Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

ISSN 1990-9233
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2015.23.06.22201

Teachers’ Perceptions on Transformational Leadership

Based on Demographic Differences
1
Baharak Talebloo, 2Ramli Bin Basri, 3Soaib Bin Asmiran, 4Aminuddin Hassan

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Education Faculty, University Putra Malaysia
2,3,4
Education Faculty, University Putra Malaysia

Abstract: Transformational leadership emphasizes emotions and values sharing and aims at fundamental reform
of individuals and the whole organization capacity. It has contributed to development in terms of motivation
and commitment in problem solving as well as implementation of reform initiative.The purpose of this study was
to determine the level of transformational leadership in primary schools in Malaysia based on demographic
differences. 144 primary school teachers from 24 schools in six district of Selangor were selected based on
stratified random sampling. Data were collected based on survey method and were analysed using descriptive
and independent t-sample test and one way-ANOVA. According to the findings the level of transformational
leadership was high based on teachers’ perceptions. Furthermore, result of analysis indicated that there among
transformational leadership dimensions there was significant difference between national, chines and Tamil
teachers’ perception in individualized support and collaborative in decision making. The findings based on
differences in transformation leadership by location showed that teacher perceptions in urban area higher in
modelling behaviour and straight school culture than the rural teacher’s perceptions. The findings of this study
have implications for how close or far the schools move towards 2010 Malaysia vision and which
transformational leadership factors need to be focused on more.

Key words: Transformational Leadership Primary Schools School Locations Type of School Malaysia

INTROUDUCTION [3-10] transformational leadership concept is including

building school vision, establishing school goal,
Educational organizations have changed dramatically providing intellectual stimulation, offering individualized
during the last decade in an effort to increase support, organization values, emphasizes followers’
effectiveness. Therefore, School effectiveness and needs, demonstrating high performance expectations,
educational reform need to discussed new leadership creating a productive school culture and developing
toward adopted with school challenges and structures for encourage follower to participate in school
administrators who can manage the daily process of decisions. These are necessary conditions for a school
school and who are able to articulate a vision for success, strong in academic optimism. Based on the results of the
inspire others to embrace the vision and have the ability research regarding to transformational Leadership in
to make the necessary changes. Bass [1, 2] indicated that Malaysia and other countries, schools can be
there was much attention on the development of leaders autonomous and effective so that it has a significant
at the upper hierarchical levels of the organization. effect on improving students’ outcomes. According to
Lunenburg Stated that new organizational paradigms that Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) for the
include the sharing of information, decentralization of transformation of the Malaysian education there is need
decision-making authority. Therefore, as a result of high performance school leader in improving quality of
reform there is need leader who are capable of driving education and transforming school visions and goals.
the process system to be effective and sustainable, The main problem according to transformational
empowering others to take responsibility. This is called leadership is that, numerous studies carried out in
transformational leadership [2]. According to Leithwood Malaysia and other countries, focused on the relation

Corresponding Author: Baharak Talebloo, Ph.D. Candidate, Education Faculty, University Putra Malaysia.
1105
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

between transformational leadership and student Transformational leadership model by Leithwood

achievement. However, few works has been done on (1994) include 8 dimensionsthat are categorized in 3
determined level of transformational leadership based groups as follows: 1: Setting direction: focuses on a clear
on the demographic Furthermore, Malaysia Education school vision, school goals and high performance
Blueprint (2013-2025) emphasises on demographic expectations, 2: Developing people: motivating teachers
features such as gender and type of schools gap by 2020. through individual support, intellectual stimulation
Furthermore, Malaysia Education Blueprint and modeling important values and practices, 3:
(2013-2025) emphasises on demographic features such Redesigning the organization: establishing a productive
school location (urban and rural) and type of schools school culture and fostering collaborative decision
gap by 2020.These factors are important as well when it making. According to this model, in a successful
comes to school effectiveness and improvement. transformational leadership in schools, all the aspects
According to Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013-2025) have to be considered.
the ministry aspires to halve the current Urban-Rural gap
by 2020 [9]. Building school vision: behaviour on the part of the
principal aimed at identifying new opportunities for
Transformational Leadership in School Setting: his or her school staff members and developing,
Transformational leadership defined by Burns (1978) as a articulating and inspiring others with his or her vision
process in which “leaders and followers raise one another of the future.
to higher levels of morality and motivation, the wants Establishing school goals: behaviour on the part of
and needs, the aspirations and expectations” [38]. the principal aimed at promoting cooperation among
Bass (1985) added to the initial concepts of Burns school staff members and assisting them to work
(1978) to help explain how transformational leadership together toward common goal.
could be measured, as well as how it impacts follower Holding high performance expectations:
motivation and performance. The leader transforms and Behaviour that demonstrates the principal's
motivates followers through his or her idealized expectations for excellence, quality and high
influence, intellectual stimulation and individual performance on the part of the school staff.
consideration. Based on Bass and Avolio (1995) theory, Providing an appropriate role model: behaviour on
followers can be motivated and encouraged by leaders in the part of the principal that sets an example for the
order to obtain unexpected goals and achievement. school staff members to follow consistent with the
As a result of transformational leadership, followers feel values the principal espouses. Modelling is the best
confident and strong enough to overcome challenges and practices and important organizational values
difficulties.Ttransformational leadership has four Providing individualized support: Behaviour on the
components; idealized influence (vision that the leader part of the principal that indicates respect for school
conveys), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation staff members and concern about their personal
(focuses on creativity and innovation) and individual feelings and needs.
consideration. Providing intellectual stimulation: Behaviour on the
Leithwood and his colleagues have researched on part of the principal that challenges school staff
the effects of transformational leadership on schools members to re-examine some of the assumptions
(Leithwood. Leithwood’s model of transformational about their work and rethink how it can be
leadership provides a different perspective from the performed.
transformational leadership model by Burns, (1979) and Productive school culture: Leithwood et al., (1999)
Bass (1985). Leithwood’s in this model attention to acknowledge that there is much evidence to suggest
building productive community relationships, which is that the culture of a school plays a big role in the
not addressed in earlier models. The Leithwood success of the school. The culture of a school is the
model includes eight dimensions: vision, group goals, shared “norms, beliefs, values and assumptions” of
high performance expectations, intellectual stimulation, the members of the school.
individual support, modelling, school culture, Fostering participative decision making: The formal
Building collaborative structure. According to this and informal opportunities for school staff to give
model, in a successful transformational leadership in their professional input for the purpose of making
schools, all the aspects have to be considered. decisions). When teachers feel engaged in making

1106
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

significant decisions they develop new beliefs in toward a level of commitment to achieve school goals by
their capacity to not only make a difference in the setting direction, developing people, redesigning the
classroom, but across the whole school as well. organization and managing the instructional program.
In order to examine the teacher’s perceptions on
Importance of the Transformational Leadership in School transformational leadership based on demographic
Setting: As result of transformational leadership in variable such as gender, academic and type of schools.
schools, leaders and follower can share values, This research aims to investigate:
schools teachers become more responsible and committed
to changes in school and can identify factors that are What is the level of transformational leadership
more effective in school changes. Teachers become dimensions in Malaysia primary schools based on
more committed to the mission of learning for all. teachers’ perception?
Transformational leadership strategies helped improve Are there differences in teachers’ perception toward
teacher collaboration in schools if teachers feel transformational leadership dimensions based on
appreciated by their principals. Furthermore, schools need school location (urban or rural)?
administrators who can manage the daily process of Are there differences in teachers’ perception toward
school and who are able to lead teachers through the transformational leadership dimensions based on
current school change and reform efforts. In such a type of school?
complex and changing environment, a school
administrator must be able to articulate a vision for MATERIALS AND MATHODS
success, inspire others to embrace the vision and have
the ability to make the necessary changes happen. Participants and Sampling: The target population of
Moreover, transformational leadership studies has
this study was teachersin primary schools in 6 destrict
shown that, it has positive effects on several variables
(Gombak, Hulu Langat, Hulu Selangor, Kelang,
such as job behaviours, leadership behaviours and
Kuala Langat and Kuala Selangor) in Selangor, Malaysia.
positive cultural ratings, positive perception of
The schools include National, Chinese and Tamil schools
organizational, school culture, organizational commitment,
each consisting of urban and rural schools. According to
organizational performance, effectiveness, job
Cochran formula, the sample size 375 teachers are enough
satisfaction, changed teacher practices, planning and
for the data analysis. However, 30% for the percentage
strategies for change, pedagogical or instructional
dropout in other to increases the sample size was done in
quality, organizational learning and collective teacher
this study. First, 488 schools divided to 6 strata and each
efficacy. Therefore, the occurrence and implementation
strata divided to 2 subgroups of urban and rural. 2
of transformational leadership in school should
schools were selected for each type of school in each
contribute to organizational performance and
district. Therefore, the total number of schools that were
effectiveness.
In addition, the results of study on transformational chosen as sample was 72 in 6 districts of Selangor. In next
leadership could be significant to educators and step, number of teachers was selected through stratified
researchers moving toward Malaysia 2025 vision. random sampling. According to the result, 7 teachers were
The ministry of higher education has an important role chosen in each school. So the total number of teachers
to improve school management, organizational was 504. Finally, 410 questionnaires returned for this
effectiveness and national development toward study.
achievement of vision 2020. Its contribution occurs
through: 1: creating a productive school culture 2: Instrumentation: The research instrument was a
Creating a structure of school decision-making, 3: questionnaire developed by Leithwood and Jantzi
Results in academic optimism, 4: Results in group (2006). The questionnaire was divided into two sections;
processes, 5: Results in the conditions across the Demographic data and TLQ. This questionnaire
organization. As a result of this, the findings will illustrate consists of contained 50 items measuring the eight
how close or far the schools move towards 2010 Malaysia dimensions of principals' transformational leadership (1)
vision and which factors need to be focused on more. Vision Identification, (2) Modelling, (3) Goal Acceptance,
Transformational leadership in this research is defined as (4) Individualized Support, (5) Intellectual Simulation and
a form of principal leadership that moves individuals (6) High Performance Expectations. A 5-point Likert scale

1107
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

was be used with the responses ranging from 1=Strongly performance expectations” (M=4.287, SD=.630)”. This is
Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. The Cronbach’s alpha followed by item 4 modelling behaviour (M=4.208,
value was 0.892, composite reliability was. 827 and SD=.627). Finding indicated that item 1 “building school
convergent validity was 519. Thus, this showed that the vision” (M=4.169, SD=.610) is third dimension with
questionnaire has a high reliability and valid. highest rank. Item 2, “establishing school goals”
(M=4.012, SD=.576) was the fourth highest TL’s
Data Analysis and Findings: To analyse data, both dimension. Moreover, the result revealed that teachers’
descriptive analysis (mean, standard deviation and perceptions about item 7 “creating a productive school
levels) and inferential analysis (independent t-test and culture” was the fifth high dimension with (M=4.047,
One-Way ANOVA) were employed to answer research SD=.558). Followed by item 6 “providing intellectual
questions one and two. For first research question, stimulation” with rank of six (M=3.982 and SD=.657).
in order to categorize data based on three levels of low, The next highest dimension is item 8 build collaborating
moderate and high, the following process has been structure (M=3.975, SD=.551). The last dimension with
utilized. Based on five point liker scale of the high score is item 5” offering individualized support”
questionnaire, the lowest possible mean score is one and (M=3.922, SD=.694). Overall, the level of TL is high
the highest possible mean score is five, so the (M=4.089, SD=.464). This data show that teachers
subtraction is four. To calculate the range, four is divided perceive overall TL in their school at high level [11-39].
by three (low, moderate and high) the result is 1.33.
Therefore, the lowest is one while the highest for low Research Question 2: Are there differences in
level is 2.33. The moderate level is 2.34 to 3.66 and the teachers’ perception on transformational leadership (TL)
high level is 3.67 to 5. dimensions based on location (Urban-Rural)?
According to Table (2) the significant value for
Demographic of Respondents: Thedemographic data levenes’ test (test of homogeneity of variance) for
shows that out of 410 participants in this study, individual support and school culture are less than
the majority of respondents, 311 (75.9%) were female. <.05. Thus for this score the homogeneity of variance
Thedemographic data shows that the majority of assumption was not meet. Refer to the Table (2) there is
respondents were from 35 and above years (n = 198, no significant differences between teachers’ perceptions
48.3%) %). In terms of educational level the result showed in rural and urban schools about level of transformational
that majority of respondents had bachelor degree (n=272, leadership’s dimensions (develop a shared vision,
66.3%). Majority of teachers in this study (n=198, building goal consensus, holding high performance
48.3%) had experiences of teaching below 5 years. expectations, providing intellectual stimulation and
Thedemographic data shows that the majority of participation in decision making) and overall
respondents were from chines schools (n = 168, 41%) and transformational leadership. (P>.05).According to the
rural schools (n=231, 56.3%). result there is significant difference only in Strengthening
school culture (t-test for equal variance not assumed
Research Question 1: What Is the Level of (408) = -2.387, p =.017<.05) and modelling behaviour
Transformational Leadership Dimensions in Malaysia (t (408) = -2.08, p = .038<.05). Thus, the level of
Primary Schools Based on Teachers’ Perception? strengthening school culture, in urban schools (M=4.119)
Results in table 1 indicates that the teacher’ is higher than rural school (M=3.99) according to their
perception on TL dimensions. TL is comprised of eight mean score. Moreover, the level of “modelling
dimensions: (building school vision, establishing behaviour”, in urban schools (M=4.28) is higher than
school goals, Holding high performance expectations, rural school (M=4.15). It can be concluded that school’s
offering individualized support, modelling best practices location had no significant effects on the level of
and important organizational values, providing intellectual transformational leadership’s dimensions except
stimulation, creating a productive school culture and strengthening school culture and modelling behaviour.
build collaborating structure). According to teachers’
perceptions all of the dimensions rated at high level. Research Question 3: Are there differences in teachers’
The result indicated that the TL’s dimension which perception on overall transformational leadership based
obtains the highest score is item 3, “Holding high on type of school?

1108
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

Table 1: Level of Transformational Leadershipbased on Teachers’ Perception

No Items Mean SD Level Rank
3 Holding high performance expectations 4.287 .630 High 1
1 building school vision 4.169 .610 High 3
6 providing intellectual stimulation 3.982 .657 High 6
7 creating a productive school culture 4.047 .558 High 5
4 modelling behaviour 4.208 .627 High 2
8 build collaborating structure 3.975 .551 High 7
2 establishing school goals 4.012 .576 High 4
5 offering individualized support 3.922 .694 High 8
Overall 4.089 .464 High
Note: Low (1-2.33), Moderate (2.34-3.66), High (3.67-5), N=410

Table 2: Independent sample t- test for differences in teachers’ perception on transformational leadership (TL) dimensions based on location
N M SD Source df Mean difference t sig
Develop a shared vision Rural 231 4.1714 .62028 Equal variances assumed 408 .0049 .081 .935
urban 179 4.1665 .59943 Equal variances not assumed 388.783 .0049 .082 .935
Building goal consensus. Rural 231 4.1223 .59292 Equal variances assumed 408 .0007 .014 .989
urban 179 4.1215 .55735 Equal variances not assumed 393.113 .0007 .014 .989
Holding high performance Rural 231 4.2673 .64245 Equal variances assumed 408 -.046 -.74 .456
expectations. urban 179 4.3142 .61585 Equal variances not assumed 390.097 -.046 -.75 .453
Modelling behaviour Rural 231 4.1521 .66448 Equal variances assumed 408 -.129 -2.0 .038
urban 179 4.2817 .56951 Equal variances not assumed 403.834 -.129 -2.1 .034
Providing Individualized Rural 231 3.8647 .76566 Equal variances assumed 408 -.131 -1.9 .058
support urban 179 3.9958 .58268 Equal variances not assumed 407.879 -.131 -1.9 .050
Providing intellectual Rural 231 4.0000 .65695 Equal variances assumed 408 .0399 .609 .543
stimulation urban 179 3.9601 .65885 Equal variances not assumed 382.310 .0399 .609 .543
Strengthening school Rural 231 3.9913 .60603 Equal variances assumed 408 -.128 -2.3 .021
culture urban 179 4.1197 .48295 Equal variances not assumed 407.669 -.128 -2.3 .017
participation in school Rural 231 3.9491 .58315 Equal variances assumed 408 -.059 -1.0 .281
decisions urban 179 4.0084 .50621 Equal variances not assumed 402.728 -.059 -1.0 .272
Overall Rural 231 4.0648 .49454 Equal variances assumed 408 -.056 -1.2 .225
urban 179 4.1210 .42110 Equal variances not assumed 404.351 -.065 -1.2 .215

To answer this question, One-Way ANOVA method Based on teachers’ perceptions, the level of
was conducted to shows whether there were significant “participation in school decisions” and individualized
differences among teachers in transformational leadership supportare significantly higher in the National Chinese
by type of school. ANOVA test Table (2) indicated no type schools (M=4.05) compare to National Tamil type
significant differences in means score among National schools (M=3.86). Similarly, the level of individualized
type, Chines type and Tamil type schools on their support are significantly higher in the National Chinese
perception towards transformational leadership except in type (M=3.99) schools compare to National Tamil type
level of Providing Individualized supportand participation schools (M=3.76). Overall, It concluded that, according to
in school decisions.Tukey test as a follow up-test was teachers’ perceptions about the level of TL’s dimensions
used to examine pairwise differences among mean scores (shared vision, holding high performance expectations,
of National, Chines and Tamil teachers in participation in modelling behaviour, providing intellectual stimulation,
school decisions. Becauseof the homogeneity of variance Strengthening school culture) and overall TL were not
assumption was not met for individual support, there for significantly different based on type of schools
Games-Howellwas used.. (National, Chines and Tamil) in primary schools in

1109
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

Table 2: One-Way ANOVA test for Transformational Leadership by Type of School

N M SD F sig
Develop a shared vision National 122 4.2590 .55844 2.188 .113
Chinese 168 4.1548 .59928
Tamil 120 4.0983 .66812
Total 410 4.1693 .61053
Building goal consensus. National 122 4.1557 .52650 .585 .558
Chines 168 4.1295 .57321
Tamil 120 4.0771 .63079
Total 410 4.1220 .57697
Holding high performance expectations. National 122 4.2910 .65977 .005 .995
Chinese 168 4.2842 .56397
Tamil 120 4.2896 .69133
Total 410 4.2878 .63064
Modelling behaviour National 122 4.2073 .60890 1.115 .329
Chines 168 4.2560 .59487
Tamil 120 4.1440 .68687
Total 410 4.2087 .62737
Providing Individualized support National 122 3.9836 .69587 4.684 .010
Chines 168 3.9926 .56958
Tamil 120 3.7604 .81889
Total 410 3.9220 .69402
Providing intellectual stimulation National 122 3.9766 .69607 .559 .572
Chines 168 4.0196 .61010
Tamil 120 3.9369 .68243
Total 410 3.9826 .65727
Strengthening school culture National 122 4.1276 .49310 2.816 .061
Chines 168 4.0527 .54551
Tamil 120 3.9583 .62706
Total 410 4.0474 .55866
Participation in school decisions-making National 122 3.9795 .60779 4.054 .018
Chines 168 4.0506 .48831
Tamil 120 3.8646 .55939
Total 410 3.9750 .55102

Table 3: Tukey HSD test of Transformational Leadership by Type of School

Dependent Variable Post-Hoc (I) Type of school (J) Type of school Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.
Providing Individualized support Games- Howell National Chines -.00895 .993
Tamil .22319* .060
Chines National .00895 .993
Tamil .23214* .022
Tamil National -.22319* .060
Chines -.23214* .022
Participation in school decisions Tukey HSD National Chines -.07109 .519
Tamil .11492 .232
Chinese National .07109 .519
Tamil .18601 .013
Tamil National -.11492 .232
Chines -.18601 .013

1110
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

Malaysia. This means that type of school does not Finding of this research show that there is
influence teachers’ perceptions on the level of mentioned significant different between chines and Tamil school
dimensions. Whereas, type of school does influence based on individualized support and participation in
teachers’ perceptions on the level of “participation in school decision making. It is suggested that manager at
school decisions” and “individualized support”. Tamil school attention to participation with teachers in
This means that teachers in three types of schools had order to collaborating with their teachers decision making
same view regarding transformational leadership in in their school. In addition, according to the result there
their schools (Table 3). was no significant difference between urban and
rural.Malaysian Ministry of Education (2011) has been
CONCLUSION sending pre-promoted principals to principal courses
trained in Institute AminuddinBaki (IAB). In response to
The result of the study illustrated that all primary these education changes and challenges, many schools
school teachers in six district in Selangor had a high have joined the quality movement and implemented
level of transformational leadership perception in various school quality improvement initiatives as a means
their schools. This could mean that the school had a to enhance competitiveness. It can conclude that this
positive attitude toward the importance of training was effective and principal leadership promote.
transformational leadership dimensions. According Moreover it is suggested that to be consider in training
to the results, the dimensions of holding high regardsbuilding school culture and models behaviour to
performance expectations was higher than other halve differences between urban and rural and teachers in
dimensions. Moreover, individual support was the this school follow consistent with the values the principal
lower compare to other dimensions. The current espouses for crating modelling best practices in their
research findings have consistent with research by schools. In summary, for future research, it is suggested
Salleh and Saidova in Malaysia. Similarity, Selamat et al., that the perceptions of other stakeholders such as parents
illustrated that holding high performance had high level and students should be considered. Moreover, other
in Kelang area. Moreover, the result of this study district should be considering for purpose of compare this
supported by Geijsel et al.,and Leithwood and Jantzi and result and other demographic variables such as teacher’s
Leitwood and Sun in Netherlands and Canada. The years of experience and field of specialty can be examined.
findings of this study were supported by Yu, Leithwood
and Jantzi (2002) which indicated the level of providing REFERENCES
individualized support was lower compared to the other
dimensions of transformational leadership as perceive by 1. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, 1990.
teachers. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
Result of analysis on the level of TL based on the beyond. [Electronic version], Journal of European
location of the schools, indicated that there was a Industrial Training, 14(5): 21-37.
significant difference between rural teachers and urban 2. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, 1995. MLQ Multifactor
teachers’ perception in just two dimensions of Leadership Questionnaire sampler set:
transformational leadership, “modelling behaviour and Technical report, leader form and scoring key for
school culture.”. According to the finding by Saidova et MLQ Form 5x-Short. Redwood City, CA: Mind
al., there is a difference between schools location in Urban Garden.
and Rural in Malaysia. 3. Lunenburg. F.C. and C. Allan, 2012.
Furthermore, result of analysis on the level of TL Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices,
based on the type of the schools, indicated that there was 6th Edition.
no significant difference between national, chines and 4. Leithwood, K., 1994. Leadership for school
Tamil teachers’ perception in overall transformational restructuring, Educational Administration
leadershipexcept on collaborative and individuals 5. Leithwood, K., 2011. Leadership and student
support. These findings were in line with Saidova et learning: What works and how. Leadership and
al.,findings. They assumed that there are no significant learning, pp: 41-55.
differences between ratings of teachers on overall 6. Leithwood, K., 2012. Turning Around
qualities of teachers on the basis of nationalities of Underperforming School Systems: Guidelines for
teachers. District Leaders.

1111
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

7. Leithwood, K. and D. Jantzi, 1999. 18. Selamat, N., N. Nordin and A.A. Adnan, 2013.
Transformational school leadership effects: Rekindle Teacher's Organizational Commitment:
A replication. School Effectiveness and School The Effect of Transformational Leadership Behavior,
Improvement, 10(4): 451-479. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90: 566-574.
8. Leithwood, K. and D. Jantzi, 2006. 19. Smith, B., 2011. Who shall lead us? How cultural
Transformational school leadership for large-scale values and ethical ideologies guide young marketers’
reform: Effects on students, teachers and their evaluations of the transformational manager–leader,
classroom practices. School Effectiveness and Journal of business ethics, 100(4): 633-645.
School Improvement, 17(2): 201-227. 20. Valentine, G., S. Holloway, C. Knell and M. Jayne,
9. Leithwood, K. and J. Sun, 2012. The Nature and 2008. Drinking places: Young people and cultures of
Effects of Transformational School Leadership A alcohol consumption in rural environments,
Meta-Analytic Review of Unpublished Research. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1): 28-40.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3): 387-423. 21. Branson, R.K., 1987. Whay the schools can’t
10. Leithwood, K., D. Jantzi and A. Fernandez, 1994. improve: the upper-limit hypothesis. Journal of
Transformational leadership and teachers. Instructional Development, 10(4): 5-26.
11. MacKenzie, S.B., P.M. Podsakoff and N.P. Podsakoff, 22. Brookover, W.B. and L.W. Lezotte, 1979. Changes in
2011. Challenges oriented organizational citizenship school characteristics coincident with changes in
behaviours and organizational efectiveness: Do student achievement, East Lansing: Institute for
challenges behaviours really have an impact on Research on Teaching, College of Education,
the organizations bottom line? Michigan State University.
Personnel Psychology, 64(3): 559-592. 23. Bush, T., 2011. Theories of educational leadership
12. Nguni, S., P. Sleegers and E. Denessen, 2006.
and management. Fourth Edition the University of
Transformational and transactional leadership
Nottingham, UK. SAGE Publications Ltd.
effects on teachers' job satisfaction,
24. T. and D. Glover, 2003. School Leadership:
organizational commitment and organizational
Concepts and Evidence: Full Report. Nottingham,
citizenship behavior in primary schools:
UK: National College for School Leadership.
The Tanzanian case. School effectiveness and school
25. Commitment to change. In J. Murphy and K. Louis
improvement, 17(2): 145-177.
(Eds), reshaping the principalship, Thousand Oaks,
13. Oguz, E., 2010. The relationship between the
California: Corwin Press, Inc., pp: 77-98.
leadership styles of the school administrators and
26. Di Paola, M. and W.K. Hoy, 2008.
the organizational citizenship behaviors of
Principals improving instruction: Supervision,
teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
9: 1188-1193. evaluation and professional development. Boston:
14. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational citizenship Allyn and Bacon.
behavior: The good soldier syndrome. 27. Education, M.O., 2012. Periliminary Report Malaysia
Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com. Education Bluprint 2013-2025. Putra jaya: retrived
15. Podsokoff, P., S. MacKenzie, R. Moorman and from http//www.moe.gov.my/
R. Fetter, 1990. Transformational leader behaviors userfiles/file/PPP/Periliminary-Bluprint-Eng.pdf
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader 28. Freeman, T.M. and L.H. Anderman, 2005. Changes in
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. mastery goals in urban.
The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-142 Quarterly, 29. Geijsel, F., P. Sleegers and Berg, R. van den, 1999.
30(4): 498-518. Transformational leadership and the implementation
16. RUTLEDGE II, R.D., 2010. The Effects of of large-scale innovation programs, Journal of
Transformational Leadership on Academic Optimism Educational Administration, 37(4): 309-328.
within Elementary Schools (Doctoral dissertation, 30. Getzels, J.W. and E.G. Guba, 1957. Social behavior
The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA). and the administrative process. The School
17. Salleh Mohamad Johdi and P. Saidova, 2013. Best Review, 65(4): 423-441.
Practice of Transformational Leadership among 31. Ghani, M.F.A., S. Siraj, N.M. Radzi and F. Elham,
Multi-Ethnic Head teachers of Primary Schools, 2011. School effectiveness and improvement
Malaysia. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social practices in excellent schools in Malaysia and
Science (IOSR-JHSS), e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: Brunei. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
2279 0845.www.Iosrjournals.Org, 3(9): 01-09. 15: 1705-1712.

1112
 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 23 (6): 1105-1113, 2015

32. Harris, M. and D. Hopkins, 1997. Understanding the 37. Hoy, W.K. and C.J. Tarter, 2004.
School’s Capacity for Development: Growth Stages Administrators solving the problems of practice:
and Strategies, School Leadership and Management, Decision-making cases, concepts and consequence,
17(3): 401-11. 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
33. Hebert, E.B., 2011. The Relationship between 38. Hoy, W.K. and C.J. Tarter, 2008.
Emotional Intelligence, Transformational Leadership Administrators solving the problems of practice:
and Effectiveness in School Principals. Decision-making cases, concepts and consequence,
34. Hoy, W.K. and M. Di Paola, 2007. Essential ideas for 3rd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
the reform of American schools. Greenwich, CT: 39. Lowe, K., K. Kroeck and N. Sivasubramanian, 1996.
Information. Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and
35. Hoy, W.K. and C.G. Miskel, 2008. Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review
Educational administration: Theory, research and of the MLQ Literature, the Leadership Quarterly,
practice, 8th edition. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 7: 385-425.
36. Hoy, W.K. and C.G. Miskel, 2013.
Educational administration: Theory, research and
practice, 9th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1113