background of the study

Recent authors and researchers, however, reframed the conceptual framework of

Therefore , regarding the role of principal as instructional leaders, government of

Instructional leadership has a particular importance in educational administration because

Therefore, this study attempts to make an assessment on primary school principals‘

1.3 Research questions

1) To what extent do primary school principals discharge their instructional

1.4 Objectives of the study

1.4.1 General objective of the study

To investigate the primary school principals‘ discharge their instructional

1.4.2 Specific objectives of the study

• To identify the extent of primary schools principals‘ instructional leadership

• To examine the effectiveness of primary school principals‘ instructional

• To find out major challenges of primary school principals‘ instructional

• It will also serve as information source for educational officials at different

• It will also provide valuable information to the primary school principals

1.6 Delimitation of the study

Instructional leadership deals with diversified dimensions. Including all dimensions

1.7 Limitation of the study

Clustered Schools : A cluster is a group of schools that work together to share

Instructional leadership dimension: Refers to the main pillars or frame works of

Instructional leadership Effectiveness: Frequency of leaders‘ engagement in the role

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Concept of instructional leadership

2.2 Global experience in instructional leadership

Since 1980s, the instructional leadership has been a demand to be implemented in an

Throughout Africa, there is no formal requirement for principals to be trained managers.

2.3 National experience in instructional leadership

2.4 Instructional leadership framework