Instructional Leadership Paradigms and Faculty Performance in a Private Philippine Higher Education Institution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I3.770Keywords:
Faculty Performance, Higher Education Institutions, Instructional Leadership, Outcomes-Based Education, Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), Private Higher Education Institutions, Quality AssuranceAbstract
This study examined the instructional leadership paradigms practiced by academic administrators at Asia Technological School of Science and Arts (ASIATECH) and determined their relationship with faculty performance in a private higher education institution. The study was anchored on the Instructional Leadership Model of Hallinger and Murphy and the Multifactor Leadership Theory of Bass and Avolio. Using a descriptive-correlational quantitative research design, data were gathered from 106 actively teaching faculty members through total enumeration. A researcher-made questionnaire adapted from the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) was used to assess instructional leadership, while official faculty performance evaluation records from the Human Resource Office served as the measure of faculty performance. Descriptive and inferential statistics, including weighted mean, standard deviation, Pearson product-moment correlation, and one-way analysis of variance, were employed to analyze the data. Findings revealed that academic administrators demonstrated a high level of instructional leadership, with managing the instructional program receiving the highest rating. Faculty performance was rated very satisfactory, with instructional competence emerging as the strongest performance dimension, while research and extension obtained comparatively lower ratings. A very strong and statistically significant positive relationship was found between instructional leadership and faculty performance, indicating that stronger instructional leadership is associated with improved faculty outcomes. No significant difference was observed in instructional leadership perceptions between full-time and part-time faculty members. The study concludes that effective instructional leadership contributes to enhanced faculty performance and institutional quality. It recommends strengthening leadership development programs, implementing structured instructional supervision, expanding faculty research support, promoting inclusive professional development initiatives, and conducting broader multi-institutional and longitudinal studies. This study supports Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4: Quality Education by promoting effective instructional leadership and improved teaching quality, and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth through faculty professional development and effective educational leadership. Its sustainability impact lies in providing evidence that informs institutional leadership, quality assurance, and continuous improvement initiatives that strengthen long-term academic excellence in higher education.
References
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.
Buenvinida, L. P. (2022). Transformational leadership dimensions and teaching effectiveness in CALABARZON HEIs: Implications for academic policy. International Journal of Research Publications, 88(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP100881120222804
Bush, T., & Ng, A. (2019). Distributed leadership and the Singapore model: Variations on a theme. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2018-0187
Commission on Higher Education. (2012). CMO No. 46, s. 2012: Policy-standard to enhance quality assurance in Philippine higher education through an outcomes-based and typology-based QA. https://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-No.46-s2012.pdf
Commission on Higher Education. (2023). State of Philippine higher education report 2023. CHED.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dacles, D. D., Ormilla, H. A., Rebong, M. T., & Limpot, R. B. (2021). Instructional leadership and faculty engagement in private higher education institutions in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 14(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2021/v14i230348
Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965–2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822772
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 332–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355744
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.536322
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445
Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-280-5
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the Learning from Leadership Project. The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership (Vol. 1, Policy and practice). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en
Republic of the Philippines. (2012). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. https://www.privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/
Reyes, R. V., & Tongco, M. C. (2022). School climate as mediator of instructional leadership and faculty outcomes in Philippine HEIs. Journal of Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2022.12.1.01
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(4), 325–344.
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD.
Zheng, X., Yin, Y., & Liu, M. (2020). Leadership, organizational learning, and teacher professional capital: The mediating effect of teacher learning community. Teaching and Teacher Education, 87, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102949
