View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1197 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 11, Issue 7, July 2020, pp. 1197-1211, Article ID: IJM_11_07_106
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.7.2020.106
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
COMPARING DISTRIBUTIVE LEADERSHIP
PRACTICES AMONG TEACHER LEADERS IN
MALAYSIAN AND INDONESIAN SCHOOLS
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob*
School of Education and Modern Languages, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia
*Corresponding Author mohdfaizmohdyaakob@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Malaysia and Indonesia emphasizes distributive leadership practices among
school leaders by the year 2020. This is being done to improve the social and
economic capital of the country through an effective school improvement, quality
improvement of human capital, and the growth of state assets. However, the issues
that arise such as education transformation and leadership complexity, indirectly lead
to conflict that affects the school performance. This study was conducted to review the
distributive leadership among teacher leaders in two different nations, Malaysia and
Indonesia. Specifically, this study examined the distributive leadership practices
among teacher leaders in secondary schools. Cross-sectional survey method was
applied in the process of collecting data through Distributed Leadership Readiness
Scale (DLRS) formed by Gordon, 2005. The findings showed that there were
differences in distributive leadership practices in Malaysia and Indonesia. This study
can be used by school leaders as a guide in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
the leadership aspects, as an addition to the basic reference to improve the range of
knowledge, skills, and leadership management, as act of sharing the vision, values,
duties and responsibilities of the organization in particular, as well as research in
aspects of management in schools generally.
Key words: Distributive leadership, school performance, Malaysia and Indonesia,
Educational Policy, Educational Leadership.
Cite this Article: Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz
Mohd Yaakob, Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah, Comparing Distributive
Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and Indonesian Schools,
International Journal of Management, 11(7), 2020, pp. 1197-1211.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=7
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1198 editor@iaeme.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Education policy makers in Malaysia, Indonesia and throughout the world have studied and
experimented with various methods and strategies in educational leadership in an effort to
enhance school excellence and achievement. The main focus of school leadership stems from
the inclusion of research findings that showed that school leadership has an impact on school
achievement. In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leadership is fully given the responsibility to
create a climate, culture, environment, commitment, teacher work satisfaction that can support
school's excellence. As such, the Ministry of Education Malaysia and Indonesia have
explored the effectiveness of various strategies and leadership models aimed at assessing their
impact on school performance, as well as various variables such as school climate,
confidence, commitment and retention of teachers within a school. In addition, it is also
reported that school leadership is a determinant of the motivation and quality of teachers
which are recognized to have the greatest impact on student motivation and achievement
(Fullan, 2001; Leithwood et al, 2004; Marzano et al, 2005; Sergiovanni, 2007).
There are some researches in education that stated that teaching leadership (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1992) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000;
Gronn, 2002; Restrorative & Humphrey, 2010) has a strong impact on the success of a school.
However, Heck and Marcoulides (1993) argued that the era of leadership led by only a
charismatic individual whose sole responsibility for school organization is over. Hargreaves
and Fink (2006) on the other hand, emphasized that leadership sustainability exists in
distributive leadership as it promotes the emergence of new leadership talent and recognizes
the achievement of group leadership rather than individual-based leadership. Thus, 21st
century education requires a kind of leadership that is capable and has the inclination of
identifying the capabilities and potentials of other individuals within the organization. (Harris
& Spillane, 2008).
1.1. The Perspectives of Distributive Leadership in Malaysian and Indonesian
Schools
As an individual who is fully responsible for the journey of a school, the principal / school
leader faces significant challenges. Principals / school leaders take on traditional
responsibilities as organizational managers (Darling Hammond, Bullmaster, & Cobb, 1995)
and at the same time as instructional leaders (Leithwood et al., 2004). As instructional
leaders, principals / school leaders need to manage instructional programs in schools by
monitoring classroom teaching and learning processes. (Hallinger, 2011). Fullan (1998)
opined,
“The burgeoning workload, disruption of stakeholders and the implementation of new
policies often result in the implementation of new ideas being disrupted and the principals/
school leaders to lose focus” (Fullan, 1998, p. 6)
Recent developments have made the principals' / school leaders' role more complex and
the school is expected to do more than it has ever done. The complex school system in
Malaysia and Indonesia, with its many challenges, leaves no leader able to meet the day-to-
day responsibilities of the school (Oduro, 2006). The need for education in millennium 21
requires the ability and capacity of excellent teacher leadership across the school boundaries.
Most educational leadership researchers think that a formal leader such as a principal /
school leader can fulfill all of their demands by simply obeying the policies and mandates,
which is an inadequate view and is no longer realistic (Barker, 2001; Fullan & Hargreaves,
1996; Spillane, 2005, 2006). Principals / school leaders who work alone are unable to bring
the expected transformation to the school and system. Changes in an increasingly complex
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1199 editor@iaeme.com
society require more sophisticated leadership (Fullan, 2001) principals/ school leaders to
focus on developing capacity and providing leadership opportunities to their subordinates
while providing appropriate support for change or innovation (Harris & Muijis, 2004; Harris,
2008).
In this regard, school leadership researchers have proposed a collaborative model
involving school faculty participation as defined by the distributive leadership model. (Gronn,
2008; Spillane, 2005). Leithwood et al., (2006) emphasizes that distributive leadership is not
one of the effective leadership styles or plans of action but rather a collaborative action
between leaders and subordinates in the school leadership process. Changing leadership from
one leader to the other reduces the stresses faced by principals / school leaders (Kratzenmeyer
& Moller, 2001), increasing teachers' job satisfaction (Leithwood, Mascall, & Tiuu, 2009) as
well as improving and enhancing the school culture and the learning experiences of students
and teachers (Lambert, 2002; Barth, 2001).
Distributive leadership model is a model where teachers and principals / school leaders
share leadership roles (Spillane, 2005). Marzano et al. (2005), emphasizing the importance of
distributing leadership across organizations to create meaningful and ongoing change. This is
because, according to Leithwood et al. (2006) leadership that is widely distributed has a
significant impact on learning. Accordingly, in the context of distributive leadership,
leadership is no longer seen as a one-person business but it is widely distributed to individuals
and the completion of a task is accomplished through ongoing interactions between many
leaders (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). According to Harris
(2002b), the focus of distributive leadership is not on the qualities that leaders possess but the
focus is on creating a conducive environment for sharing learning and developing leadership
capabilities. In addition, the distribution of leadership across the school level will enhance
leadership sustainability (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006).
In order to bring the practice of distributive leadership to the school, the principals /
school leaders should make the school's goal of improving student learning a key element
when distributing the leadership power to teachers (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). To achieve this,
principals / school leaders need to be equipped with facilitation skills in order to change
teachers' role towards effective leadership practice (Barth, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
In Malaysia and Indonesia, policy makers are of the view that the key to effective school
reform is to engage teachers professionally in the effort to improve student learning. Teachers
need to be given the opportunity to participate in school leadership rather than limiting it to
those at the top of the organization (Copland, 2003; Elmore, 2000; Harris, 2008; Lashway,
2003). According to Crowther et al. (2002), the distribution of leadership and the
empowerment of teachers in areas that are considered more important are likely to increase
student achievement. This is supported by Silins and Mulford (2002) who stated that school
performance from student learning aspect will be enhanced if teachers are given the
opportunity to innovate, develop themselves and learn through the practice of distributive
leadership.
Although the concept of distributive leadership emphasizes the distribution of leadership
throughout the school organization, principals / school leaders still hold the responsibility,
decisional power and accountability in the school (Dimmock, 2012). Evidence obtained from
effective school studies also showed that principals/ school leaders are key determinants of
their school's structure and culture. This is because studies showed that without the strong and
active support of formal leadership in schools, distributive leadership will not grow or survive
(Badaracco, 2001).
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1200 editor@iaeme.com
In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leadership practitioners have begun to express concern
over the rethinking of educational leadership for example as stated in the Tenth Malaysia Plan
document: 2011 - 2015 (RM10) which reflects the government's desire to improve school
leadership performance. Distributive leadership is nothing new as there are several existing
leadership concepts that have principles similar to distributive leadership (Peterson, 1989;
Vroom & Jago, 1998; Wallace, 2001) known as collaborative leadership, shared leadership,
co-leadership, democratic leadership and situation leadership (Spillane, 2006).
Distributive leadership has gained widespread attention in western countries (Harris,
2008) but in Malaysia and Indonesia, studies focusing on the same field are limited. Most of
the studies conducted by researchers in both countries are in the early stages of distributive
leadership practices in Malaysian and Indonesian schools (Nurhayati Ramlan, 2011;
Norasmah Othman & Rofilah Md. Said, 2013; Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Zulkifli Abdul
Manaf, 2009).
In Malaysia, the transformation in the field of educational leadership implemented
through the PPPM (2013 - 2025) shows a shift towards distributive leadership whereby MOE
will increase the performance of high performing school leadership especially in relation to
budget and curriculum areas. In addition, the implementation of this distributive leadership
model also involves the second level school management consisting of senior teachers,
subject leaders and committee chairperson so that best leadership practices can be deployed at
all levels in the school. All school leaders are given the autonomy in the following areas such
as creating a conducive learning environment, freedom of choice in co-curricular activities
and elective subjects, autonomous scheduling of classes according to school needs (MOE,
2013).
The process of empowerment is often viewed as difficult because of the perceptions that
exist among educators who blame the centralized and hierarchical education system as the
root cause of bureaucratic elements that are often seen as a weakness in management and
administration. According to several scientific studies, there is a tendency for educators from
the teacher level to the officer level to assume that the strict controls in the policy structure or
procedure have made them less able to effectively implement the changes (Jamaliah, 1999;
Siti Hawa, 1987). However, Zaidatul Akmaliah and Foo, (2003) asserted that the various
levels of power and authority in the school administration system are not considered to be
pure bureaucracy and that school organization members should be able to model their own
related work structure. Educators should not make the issue of bureaucracy a hindrance to be
efficient in performing their tasks.
In essence, the concept of distributive leadership that emphasizes sincerity and unanimity
is part of the culture of the eastern community, so it is not something new to practice
(Mohammed Sani & Jamalul Lail, 2012). However, in Malaysia and Indonesia there are not
many leadership studies that focus on distributive leadership. Based on the literature review
there are only four studies that discussed distributive leadership (Norasmah Othman &
Rofilah Md. Said, 2013; Nurhayati Ramlan, 2011; Rosnarizah Abdul Halim & Zulkifli Abdul
Manaf, 2009; Jamallulail Abdul Wahab, Aida Hanim A. Hamid, Surayati Zainal, & Md Fuad
Md Rafik, 2013). These studies focused on the practical readiness of distributive leadership
using the Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale (DLRS) instrument but these studies were a
more exploratory preliminary study to determine the status and involvement of distributive
leadership in Malaysian secondary schools. Meanwhile Jamallulail et al.'s (2013) study
focused on distributive leadership and teacher motivation in primary schools. Distributive
leadership exists in all schools in Malaysia and Indonesia, but what distinguishes it is the
extent to which it is practiced in schools in both countries. Based on these arguments, the
study concluded that studies on the practice of distributive leadership in both countries can
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1201 editor@iaeme.com
provide an overview of the contribution of distributive leadership to school performance
excellence in Malaysia and Indonesia.
2. AIMS
This paper aimed to discuss the results of a study on the comparative practice of distributive
leadership among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia. This paper also addressed the
practical issue of distributive leadership of school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia and
whether there were significant differences in the practice of leadership by teachers in
Malaysia and Indonesia.
3. METHODOLOGY
This quantitative study used a survey design with the aim of measuring distributive leadership
practices among school teachers in Malaysia and Indonesia. Cross-sectional survey using
questionnaires as a benchmark for data collection was used (Creswell 2014). This method is
useful for collecting information through questionnaires from study samples. The use of this
method enables information to be easily obtained and at a big volume at a time, based on the
geographical structure of Malaysia and Indonesia (Noraini 2013; Thalahuddin 2016).
The population of this study was secondary school teachers in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Taking into account the sample size of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) of 777 teachers in
Malaysia and Indonesia were selected as the sample using the multi-stage cluster method, and
for each group, the sample was randomly selected. Based on Table 1, 345 (44.4%)
respondents were from Malaysia and 432 (55.6%) from Indonesia.
Table 1 Sample Distribution
Frequency Percentage
MALAYSIA 345 44.4
INDONESIA 432 55.6
TOTAL 777 100.0
This study used the Distributed Leadership Readiness Scale (DLRS) instrument by
Gordon (2005). In general, the DLSR is used to identify the involvement of leaders in the
practice of distributive leadership. The DLRS instrument has 43 items and provides a 5 point
Likert scale for respondents to answer. The original questionnaire was translated back-to-back
translation to ensure the target language (Malay / Indonesian) portrayed more accurately the
original meaning in English (Chen & Boore 2010). A pilot study was conducted on 100
samples to make sure the instrument was reliable. The pilot study showed that the Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficient of reliability for the questionnaire was 0.89. According to Creswell (2012),
a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value greater than 0.80 indicated that the item has good
internal stability and consistency.
Descriptive analysis using mean values and standard deviations was conducted to assess
the practical level of distributive leadership among teacher leaders. Inference analysis was
performed to identify the level of practice of distributive leadership in Malaysia and
Indonesia. The interpretation of mean scores in this study was divided into three; mean values
of (1.00-2.33) as low scores, mean values of (2.34-3.67) as moderate and mean values (3.68-
5.00) as high scores.
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1202 editor@iaeme.com
4. STUDY FINDINGS
The findings of this study were divided into two sections: (1) demographics and (2)
distributive leadership practices among teacher leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Findings involving 777 samples of male and female teacher leaders in Malaysia and
Indonesia are shown in Table 2 below. The finding showed that the number of female teacher
leaders was greater than that of male teachers. The Indonesian study sample involved was 432
consisting of 309 (56.2%) women and 123 (54.2%) men, while from Malaysia a total of 345
people consisted of 241 people (43.8%) women and 104 (45.8%) men.
Table 2 Malaysia and Indonesia: Sampel by Gender (n=777)
In terms of teaching experience, the findings showed that most respondents in this study
has been teaching within two years (50%). Only 49.5% of respondents have more than two
years of teaching experience. Table 3 shows the experience of teaching respondents.
Table 3 Teachers’ Teaching Experience
Frequency Percentage
2 years 392 50.5
More than 2 years 385 49.5
Total 777 100.0
In terms of educational background, the majority of respondents who participated as a
sample in this study have first degree education (75.4%). 132 people (17%) have a bachelor's
degree and only 7 (0.9%) have the highest level of Phd. Table 4 shows the distribution of
respondents based on their academic qualifications.
Table 4 Teachers’ Academic Background
Frequency Percentage
Bachelor 586 75.4
Master 132 17.0
Phd 7 .9
Diploma 52 6.7
Total 777 100.0
4.1. The Level of Distributive Leadership Practice
The level of distributive leadership practice can be described in nine (9) dimensions, namely
(i) School Structure, (ii) Vision (iii) Value and Confidence, (iv) Collaboration and
Cooperation, (v) Decision Making, (vi) Responsibility, (vi) vii) Initiatives, (viii) School
Country
Malaysia Indonesia
Gender Male 104 (45.8%) 123
(54.2%)
Female 241 (43.8%) 309
(56.2%)
Total 345
(100%)
432
(100%)
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1203 editor@iaeme.com
Leadership, and (ix) Teacher leadership. Table 5 shows the level of distributive leadership
practice by teachers based on the nine dimensions stated.
Generally, the level of distributive leadership practice for both teachers in Malaysia and
Indonesia showed a high level (m = 3.91, SD = 0.34). The most significant items of practice
were in terms of Teacher Collaboration and Cooperation (m = 4.10, SD = 0.51), followed by
Values and Confidence (m = 3.98, SD = 0.48). the lowest performing aspect was Initiatives
(m = 3.67, SD = 0.54). The overall levels of distributive leadership practice are shown in
Table 5 below.
Table 5 Level of Distributive Leadership Practice by Principals/School Leaders in Malaysia and
Indonesia
Mean Std. Deviation
School Structure 3.72 .48
Vision 3.95 .58
Values and Confidence 3.98 .48
Collaboration and Cooperation 4.10 .51
Making Decision 3.81 .55
Responsibility 3.96 .46
Initiative 3.67 .54
School Leadership 3.97 .47
Teacher Leadership 4.03 .50
Total (Distributive Leadership) 3.91 .34
4.2. Comparison of Distributive Leadership Practice Levels between Malaysia
and Indonesia
Comparing the level of distributive leadership practice for the two countries, the study found
significant differences, t (773.35) = 3.47, p <0.01. the level of distributive leadership practice
for Malaysian teachers was higher (m = 3.96, SD = 0.28) than for teachers in Indonesia (m =
3.87, SD = 0.37). Table 6 below shows the t-test result.
Table 6 Difference in the Overall Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/
School Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia
Country N Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig.(two-tailed)
Distributive
leadership
Malaysia 345 3.96 .28 3.47 773.35 0.001
Indonesia 432 3.87 .37
In particular, the level of distributive leadership practice based on dimensions are as
shown in Table 7 below. Of the nine dimensions in distributive leadership practice, only six
dimensions showed significant differences between Malaysian and Indonesian teacher
leaders. Of these six dimensions, three dimensions that indicated the level of distributive
leadership practice of Malaysian teachers' leaders was significantly higher than teachers in
Indonesia, namely School Structure dimensions (t (766.00) = 14.93, p <0.01); Decision
Making (t (726.35) = 7.79, p <0.01); and Initiatives (t (767.14) = 9.40, p <0.01). In contrast,
the three dimensions practiced by teacher leaders in Indonesia that were significantly higher
than teachers in Malaysia were in terms of Vision (t (775) = -3.99, p <0.01); School
Leadership (t (775) = −4.11, p <0.01); and Teacher leadership (t (767.60) = -5.00, p <0.01).
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1204 editor@iaeme.com
Table 7 Differences in the Breakdown of Distributive Leadership Practices between Principals/
School Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia
Countries
N Mean
Std.
Deviation t
df
Sig.(two-
tailed)
School Structure Malaysia 345 3.98 .34 14.93 766.00 0.01
Indonesia 432 3.52 .479
Vision Malaysia 345 3.86 .566 -3.99 775 0.01
Indonesia 432 4.02 .59
Making Decision Malaysia 345 3.98 .38 7.79 726.35 0.01
Indonesia 432 3.68 .63
Initiative Malaysia 345 3.86 .48 9.40 767.14 0.01
Indonesia 432 3.52 .54
School Leadership Malaysia 345 3.89 .37 -4.11 775 0.01
Indonesia 432 4.03 .53
Teacher Leadership Malaysia 345 3.94 .40 -5.00 767.60 0.01
Indonesia 432 4.11 .55
While the dimensions of Value and Confidence, Collaboration and Collaboration and
Responsibility, the study found no significant differences in the level of Distributive
Leadership practice for the two countries.
Looking at the different aspects of the Distributive Leadership practice level for both
countries based on gender, academic qualifications and experience, Table 8 and Table 9 show
the situation for both countries.
Table 8 Difference in the Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/ School
Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia Based on Gender
Country
N Mean
Std.
Deviation t
df
Sig.(two-
tailed)
Malaysia Male 104 4.12 .28 7.20 179.23 .001*
Female 241 3.89 .25
Indonesia Male 123 3.89 .44 .568 179.84 .571
Female 309 3.87 .34
Comparing to the levels of leadership practice for both countries by gender, the study
found that there was a significant difference in the level distributional leadership practice for
teachers in Malaysia, t (179.23) = 7.20, p <0.01. Male teacher leadership level was higher (m
= 4.12), SD = 0.28) than female teachers (m = 3.89, SD = 0.25). While the level of
Distributive leadership practice based on teacher leaders in Indonesia by gender was not
significant.
Table 9 Difference in the Level of Distributive Leadership Practice between Principals/ School
Leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia Based on Teaching Experience and Academic Background
Aspects Country Sum of
Square df
Mean
Square F
Sig.(two-tailed)
Teaching
Experience
Malaysia Between
Group .001 1 .001 .015 .902
Within
Group 27.192 343 .079
Indonesia Between
Group .077 1 .077 .561 .454
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1205 editor@iaeme.com
Within
Group 58.619 430 .136
Academic
Background
Malaysia Between
Group .263 2 .132 1.670 .190
Within
Group 26.930 342 .079
Indonesia Between
Group .294 2 .147 1.079 .341
Within
Group 58.402 429 .136
Table 9 shows the different levels of Distributive Leadership practice in Malaysia and
Indonesia based on teachers' teaching experience and academic background. The analysis
showed that there as no difference in the level of distributive leadership practice for both
countries based on teaching experience and academic background.
5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In general, differences in the level of distributive leadership practice of teacher leaders in
relation to demographic factors such as gender, teaching experience, and academic
background in this study can be seen through the level of distributive leadership practice of
the teacher leaders. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the gender
aspect in Malaysia whereas in Indonesia there was no significant difference. Whereas in terms
of teaching experience and academic background of the school leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian schools, there were no significant differences. In terms of gender it was found to
differ on the level of school leaders' distributive leadership practice in the dimensions of role
modeling, inspiring vision sharing, challenging processes, allowing for action, and providing
encouragements among Malaysian school leaders. The differences in the level of distributive
leadership practice based on these demographic factors also support the views of other
researchers such as Nurulaim Zakaria and Suhaida Abdul Kadir (2013), Lim & Cromartie,
2001), Grant (2011), Tashi (2013), Duignan (2006), and Cheng (2007). ). However, the study
of Vlachadi (2013) and Obadara (2013) found that gender demographic factor did not make a
significant difference in the level of distributive leadership practice among teacher leaders in
schools.
In light of these differences, the analysis showed that the gender of leaders in Malaysian
and Indonesian schools effectively influenced the level of their distributive leadership
practice. This finding is consistent with the findings of Grant (2011), Tashi (2011), and Lisa
(2007) who found that female leaders are more committed to practicing distributive leadership
in schools than male leaders. However, studies conducted by Du (2013) and Chang (2011)
found that male leaders have higher levels of practicality in distributive leadership than
female leaders. Although these studies did not have the same findings, they clearly indicated
that there was a significant difference in the level of distributive leadership practice based on
school leaders' gender. This supports Lumby's (2014) view that gender issues are inevitable in
educational leadership and management because the gender factor is a contributing factor to
several issues that exist in organizations. However, this is contrary to Whitehead's (2002)
view that gender inequality in organizations is largely removed from mainstream theory. But
it is reinforced by Coleman (2012) who found that the gender factor remains an inherent
margin in the study of leadership theory. Distributive leadership has accepted the issue of
gender as a variable and this study also proved that there are significant differences in the
level of distributive leadership practice based on the gender factor of school leaders.
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1206 editor@iaeme.com
In addition, the results showed that there was a significant difference in the level of
distributive leadership practice based on academic background of school leaders in Indonesia
and Malaysia. This finding further supports the findings of Bolden (2011), Vlachadi (2013),
Du (2013), Chen (2007), and Naicker (2013) which also prove that academic leadership
backgrounds influence school leaders' level of distributive leadership practice. The finding of
this study showed that teaching experience among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia
affected the level of their distributive leadership practice.. This finding is in line with the
findings of Chen (2007), Lisa (2007), Naicker (2013), and Mullick, Sharma, and Deppeler
(2013) who found that teacher leaders with higher academic background have higher levels of
academic distributive leadership practices than leaders who obtained lower level of academic
backgroundHowever, the result of this study is contrary to the findings of Mohammad
Aliakbari (2014), Maria and Maria (2013), and Bennett (2003), who found that the academic
level of teacher leaders did not differ significantly from the level of distributive leadership
practice.
In addition, this study also found significant difference in the distributive leadership
practice of school leaders based on teaching experience in Malaysia and Indonesia. This
finding is in line with studies conducted by Lisa (2007), Duffy & Lent, (2013), Chen (2007),
and Timperley (2009) who generally found significant difference in the level of distributive
leadership practice of school leaders based on teaching experience. Ngang, Zaheena
Abdullah, and Mey (2010) stated that the experience of teachers is an integral part of the
effectiveness of administrative leadership. However, it is contrary to the study of Mohammad
Aliakbari (2014) and Ibukun, Oyewole, and Abe (2011) who found that differences in
teaching experience did not affect the level of distributive leadership practice among school
leaders.
6. CONCLUSION
In Malaysia and Indonesia, school leaders practice distributive leadership at a high level.
Distributive leadership practices among school leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia were
different in terms of gender, teaching experience, and academic background. The findings of
this study provide beneficial contributions to educational leadership practitioners and
education policy makers in Malaysia and Indonesia. This can be seen from the practice levels
of distributive leadership among school leaders and the effectiveness of distributive leadership
practices towards school success. Overall, the findings showed that distributive leadership
practice plays an important role in improving the quality of excellence of Malaysian and
Indonesian schools.. Therefore, in the effort to design programs that enhance the skill level
and strengthen the leadership of school leaders, the elements of distributive leadership need to
be clarified by providing good understanding to each school leader in both countries.. School
leaders' understanding of each element of distributive leadership can guide leaders in
achieving organizational goals and effectively addressing issues that arise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by matching grants between UUM, Malaysia and Universitas
Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. HAMKA, Indonesia, Code S.O 13949.
REFERENCES
[1] Badaracco, J.L. (2001). We don’t need another hero. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 120–
126.
[2] Barker, R. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54, 469–494.
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1207 editor@iaeme.com
[3] Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within: teachers, parents, and principals can make
the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[4] Blase, J.& Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: teachers’ perspectives on how
principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 130-141.
[5] Boardman, M. (2001). The value of shared leadership: tasmanian teachers’ and leaders’
differing views. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29(3), 2.
[6] Boddy, M. (2002). Linking competitiveness and cohesion. In : Begg, I., Ed. (2002). Urban
Competitiveness: Policies for Dynamic Cities. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 33-53. ISBN
1861343574
[7] Bodtker, A. M. & Jameson, J. K. (2001) Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:
Application to organizational conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict
Management, 3, 259-275.
[8] Booth, M. & Okely, A. D. (2005). Promoting physical activity among children and
adolescents: The strengths and limitations of school-based approaches. Health Promotion
Journal of Australia.
[9] Chen, Y. (2007). Principals’ Distributed Leadership Behaviors and Their Impact on Student
Achievement in Selected Elementary Schools In Texas. Dissertation of Educational
Administration.
[10] Chen, H. Y., & Boore, J. R. P. (2009). Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing
research: Methodological review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 234-239.
doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2702.2009.02896.x
[11] Coleman, S. R. (1966). The Invariance of the vacuum is the invariance of the world. Journal
Math. Phys. 7(77).
[12] Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., McPartland, J. M. Md., Weinfield, F. D.,& York, R. L.
(1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity, Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U.S.A
Department of Health Education and Welfare.
[13] Coleman, M.& Earley, P. (2005). Leadership and Management in Education. New York,
Oxford University Press.
[14] Conger, J. A.& Pearce, C. L. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[15] Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[16] Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
[17] Crowther, D. (2002). Psychoanalysis and auditing. In S. Clegg (ed), Paradoxical new
directions in management and organization theory, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp 227-46.
[18] Cullen K.W., Baranowski T., & Baranowski J. (1999). Psychosocial correlates of dietary
intake: Advancing dietary intervention. Annu Rev Nutr.
[19] Muijs D.& Bosker, R. J. (2006). School effectiveness and school improvement. International
Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. ICSE.
[20] Dantow, A.& Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1&2), 183-204.
[21] Darling-Hammond L., Bullmaster M.L., &Cobb V.L., (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership
through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal.
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1208 editor@iaeme.com
[22] Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
[23] Dimmock, C. (2012). Leadership in learning centred schools: Cultural context, functions and
qualities. In M. Bundrett, N. Burton & R. Smith (Eds.), Leadership in Education (3-22).
London: Sage Publications.
[24] DiPaola, M. E. (2004). Elementary principals’ perceptions regarding bully prevention
activities. Educational Leadership.
[25] Duignan, P. (2006). Ethical Leadership: Key Challenges and Tensions. Melbourne,
Cambridge University Press
[26] Duignan, P. (2003). SOLR Project: Contemporary challenges and implications for leaders in
frontline service organizations, Sydney: Flagship for creative and authentic leadership, ACU
National.
[27] Duignan, P. (2007). address to Catholic Education Conference in Sydney, Australia
[28] Duffy, R. D.& Lent, R. W. (2013). Test of a Social Cognitive Model of Work Satisfaction in
Teachers. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75, 212-223.
[29] Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 134–142.
[30] Elmore, R. F.& Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: staff development and
instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds). Teaching as the
Learning Professions: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[31] Elmore, R. E. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Albert Shanker
Institute.
[32] Elmore, R. (2002). Scaling Up Educational Reform. Paper presented at the Distinguished
Voices in Education Series of the Philadelphia Education Fund, Philadelphia, PA.
[33] Fullan, M. G. (1995). The Limits and the Potential of Professional Development. In T. Guskey
& M. Huberman (Eds), Professional Development in education: New Paradigms and
Practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
[34] Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers
College Press.
[35] Fullan, M. (2003). The Moral Imperative of School Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press; Toronto, Ontario Principals’ Council.
[36] Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the Wrong Drivers for Whole System Reform. Seminar series204.
Centre for Strategic Education.
[37] Fullan, M. (2008). The Six Secrets of Change: What the Best Leaders do to Help Their
Organizations Survive and Thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[38] Fullan, M. (2009). The challenge of change: Start school improvement now (2nd edition).
Corwin
[39] Gorard, S. (2001). Quantitative Methods In Educational Research: The Role Of Numbers
Made Easy. New York, NY: Continuum.
[40] Gordon, R. J.(2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world.(15th Ed.). SIL International.
[41] Graetz, F. (2000). Strategic change leadership. Management Decision, 38(8): 550–562
[42] Green, R. (1994). The Course of the Four Horsemen: Costs of War and its Aftermath in Sub-
Saharan Afica in Macrae and Zwi (1994)
[43] Green, R. L. (2001). Practicing the Art of Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1209 editor@iaeme.com
[44] Greenberg, R. A. & Baron, J. (2000). Behaviour in Organizations (7th ed). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[45] Griffiths, M. (2003). Action for Social Justice in Education: Fairly Different, Maidenhead:
Open University Press
[46] Griffith J., Steptoe A., & Cropley M. (1999). An investigating of coping strategies associated
with job stress in teachers. British Journal of Psychology, 69(4).
[47] Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–
451.
[48] Gronn P. (2002b). Distributed Leadership. Second International Handbook of Educational
Leadership and Administration: Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[49] Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in
an Era of School Reform. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
[50] Gronn, P. (2008). The Future of Distributed Leadership, Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(2): 141-158.
[51] Hallinger, P.& Heck, R. H. (1998) Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), . 157–191
[52] Hanson, E. M. (1991). Educational Administration and Organizational Behavior (3rd Ed),
Boston: Allynard Bacon. p.271
[53] Hallinger, P.& Hausman, C. (1996). The changing role of the principal in school of hoice: A
longitudinal case study.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, California.
[54] Halverson, R. R. (2007). Systems of practice and professional community: The Adams case.
In J. P. Spillane & J. B. Diamond (Eds.), Distributed leadership in Practice (35-62). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
[55] Hargreaves, A.& Fink, D. (2004). The Seven Principles of Sustainable
Leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7).
[56] Harris, A. (2005). Distributed leadership. In B Davies (ed). The essentials of school
leadership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
[57] Harris, J. R. (2000). Context-specific learning, personality, and birth order. current directions
in Psychological Science,9, 174-177.
[58] Harris, A.(2004). Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading, Educational Management
and Administration, 32(1): 11–24.
[59] Harris, A.(2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence,
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3): 1–11.
[60] Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership in Shools: Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow.
Routledge & Falmer Press.
[61] Harris, A. (2009). Distributed School Leadership: Evidence, Issues and Future Directions.
ACEL Monograph 44. Penrith, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
[62] Harris, A.& Chapman, C. (2002). Effective Leadership in Schools Facing Challenging
Circumstances. National College for School Leadership.
[63] Harris, A.& Muijs, D. (2005). Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Yahya Don, Mohd Isha Awang, Muhamad Dzahir Kasa, Mohd Faiz Mohd Yaakob,
Prima Gusta Yanti and Nurs Asiah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1210 editor@iaeme.com
[64] Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed
leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational
Change 8, 337-347.
[65] Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the
UK. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8): 961-972.
[66] Hastings, R. P.& Bham, M.S. (2003). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and
teacher burnout.School Psychology International, 24(1) 115-127.
[67] Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of
Experience, Sixth Edition. New York, NY: Published by McGraw-Hill/Irwin
[68] Hawe, P.& Shiell, A. (2000). Social Capital and Health Promotion, a review. Social Science
and Medicine, 51, 871-885.
[69] Heck, R. H.& Marcoulides, G. A. (1993). Principal leadership behaviors and school
achievement. NASSP Bulettin, 77 (553), 20 -28
[70] Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610
[71] Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-
40
[72] Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
[73] Leithwood, K., Louis K. S., Anderson S., & Wahlstrom K. (2004). How Leadership Influences
Student Learning.
[74] Leithwood, K. & Jantzi D. (1998). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Organizational Conditions and Student Engagement with School.
[75] Leithwood, K. (2005). Understanding Successful Principal Leadership: Progress on a Broken
Front. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto
Ontario, Canada.
[76] Leithwood, K., Jantzi D., Ryan S., & Steinbach R. (1997). Connecting teacher leadersip and
school improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Ameeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
[77] Leithwood, K., Mascall B., & Tiiu, S. (2009). Distributed Leadership According to Evidence.
Albany: Blackwell Publishing.
[78] Leithwood, K. A.& Riehl C. (2003). What we know about succeessful school leadership. A
report of division of Area.
[79] Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009b). New perspectives on an old idea: a short
history of the old idea. In Leithwood, K., Mascall, B. and Strauss, T. (eds), Distributed
Leadership according to the Evidence. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–14.
[80] Li, L. W. (2012). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Pengajaran Pemimpin Sekolah Terhadap
Keberkesanan Pengajaran Guru di Sekolah Kebangsaan dan Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan
Bahagian Bintulu Sarawak.Tesis Master. Universiti Utara Malaysia. Tidak diterbitkan.
[81] Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership that Works: From
Research to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
[82] Noraini Idris (2013). Penyelidikan dalam pendidikan. McGraw Hill. Kuala Lumpur.
[83] Normah Othman (2009). Teaching and assessing three types of direct writing in Malaysian
ESL classrooms. A survey of ESL teachers opinions. English Language Journal, 3, 102-114.
Comparing Distributive Leadership Practices among Teacher Leaders in Malaysian and
Indonesian Schools
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 1211 editor@iaeme.com
[84] Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th edn. London: Sage.
[85] Nunnally, J. C.& Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
[86] Oduro, G. K. T. (2004). Distributed leadership in schools: what English head teachers say
about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16–18 September
[87] Oduro, G. K. T. (2006). Distributed leadership in schools. Education Journal, 80, 23-25.
[88] Olsen, E. M.& Chrispeels, J. H. (2009). A Pathway Forward to School Change: Leading
Together and Achieving Goals. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
[89] Peterson, K. D. (1989). Secondary principals and instructional leadearship: Complexities in a
diverse role. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools: Madison, WI.
[90] Restorative J.&Humphreys, E. (2010). Distributed Leadership and Its Impact on Teaching and
Learning. Education Doctorate, NUI Maynooth
[91] Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007). Leadership as stewardship. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on
Educational Leadership (2nd ed., pp. 75-92). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[92] Thalahuddin Abdullah & Azlin Norhaini Mansor. (2015). Pengaruh Kepimpinan Transformasi
Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Guru Di Sekolah Luar Bandar : Satu Kajian Kes.Prosiding ASEAN
Comparative Education Research Conference (ACER-N 2015), ISBN: 978-983-2267-81-2
[93] Timperley, H. (2009). Using assessment data for improving teaching practice. Australian
Council for Educational Research (ACER) Conference. Assessment and Student Learning:
Collecting, interpreting and using data to inform teaching, Western Australia.
[94] Tsui, K. T. & Cheng, Y. C. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A
contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evalation.
[95] Turunen H., Tossavainen K., Jakonen S., Salomaki U. & Vertio H., (1999). Initial results from
the European Network of Health Promoting Schools program on development of health
education in Finland. Journal of School Health.
[96] Vuille, J. C.& Schenkel, M. (2001). Social equalization in the health of youth. The role of the
school. European Journal of Public Health, 11, 287-293.
[97] Wallace, M. (2001). Conflict Management and School Leadership. College of Education,
University of South Africa, UNISA.
[98] Weingart, L. & Jehn, K. (2000). Manage Intra-Team Conflict Through Collaboration. In. E.
Locke (Ed), Handbook of Principles of Organization Behavior. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Press.
[99] Whiteley, P. (1999). Social Capital and European Democracy, pp 25–44. London: Routledge
[100] Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations, Sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Recommended