Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nlps20

Leadership and Policy in Schools

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20

Role Identity of Instructional Leaders

Haim Shaked

To cite this article: Haim Shaked (2020): Role Identity of Instructional Leaders, Leadership andPolicy in Schools, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2020.1770805

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1770805

Published online: 27 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Role Identity of Instructional LeadersHaim Shaked

Department of Education, Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, Netivot, Israel

ABSTRACTInstructional leadership was recognized as a pivotal function of principalswho achieve promising school improvement outcomes. Thisstudy exploredthe role identity of instructional leaders, looking for the four components ofrole identity: ontological and epistemological beliefs, purpose and goals, self-perceptions and self-definitions, and perceived action possibilities. Studyparticipants were 37 Israeli principals. Qualitative data were collectedthrough semi-structured interviews. Data analysis included a two-step cod-ing process. Findings indicated that the role identity of instructional leadersconsists of two main elements – attribution of importance and sense ofcompetence, related to two areas – instruction and instructional leadership.

Introduction

Within theresearch literature on understanding what makes school principals successful, the mainemphasis has focused on principals’ capabilities, skills, practices, and activities, while less attention hasbeen paid to the rationale and motivation for how they perform their leadership role (Crow & Møller,2017). Too often, there is an exclusion ofidentities and beliefs as essential to principals’ practices,which may be referred to as a technocratic orientation to the preparation and role expectations ofprincipals (Young & Crow, 2017). In particular, this is true of instructional leadership. Inasmuch asinstructional leadershiphas been playing a major role in the educational administrationrealm since themiddle of the last century (Hallinger, 2019), the question of what instructional leaders do has been anactive area of deep inquiry for several decades (Boyce & Bowers, 2018).Over the years, a multitude offrameworks of instructional leaders’ behaviorswas discussed in the literature (Adams et al., 2019).However, the beliefs and values, which make instructional leadersto be who they are, were much lessexplored (Campbell et al., 2019; Urick & Bowers, 2019). To narrow this gap in the available knowledgebase, this study seeks to investigate instructional leaders’ role identity.

Identity can be explained as the unique set of characteristics associated with a particular personrelative to the characteristics of others (Noonan, 2019). Identity is moreover the sense that a personhas of the self as an individual, including one’s self-image and self-awareness (Kind, 2015). It isimportant to note that each of us has multiple identities, because identity is a reflection of the contextor activity in which the person is situated. Therefore, a person assumes the identity of a parent orpartner when he/she is at home, but takes on his/her identity as a productive community member onentering a school board meeting (Kaplan & Garner, 2017). One of our identities is the role identity,which is usedwhen we are at work (Pennington & Richards, 2016).Focusing on Israeli principals, thisstudy sheds light on the role identity of instructional leaders. Holding both theoretical and practicalimplications, the contributions made by this study are likely to evoke interest among a broad swath ofeducational leaders who want to better understand their role as instructional leaders, as well as facultymembers who teach various courses as part of academic programs in educational leadership and

CONTACT Haim Shaked haim.shaked2@gmail.com Department of Education, Hemdat Hadarom College of Education, POB412, Netivot 8771302, Israel

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLShttps://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1770805

© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

policy, principal preparation programs and professional development. Researchers will be able to findgreat value in new avenues for future research opened by this study.

Literature review: dimensions, fundamentals, and enablers of instructional leadership

The positive correlation between instructional leadership and school performance was well establishedin the research literature (Glickman et al., 2017). Principals who serve as instructional leaderscontribute to an increase in student academic results more than principals who prefer other educa-tional leadership styles (Bush & Glover, 2014; Murphy et al., 2016).The currentstudy is based on theconceptual framework of instructional leadership presented by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), which isthe most widely used in research (Hallinger & Wang, 2015). This framework consists of threedimensions. The first dimension is defining the school mission. This dimension concerns the principal’srole in determining clear, measurable, time-based school goals that concentrate on teacher effective-ness and student learning. It is also the principal’s responsibility to communicate these goals to variousstakeholders so they are widely known and supported throughout the school community. The seconddimension is managing the instructional program. This dimension focuses on the principal’s respon-sibility for coordinating and monitoring instruction and curriculum. It involves deep involvement instimulating, controlling,and supervising teaching and learning throughout the school. The thirddimension is developing a positive school learning climate. This dimension focuses on the principal’sresponsibility to develop a culture of continuous improvement and high standards and expectationsfor teachers and students. The principal has to create norms and cultivate attitudes of teachers andstudents that influence learning in the school, mainly through launching policies and practices(Hallinger & Wang, 2015). These three dimensions are delineated into ten instructional leadershipfunctions, as presented in Table 1.

Boyce and Bowers (2018) pointed to a notabledivergence in how instructional leadership has beenconceptualized over the last decades. For them, leadership for learning is the conceptual evolution oftwenty-five years of diverse instructional leadership research. Leadership for learning requires a focuson learning as an activity in which everyone is a learner (Dempster et al., 2017). From this perspective,learning relies on the effective interplay of social, emotional and cognitive processes, and its effective-ness is sensitive to different contexts and ways in which people learn. The potential for leadershipstems from powerful learning experiences, while opportunities to exercise leadership promote learn-ing (MacBeath, 2019). The literature regarding leadership for learning is a natural counterpart toinstructional leadership, given the significant overlap between these two conceptual frameworks ofschool leadership (Bowers et al., 2017).

Robinson (2010) proposed a model of three interrelated leadership abilities required for instruc-tional leaders: (a) using deep leadership content knowledge to (b) solve complex school problems,while (c) building relational trusting relationships with teachers, parents, and students. With regard tothe first ability, researchersfound that the greater their pedagogical knowledge, the better principalscould take care of more aspects of instruction and move beyond the surface features of teaching tounderlying pedagogy (Lochmiller & Acker-Hocevar, 2016; Steele et al., 2015). The required knowledgewas defined by Stein and Nelson (2003)as “that knowledge of subjects and how students learn themthat is used by administrators when they function as instructional leaders” (p. 445).With regard to

Table 1. Dimensions and functions of instructional leadership (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).

Dimension Defining the school mission Managing the instructional programDeveloping a positive school learning

climate

Functions Framing the school’s goalsCommunicating the school’sgoals

Coordinating curriculumSupervising and evaluatinginstruction

Monitoring student progress

Protecting instructional timeProviding incentives for teachersProviding incentives for learningPromoting professional developmentMaintaining high visibility

2 H. SHAKED

the second ability, Brenninkmeyer and Spillane (2008) attempted to directly correlate differences inprincipal problem-solving with differences in instructional leadership practices and student achieve-ment, comparing expert instructional leaders with typical principals. Overall, they found less sig-nificant differences between the two groups’ use of problem-solving processes than expected. Withregard to the third ability, through principal-teacher effective relationships, instructional leaders canengage with teachers in conversations about teachingquality which are both fruitful and respectful (LeFevre & Robinson, 2015). Indeed, healthy principal-teacher relationships have proven to help teachersadopt more effective teaching methods (Alsobaie, 2015), demonstrating a key role in the improvementof student accomplishments (Edgerson et al., 2006; Price, 2015).

Despite enduring campaign efforts, which have strived to make instructional leadership a centralcomponent of principals’ work, principals appear to allocate only a limited percentage of their time toinstruction-related activities (Goldring et al., 2015; Prytula et al., 2013). Several inhibitors to instruc-tional leadership have been identified in the literature. First, principals were described as lackingadequate time to engage in endeavors to promote teaching and learning (Camburn et al., 2010).Principals’ attempts to work on instructional issues hardly reach fruition during day-to-day schooloperations because a considerable part of their time is spent on paperwork, bureaucracy, andunplanned issues (Murphy et al., 2016). Second, principals are said to lack the knowledge base neededfor demonstrating instructional leadership, which as aforementioned applies to how students learnspecific subjects, which teaching methods are effective in which contexts, and so forth (Goldring et al.,2015). Third, deep-rooted organizational norms, which perceive teaching as an area of teachers alone,push principals away from involvement in the instructional domain (Goldring et al., 2015). Thesenorms have been found to deter principals from encroaching on the territory of teachers andrelinquishing their status in the in-school hierarchy (Murphy et al., 2016).Fourth, principals limittheir engagement in instructional leadership because they fear that it renders a negative effect onprincipal-teacher relationships. They believe that relationships with teachers are vital to a well-functioning school, and might be adversely affected by activities designed to improve teachingpractices (Author, 2019b).

Theoretical framework: components of role identity

With the goal of exploring the role identity of instructional leaders, this study utilizedthe theoreticalframework of Kaplan and Garner (2017), who have pointed to four components of role identity: (a)ontological and epistemological beliefs; (b) purpose and goals; (c) self-perceptions and self-definitions; and (d) perceived action possibilities. Each of these four components involves assump-tions held as correct (e.g., about the world, about the self, about possible behavioral strategies) andemotions (e.g., related to certain assumptions about the world, specific goals, specific self-perceptions). These components, which are interdependent and partially overlapping, are presentednext.

Ontological and epistemological beliefs

Ontology is the study of the nature of reality, while epistemology concerns knowledge and how toreach it. For the purpose of this paper, ontological beliefs refer to one’s assumptions regarding theworld that is relevant to the role, attributions based on these assumptions, and the emotions that areassociated with these assumptions and attributions (Weiner, 2012). For example, principals’ assump-tion that teachers have control over the behavior of their class, their attribution that indiscipline is dueto teachers not taking responsibility, and their anger at those teachers. Epistemological beliefs refer toone’s assumptions about the certainty and reliability of their knowledge about the world that isrelevant to the role and emotions associated with these assumptions (Hofer & Pintrich, 2004). Forexample, principals’belief that their knowledge about cause and effect in their school is uncertain andthe sense of anxiety associated with these beliefs.

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 3

Purpose and goals

Purpose and goals refer to one’s assumptions of an ultimate purpose of their role (e.g., the purpose ofprincipals to provide strategic direction for their schools); the more concrete goals, objectives, andobjectives in the role (e.g., the goal of a principal to handle student discipline); and emotionsassociated with these purpose and goals (e.g., a principal’s positive anticipation or anxiety aboutpursuing their goals). Purpose and goals can differ on many dimensions, including intrinsic-extrinsic,individual-social, proximal-distal, specific-global, and self-oriented-other-oriented, with conse-quences to affect and motivation (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).

Self-perceptions and self-definitions

Self-perceptions and self-definitions refer to one’s assumptions and knowledge of their personalqualities and characteristics that they consider relevant when fulfilling the role and the emotionsassociated with them. Central self-perceptions in most roles are the one’s overall self-concept of abilityin the role, self-efficacy to pursue particular goals successfully, and the emotions associated with theseperceptions (Hattie, 2014). Self-definitions involve self-categorizations and group memberships, andthe meanings and emotions associated with these categorizations (Turner & Reynolds, 2011). Besides,this component includes self-perceptions regarding personal worldview, ideology, values, and inter-ests, that are deemed relevant for the role in that context, and the emotions associated with them.

Perceived action possibilities

Finally, perceived action possibilities refer to one’s perceptions of behaviors as available to them in therole, primarily as these behaviors are related to the promotion of purpose and pursuit of goals in therole, and the emotions associated with the use of such behaviors. This component includes declarativebehavioral intentions and procedural knowledge of these action possibilities, including specificcognitive and behavioral strategies and the self-regulation of cognition, behavior, emotion, andmotivation (Fishbein & &Ajzen, 2011). Perceived action possibilities exclude those actions that oneperceives as inappropriate, inefficient, or impossible for them to perform in the role.

Method

This qualitative study used interview methodology and content analysis to investigate the question,“What is the role identity of instructional leaders?” These methods, which are most appropriate whenexisting literature or theory on the topic under discussion is limited (Taylor et al., 2016),were selectedfor this study to enable the collection of detailed textual descriptions, as well asin-depth under-standing, of principals’ beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions. The following sections describe thisstudy’s sample, data collection, and analytical strategies.

Participants

The current study was conducted within the Israeli school system, which serves about 1.6 millionstudents (Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, 2013), and is similar in many ways to that of the UnitedStates (BenDavid-Hadar, 2016). The key role of Israeli school principals as pronounced by Capstones,the institution that is in charge of school principals’ professional development in Israel, is to serve asinstructional leaders in order to improve teaching and curriculum(Capstones – The Israeli Institutefor School Leadership, 2008).

The sampling for this study was both opportunity-based and purposive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).Participants were recommended by colleagues and students of the author. Therefore, it was anopportunity-based sampling. Eight participants recruited other participants from their acquaintances,

4 H. SHAKED

making it also a snowball sampling. However, a purposive sampling technique also was ytilized in thisstudy, where the purpose was for the sample to resemble the larger body of Israeli principals. Theprincipals recommended for participation in the study were included only if their participationmatched the characteristics of the larger population in terms of sex, age, years of experience, educa-tion, and school level (elementary, middle, high), school community’s socioeconomic status, andschool district (Capstones – The Israeli Institute for School Leadership, 2012).Thus, the study involved37 principals, 12 males and 25 females. These principalshad 11 to 32 years of educational experience(M = 20.41, SD = 5.89), which included 3 to 21 years of experience as principals (M = 9.46, SD = 5.34).Most of the principals (n = 32) held a master’s degree, with four principals holding only a bachelor’sdegree and one principal holding a Ph.D. Participants were principals of elementary schools (n = 18),middle schools (n = 3), and high schools (n = 16). They were working in all seven Israeli schooldistricts.

The selection of study participants was not based on their reputations as effective instructionalleaders. Having a representative sample of principals, instructional leadership behaviors were identi-fied among the principals who participated in the study.

Data collection

Data collection did not begin with focusing on the role identity of instructional leaders. The originalgoal of this study was broader: to explore how instructional leadership operates among Israeliprincipals. Utilizing data collected to explore the role identity of instructional leaders was an ideathat came up during the data analysis process described below.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, where the interviewer developed and usedan “interview guide” (i.e., list of questions and topics needing to be covered) that enabled “theresearcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and tonew ideas on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). The interviewer did not strictly followa formalized list of questions. Open-ended questions were used, allowing for a discussion with theinterviewee. As school principals, most of the interviewees were verbal and spoke fluently, so theinterviews proved to be like conversations, or even monologues, rather than a straightforward ques-tion and answer format. The appropriate number of interviews is a common question when designinga qualitative study. In this study, the answer was “interview as many subjects as necessary to find outwhat you need to know” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 113), striving to achieve saturation (Saunderset al., 2018).

The interview sought to identify perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors of instructional leaders.However, it intentionally avoided mention of the term “instructional leadership” to prevent priminginterviewees from framing their discussions in this light. Thus, the interview included questionssuch as:

● As a principal, what are your priorities in your work, and how were they determined?● If you could, what would you omit from your work as a principal?● Who is responsible for improving teaching practices in your school, and why?● As a principal, how do you rank instruction among the various areas requiring your attention –

and why?

To establish rapport, the protocol was intentionally designed to be general at first before probinginto more sensitive questions. This strategy allowed participants to view the exchange asa conversation, rather than an interview, which resulted in interviews that were longer and producedthick, rich descriptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

For ethical reasons, all participants were informed at the beginning of the interview that they couldleave the study at any point (no one left). They were assured of confidentiality (pseudo-names wereassigned) and were asked to provide written consent, based on an understanding of the research aim.

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 5

Interviews, which generally lasted one hour, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Follow-up interviews were also conducted, as appropriate, to clarify questions that arose during a review ofinterview transcripts.

Data analysis

Data analysis was theory-driven, as it was based on a-priori codes (Rossman & Rallis, 2012), includinga two-step coding process. First, we sought out the relevant utterances that might represent instruc-tional leadership, based on the previously mentioned Hallinger and Murphy (1985) conceptualframework of instructional leadership, which included three dimensions: (a) defining the schoolmission; (b) managing the instructional program; and (c) developing a positive school learningclimate.

Upon completion of this step, the study was divided into several sub-studies, because data collectedcould answer several research questions concerning the implementation of instructional leadershipamong Israeli principals. These questions were discussed separately and published elsewhere (Author,2018, 2019b, 2019a). A rereading of interviewees’ responses suggested that they might be indicative ofthe role identity of instructional leaders. Therefore, among other research branches, the data wasanalyzed in this direction as described below.

At the second step, the utterances identified at the previous stage were examined to see if theyreflected the role identity of instructional leaders. This stage was based on Kaplan and Garner (2017)four components of role identity: (a) ontological and epistemological beliefs; (b) purpose and goals; (c)self-perceptions and self-definitions; and (d) perceived action possibilities.

The next stage was theorizing, aiming to transcend the findings toward a conceptual construct.While the coding process allowed to get up from the diversity of data to the shapes of the data, the sortsof things represented, the theorizing stage allowed to get up to more general, higher-level, and moreabstract constructs. Charmaz (2006) figuratively explained it thus: “Coding generates the bones ofyour analysis; theoretical integration will assemble these bones into a working skeleton” (p. 45).

To endorse and solidify data analysis, a member check (Koelsch, 2013) was conducted: The findingsof this study were sent to participants along with a request that they comment on them. This strategyaimed to reduce the chance of incorrect interpretation of data. During the member check procedure,14 out of 46 interviewees (30.43%) provided feedback on the findings, which was used to understandthe data more accurately.

As in any qualitative exploration, attention was paid to how the researcher’s background andpersonal experience might affect data analysis. As the importance of reflective journals in qualitativeresearch has been recognized (Ortlipp, 2008), and to ensure critical thinking, the researcher wrotea personal reflective research log throughout the study. Opportunities for scrutiny of this study bypeers (e.g., at conferences) were utilized to gain feedback. Allowing peers to challenge the study’sarguments enabled the researcher to reexamine his assumptions.

Findings

Qualitative data analysis revealed the components of instructional leaders’ role identity, which arebased on Kaplan and Garner (2017) framework: (a) ontological and epistemological beliefs; (b)purpose and goals; (c) self-perceptions and self-definitions; and (d) perceived action possibilities.These components are presented next.

Ontological and epistemological beliefs

The most prominent belief, which instructional leaders expressed during interviews conducted for thisstudy, was that the quality of instruction is the most significant element of teacher work. Instructionalleaders also attributed importance to other elements of teacher work, such as personal qualities (e.g.,

6 H. SHAKED

the tendency to be kind and warm toward students) or classroommanagement (e.g., the ability to keepstudents organized, attentive, and on task); However, they put the quality of instruction first.

For instructional leaders who participated in this study, the quality of instruction is comprised ofboth teacher quality and quality of teaching. Regarding teacher quality, study participants mentionedvarious elements. For example, they mentioned openness to adopting new practices, as said Sharon,a middle school principal with six years of experience: “I expect teachers to try new things in theclassroom”. They also mentioned commitment and dedication to student learning, as explained Karen,an elementary school principal with five years of experience: “Teachers should be concerned with theacademic development of their students.” In addition, they mentioned; and an ongoing professionallearning, as noted Douglas, an elementary school principal with nine years of experience:”Would yougo to a doctor who hasn’t been updated for many years? The same goes for a teacher.” Regarding thequality of teaching, study participants were much less specific. Donna, an elementary school principalwith four years of experience, said that good teaching “is doing whatever it takes to ensure that yourstudents learn and know the material being taught.” Paul, an elementary school principal with six yearsof experience, explained: “Not all good teachers do it the same way. Each teacher has her own way ofquality teaching.”Importantly, study participants believed that the quality of instruction was not onlydependent on their teachers, but also their leadership. They considered themselves responsible forleading their teachers to quality teaching, through processes such as shaping a vision of qualityteaching, driving curriculum building, and creating a professional learning community.

Purpose and goals

Instructional leaders who participated in this studyassumed that the criticaljob of a school principal isto make curriculum and instruction better in order to improve students’ learning and increasetheiraccomplishments. Of course, they did not ignore a wide range of additional principalship roles,such as keeping students safe, budgeting, and facilities maintenance. Managerial tasks such as orderingsupplies and creating bus schedules were their everyday tasks. However, they prioritized their duty topromotebest practices in teaching and learning, aspiring to spend a considerable part of their availabletime on coordinating and monitoring instruction. As Jennifer, a high school principal with 17 years ofexperience, said:”I don’t just oversee the day-to-day functions of my school and deal with unrulystudents. I lead the school and its staff to achieve high standards of teaching and learning.”

Study participants reasoned in several ways why principals should treat the improvement ofteaching and learning as more important than other tasks. Bruce, a principal of a middle schoolwith 12 years of experience, mentioned the outcomes based accountability environment: “The con-temporary era of national achievement tests is based on a belief that what matters most is academicresults. That’s why I, as a principal, put it in the first place.” Gary, a middle school principal with4 years of experience, established his priorities on the fact that the core business of schooling isproviding students with knowledge and academic skills: “The principal should be busy with the mainpurpose of the school, which is expanding and deepening the knowledge base of students acrossvarious subjects and developing learning skills.” Interestingly, Joseph, a high school principal with12 years of experience, used a social justice logic. He sought to create a learning climate that providesequal opportunities and treatment for all students, without any discrimination or favoritism whatso-ever. Moreover, he wanted to ensure “the future assignment of the graduates of the school to theacademic and social fields that fit their talents and aspirations, regardless of their family background,social status, or financial situation”.

Self-perceptions and self-definitions

Participants’ utterances revealed that the centralcapability, which they considered as enabling them tofulfilltheir instructional leadership role, was instructional expertise. They attributed this expertisemainly to their broad experience. Brenda, an elementary school principal with 14 years of experience

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 7

as a principal, emphasized her experience as a teacher: “I was not born a school principal. I have beena teacher for many years and taught many subjects in many age groups. Thus, I have a say in how weshould teach.” Danny, an elementary school principal with three years of experience, gave particularimportance to his experience as an instructional coordinator: “I supported teachers in acquiring theskills and application of best practices for all students. It’s not new to me.”

Another source of instructional expertise, mentioned by study participants, was ongoing learning.Instructional leaders who participated in this study made sure to keep up to date with new curricula,new standards, and new textbooks. They gained up-to-date knowledge not only through attendingprofessional development sessions they are committed to, but also through a self-motivated pursuit ofinstructional knowledge from websites, books, and peer networking.

Study participants’ instructional expertise allowed them to fill various instructional leadershiproles. For example, Diane, a high school principal who took office nine years ago, utilized herinstructional expertise to engage in supervision: “I know very well what a good lesson is and how itlooks. So I often sit in classrooms and help teachers think about their teaching.” Carl, a high schoolprincipal with 7 years of experience, relied on her experience to instill social justice perspective inteaching and learning: “I have extensive experience in culturally-responsive teaching, so I share withmy teachers my knowledge of how to create a learning climate that provides equal treatment for allstudents, without any discrimination or favoritism whatsoever.”Interestingly, working with teacherleaders to enact instructional leadership was not often mentioned by study participants, suggestingthat these principals worked independently more than collaboratively. This finding requires furtherresearch.

Perceived action possibilities

Principals who participated in this study believed that a wide range of activities to improve instructionwere available to them. Among other things, they were able to organize teachers’ schedules to includeopportunities to improve teaching quality, as said Marilyn, a middle school principal with nine yearsof experience: “I give teachers time to work together in a collaborative effort. This collaboration allowsnew or struggling teachers to gain valuable insight and advice and at the same time,allows experiencedteachers to share best practices and success stories.” They could give teachers advice on effective lessonmanagement, as said Tammy, an elementary school principal with four years of experience: “I haveproductive conversations with teachers that provide growth-producing feedback.” They could facil-itate meaningful professional development, as said William, who has nine years of experience as anelementary school principal: “When I improve the quality of professional development I have a realimpact on classroom instruction.” They also could make decisions influencing teaching quality, suchas textbooks to be used, achievement mappings to be made, and teaching methods to be implemented.Study participants described some constraints, such as teacher shortage and teacher tenure policy, ontheir ability to hire, evaluate, or dismiss teachers. However, study participants did not see theseconstraints as completely eliminating their ability to improve teaching. In general, they felt thatmany tools for enhancing the quality of instruction were at their disposal.

Interestingly, study participants felt they could improve instruction not only due to actionpossibilities but also theirown capability of producing instructional change. Gloria, an elementaryschool principal with 16 years of experience, said: “I know to deeply engage others in the changeprocess I want to lead”. James, a middle school principal with 21 years of experience, similarly claimed:“I know how to build a broad coalition ready to change practice and perceptions for significant,sustainable change.”

Discussion

The current qualitativeresearchexploredthe role identity of instructional leaders, based on the fourcomponents of role identity identified by Kaplan and Garner (2017). The first component of role

8 H. SHAKED

identity, ontological and epistemological beliefs, was manifestedin instructional leaders’ belief that thequality of instruction is the most crucial constituent of teachers’ work. This belief is consistent withresearch findings, which show that the quality of instruction is the strongest correlates of studentacademic results (Stronge, 2018). Measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the mostsignificant predictor of student achievement, both before and after controlling for student socio-economic status(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). A teacher is estimated to have two to three times theimpact of any other school-related factor, like student grouping patterns or curricular programs(Blazar, 2015).

The second component of role identity, purpose and goals, was manifestedin instructional leaders’belief that the major goal of a school principal is to improve teaching and learning for all students.Study participants embraced the essence of instructional leadership, which views a deep involvementin teaching and learning as the principal’s key responsibility (Author, 2019b). From the instructionalleadership perspective, principals should overcome the multiple pressures that push them away fromcurriculum, instruction, and the classroom, aligning the strategies and activities of the school with itsacademic mission (Glickman et al., 2017).

The third component of role identity, self-perceptions and self-definitions, was manifestedininstructional leaders’ belief that the main capability that allowed them to play their instructionalleadership role was instructional proficiency. As aforementioned, researchers claimed that to enactinstructional leadership, principals need pedagogical knowledge (Lochmiller & Acker-Hocevar, 2016;Steele et al., 2015). In this context, Spillane and Louis (2002) claimed that “Without an understandingof the knowledge necessary for teachers to teach well – content knowledge, general pedagogicalknowledge, content-specific pedagogical knowledge, curricular knowledge and knowledge of learners –school leaders will be unable to perform essential school improvement functions such as monitoringinstruction and supporting teacher development” (p. 97).

The fourth component of role identity, perceived action possibilities, was manifestedin instructionalleaders’ belief thatvarious activities to improve teaching and learning were available to them.Researchers have mentioned some constraints regarding the ability of school principals to enactinstructional leadership, such as a lack of uninterrupted blocks of time to work on instructionalmatters (Camburn et al., 2010; Goldring et al., 2015) and a fear that instructional leadership coulddamage principal-teacher relationships (Author, 2019a). However, the findings of this study indicatethat principals felt that they had a range of options to engage directly in teaching and learning.

Main elements and areas of instructional leaders’ role identity

The four components of instructional leaders’ role identity found in this studymay be seenasreflectingtwo salient elements – attribution of importance and sense of competence, related to twoareas – instruction and instructional leadership. The first component of instructional leaders’ roleidentity, ontological and epistemological beliefs – a belief that teaching quality is the most criticalcomponent of teacher work, reflects attribution of importance to instruction. The second component ofinstructional leaders’ role identity, purpose and goals – a belief that the primary goal of schoolprincipals is to improve teaching and learning, reflects attribution of importance to instructionalleadership. The third component of instructional leaders’ role identity, self-perceptions and self-definitions – a belief of instructional leaders that their teaching expertise enabled them to demonstrateinstructional leadership, reflects a sense of competence related to instruction. The fourth component ofinstructional leaders’ role identity, perceived action possibilities – a belief thata wide variety of activitiesto better teachers’ practices were at their disposal, reflects a sense of competence related to instructionalleadership.

This structure of instructional leaders’ role identity is illustrated in Figure 1. The four ellipsesrepresent the components of instructional leaders’ role identity: ontological and epistemological beliefs;purpose and goals; self-perceptions and self-definitions; and perceived action possibilities. The twocolumns represent the two elements of instructional leaders’ role identity – attribution of importance

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 9

and sense of competence. The two rows represent the two areas of these two elements – instruction andinstructional leadership. Thus, each of the four components of instructional leaders’ role identity fallsunder one of the elements in one area.

Attribution of importance as a salient element of the instructional leader’s role identityimplies thatbeing an instructional leader is largely a matter of priorities. Instructional leaders are principals whoprioritize the core business of schools, instruction. Enhancing teaching and learning is at the top oftheirto-do list (Glickman et al., 2017). Instructional leaders give utmost importance to student learningand academic results, while everything else is of lesser importance (Murphy et al., 2016).They demon-strate diminished managerial and political priorities in favor of increased instructional and studentlearning priorities (Bush &Glover, 2014). At the same time, a sense of competence as a salient element ofthe instructional leader’s role identity implies that principals’ self-efficacy, which is a personal conclusionabout one’s abilities to achieve a desired outcome (Bandura, 1997), also occupies a central place in beingan instructional leader. Self-efficacy determines principals’ effort and persistence concerning the instruc-tional goals they set as well as specific instructional tasks and affects the attitudes and performance oftheir followers (Federici & Skaalvik, 2011; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008).

Study implications and limitations

This study holds both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study has identified thestructure of instructional leaders’ role identity. Inasmuch as the existing literature has not dealt withthis topic, the current study expands the available knowledge about instructional leadership.Practically, the structure of instructional leaders’ role identity identified in this study may enable

Ins

tru

ctio

nal

lea

der

ship

Ins

tru

cti

on

Attribution of importance Sense of competence

Ontological and

epistemological

beliefs

Purpose and

goals

Self

perceptions

and self-

definitions

Perceived

action

possibilities

The role

identity of

instructional

leaders

Figure 1. The role identity of instructional leaders.

10 H. SHAKED

better development of instructional leaders. Principals may develop their instructional leadership roleidentity in various stages of their educational careers, such as preparation programs, mentoringprograms provided to beginning principals, and professional development as principals. It seemedadvisable to help principals develop the role identity of instructional leaders according to the structurefound in the present study.

Moreover, although this study has been conducted among principals, instructional leadership as anorganizational function extends beyond the sole position of the principal. Thus, developing the roleidentity of an instructional leader is relevant to mid-level school leaders, such as year heads, heads ofdepartments, and instruction coordinators. These leaders, who are responsible for implementinginstructional leadership in practice, have the potential to develop the role identity of instructionalleaders following the structure found in this study. Besides, the selection of the right candidates forschool leadership positions renders a significant impact on schools’ performance. Thus, well-definedscreening and assessment processes to select real instructional leaders are crucial for building andsustaining successful schools. Looking for the structure of instructional leaders’ role identity found inthis study may allow a more accurate instructional leaders’ selection process, increasing the likelihoodthat the most effective candidates are appointed to these senior leadership positions.

Compared with prior research, this study provides novel data on the role identity of instructionalleaders. However, it has several limitations. First, the data were collected within a particular context,thereby requiring further study to test for cross-cultural validity. Study replication in various socio-cultural contexts would be advisable to generalize the findings to broader populations and tosubstantiate their inter-contextual and international validity. Second, as with any self-reporting, thecurrent methodology offered little control over the possibility that respondents mayprovide sociallydesirable responses. Further research using techniques such as direct observation could complementprincipals’ self-reporting with more objective data on their instructional leadership practices.Interviewing various stakeholders about principals’ instructional leadership may also complementprincipals’ self-reporting. Third, future research would do well to explore differences between princi-pals in instructional leaders’ role identity. Differences according to participants’ characteristics (e.g.,gender, experience, and education) were not found to be significant in this study. However, insofar aswe know that such differences affect the application of instructional leadership (Hallinger et al., 2016),differences between principals in the role identityof instructional leaders might be detected in a studyusing a larger number of participants. Fourth, additional research is needed to explore how instruc-tional leaders’ role identity help to overcome the challenges to enacting instructional leadership.Conclusive findings on this question could make a strong contribution to the literature.

More broadly, additional research is needed to explore if different role identities have any effects oninstruction and/or learning outcomes. Longitudinal studies, including repeated data collection amongthe same principals at different points in time during their career, would also be useful in revealing thedevelopmental process of instructional leaders’ role identity.

In conclusion, thisstudyinquired into the role identity of instructional leaders. The starting pointwas Kaplan and Garner (2017) four components of role identity: ontological and epistemologicalbeliefs, purpose and goals, self-perceptions and self-definitions, and perceived action possibilities.Qualitative data analysis identified two major elements in the instructional leader’s role identity –attribution of importance and sense of competence, related to two areas – instruction and instructionalleadership. Attribution of importance as a major element suggests that the enactment of instructionalleadership reflects mainly the principal’s priorities, to wit,a key feature of instructional leadership isattribution of importanceto an ongoing and deep involvement in improving teaching and learning forall students. In addition, a sense of competence as a major element suggests that principals’ belief intheir instructional capabilities plays a key role in the enactment of instructional leadership. This studyshedsa necessary light on a lesser-known aspect of instructional leadership, whichmay be usedasa conceptual framework underpinning principal preparation programs, mentoring of novice princi-pals, and professional development of actual principals.

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 11

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References

Adams, D., Devadason, E., Periasamy, R., & Cheah, K. S. (2019). Instructional leadership: Placing learning to the fore. InD. Adams, C. Yan Piaw, K. S. Cheah, & B. Sumintono (Eds.), Instructional leadership to the fore: Research and evidence(pp. 1–10). University of Malaysia.

Alsobaie, M. F. (2015). The principal’s relationship with teacher and development literacy of elementary school students.Journal of Education and Practice, 6(35), 149–155. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1086319.pdf

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth.BenDavid-Hadar, I. (2016). School finance policy and social justice. International Journal ofEducational Development,

46, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.10.003Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student

achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48(C), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.005Bowers, A. J., Blitz, M., Modeste, M., Salisbury, J., & Halverson, R. (2017). How leaders agree with teachers in schools on

measures of leadership practice: A two-level latent class analysis of the comprehensive assessment of leadership forlearning. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8SF4CKB

Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership forlearning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064

Brenninkmeyer, L. D., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Problem-solving processes of expert and typical school principals:A quantitative look. School Leadership and Management , 28(5), 435–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430802517209

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership and Management, 34(5),553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Camburn, E., Spillane, J., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Assessing the utility of a daily log for measuring principal leadershippractice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 707–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377345

Campbell, P., Chaseling, M., Boyd, W., & Shipway, B. (2019). The effective instructional leader. Professional Developmentin Education, 45(2), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1465448

Capstones – The Israeli Institute for School Leadership. (2008). Perception of the principal’s role in the state of Israel:Report by the professional committee to formulate policy recommendations for the ministry of education. AvneyRosha.

Capstones – The Israeli Institute for School Leadership. (2012). School principals as seen in the data. AvneyRosha.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Crow, G. M., & Møller, J. (2017). Professional identities of school leaders across international contexts: An introduction

and rationale. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5), 749–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217714485

Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, A. L., Hammerness, K., Low, E. L., McIntyre, A., Sato, M., &Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowered educators: How high-performing systems shape teaching quality around the world.SCOPE.

Dempster, N., Townsend, T., Johnson, G., Bayetto, A., Lovett, S., & Stevens, E. (2017). Leadership and literacy. Springer.Edgerson, D. E., Kritsonis, W. A., & Herrington, D. (2006). The critical role of the teacher-principal relationship in the

improvement of student achievement in public schools of the United States. Lamar University Electronic Journal ofStudent Research. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491985.pdf

Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement: Assessing a Norwegian principalself-efficacy scale. Social Psychology ofEducation, 14(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4

Fishbein, M., & &Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis.Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2017). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental

approach (10th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C. M., Murphy, J., Blissett, R., & Porter, A. (2015).Making time for instructional

leadership. Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Pages/Making-Time-for-Instructional-Leadership.aspx

Hallinger, P. (2019). Instructional leadership 1950-2018: Transformation from an American to a global leadershipconstruct. In T. Bush, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood (Eds.), Principles of educational leadership and management (3rd ed.,pp. 19–38). Sage.

Hallinger, P., Dongyu, L., & Wang, W. C. (2016). Gender differences in instructional leadership: A meta-analytic reviewof studies using the principal instructional management rating scale. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4),567–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16638430

12 H. SHAKED

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The ElementarySchool Journal, 86(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/461445

Hallinger, P., & Wang, W. C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional managementrating scale. Springer.

Hattie, J. (2014). Self-concept. Psychology Press.Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing.

Erlbaum.Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Statistical abstract of Israel (No. 64).Kaplan, A., & Garner, J. K. (2017). A complex dynamic systems perspective on identity and its development: The

dynamic systems model of role identity. DevelopmentalPsychology, 53(11), 2036–2051. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000339

Kind, A. (2015). Persons and personal identity. Polity.Koelsch, L. E. (2013). Reconceptualizing the member check interview. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12

(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2015). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: Principals’

effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 58–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13518218

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy.Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321501

Lochmiller, C. R., & Acker-Hocevar, M. (2016). Making sense of principal leadership in content areas: The case ofsecondary math and science instruction. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1073329

MacBeath, J. (2019). Leadership for learning. In T. Townsend (Ed.), Instructional leadership and leadership for learningin schools: Palgrave studies on leadership and learning in teacher education (pp. 49–73). Palgrave Macmillan.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.Murphy, J., Neumerski, C. M., Goldring, E., Grissom, J., & Porter, A. (2016). Bottling fog? The quest for instructional

management. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1064096Noonan, H. W. (2019). Personal identity (3rd ed.). Routledge.Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process. The Qualitative Report, 13

(4), 695–705. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.4860&rep=rep1&type=pdfPennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (2016). Teacher identity in language teaching: Integrating personal, contextual, and

professional factors. RELC Journal, 47(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216631219Price, H. E. (2015). Principals’ social interactions with teachers: How principal-teacher social relations correlate with

teachers’ perceptions of student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0023

Prytula, M., Noonan, B., & Hellsten, L. (2013). Toward instructional leadership: Principals perceptions of large-scaleassessment in schools. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 140, 1–30. https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42840

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and methodolo-gical challenges. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760903026748

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed. ed.). Sage.Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in

qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8

Shaked, H. (2018). Why principals sidestep instructional leadership: The disregarded question of schools’ primaryobjective. Journal of School Leadership, 28(4), 517–538.

Shaked, H. (2019a). Ensuring teachers’ job suitability: A missing component of instructional leadership. Journal of SchoolLeadership, 29(5), 427–447.

Shaked, H. (2019b). Perceptual inhibitors of instructional leadership in Israeli principals. School Leadership &Management, 39(5), 519–536.

Spillane, J. P., & Louis, K. S. (2002). School improvement process and practices: Professional learning for buildinginstructional capacity. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21stcentury (pp. 83–104). University of Chicago.

Steele, M. D., Johnson, K. R., Otten, S., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Carver, C. L. (2015). Improving instructionalleadership through the development of leadership content knowledge: The case of principal learning in algebra.Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 10(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775115569353

Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4),423–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004423

Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed. ed.). ASCD.

LEADERSHIP AND POLICY IN SCHOOLS 13

Taylor, S. L., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. L. (2016). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource(4th ed.) Wiley.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Self-categorization theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, &E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 399–417). SAGE.

Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2019). Assessing international teacher and principal perceptions of instructional leadership:A multilevel factor analysis of TALIS 2008. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(3), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1384499

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory:Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4

Weiner, B. (2012). An attribution theory of motivation. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135–155). SAGE.

Young, M., & Crow, G. M. (2017). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. Routledge.

14 H. SHAKED