Examining the Quality of Instructional Leadership Behaviors and Efficacy among Secondary School Teachers in Hulu Langat District, Selangor

Examining the Quality of Instructional Leadership Behaviors and Efficacy among Secondary School Teachers in Hulu Langat District, Selangor

Johan Eddy Luaran¹, Dayana Nur Azmi², Jasmine Jain³

^1,2Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

³School of Education, Taylor’s University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400362

Received: 05 April 2025; Accepted: 15 April 2025; Published: 16 May 2025

ABSTRACT

The influence of instructional leadership behaviours and teachers’ efficacy is very important in determining both organizational and teachers are success as the two variables may affect efficacy among teachers. Given their importance, the study investigates the relationship between instructional leadership behaviour and secondary school teacher’s efficacy in Hulu Langat district, Selangor. Both variables were measured by using questionnaires. There were 15 items being used to measure principal’s instructional management and 28 items for teacher’s efficacy scales. The items for Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale were measured using adapted items by Phillip Hallinger. This section consisted of a Likert-Scale format question, which the items are measured using scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). There were three dimensions of instructional leadership construct such as Defining the School’s Mission, Managing the Instructional Program and Promoting a Positive School Learning. The items for teachers’ efficacy were measured by using adapted items from Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TSES). This section consisted of a Likert-Scale format question, which the items will be measured using scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). This questionnaire was distributed to 71 teachers through simple random sampling. Results of study revealed teachers’ efficacy related to instructional leader behaviours are at moderate levels.

Keywords: Instructional Leader, Teachers’ Efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Leadership is the significant rise over and beyond mechanical observance of the organization’s routine directives (Katz & Kahn 1978, p. 528). Hemphill defined leadership is the behavior of a person as he drives a group’s actions towards a mutual objective. Meanwhile as stated by Vecchio (1998), leadership is the gradual power of an individual exerts above their formal authority.

As stated by Blackburn (2009), leadership skill of school principals is often the key factors of difference between effective and ineffective school. According to some scholars, school leaders with strong leadership skills foster healthy educational cultures, including high quality school atmosphere, teaching and learning; assessment; academic and non-academic performance; two-way communication; accountability; behaviors of teachers and students; and partnerships with classrooms, families and the local community. (Glantz, 2008; Chen, 2008; Hallinger, 2004). In addition, according to Jackson, Davis, Abeel & Bordonaro (2000) school representatives do play a part both explicitly and indirectly in raising the academic performance of students. Furthermore, a studied has been carried out that there is a strong correlation between students’ academic accomplishment and the school leaders’ leadership.

The behavioral of principal leadership could influence various elements in the school environment including the attitude of teachers and staffs, teaching and learning process and students’ academic achievement (Bogler, 2005). Moreover, leadership practices of school principals are linked to the teachers ‘ expectations of group efficacy. As mentioned by Leith wood and Reihl (2005), school leadership comprises influencing and directing the school staff to accomplish common objectives. The sense of collective efficacy can develop in teachers, depending on school leadership behaviors (Sosik et al., 1997; Chen and Bliese, 2002; Ross and Gray, 2006).

Principal It shows that there is a relationship between leadership behavior and efficacy. According to Alhajri (2014), In Oman, scholars have not only documented a positive relationship between principal leadership and teacher commitment but also with other teacher attitudes that correlate with teacher commitment. These include teacher morale, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. In addition, school leadership studies conducted in Bhutan (Pelzang, 2014), Iran (Hallinger et al., 2017), Hong Kong (Hallinger & Lu, 2014) and Malaysia (Ponnusamy, 2010; Rosdi, 2012) have also found a positive relationship between principal leadership and teacher commitment. Other research has focused on understanding how collective teacher efficacy impacts teacher commitment (Calik et al., 2012; Chan, Lau, Nie, Lim, & Hogan, 2008; Hallinger et al., 2017; Solomon, 2007).

Therefore, definitions of leadership has described that principal of the schools are responsible in managing and controlling the direction among the teachers, staff and students in order to increase motivation and efficacy among the teachers in the school with the accomplishment mission and vision of the school as a whole.

Instructional Leadership

There is a general consensus among scholars, practitioners and policymakers that school leadership is an important contributor to improved school and system performance (Fullan, 2007; Leith wood et al., 2005; Harris, 2014). Therefore, around the globe, improved leadership and leadership development continues to be prioritized by policy makers in pursuit of better educational outcomes (Harris and Jones, 2015a, b). School principal carried out important role as they are expected to carry out a lot of duties at schools. One of them is instructional lead­ership which has been at issue and studied recently (Hallinger, 2011). Daresh and Ching-Jen (1985) describe instructional leadership as principal be­haviors’ affecting learning and teaching directly and indirectly. As mentioned by Celik (2000), an efficient instructional leader is by providing an effective teaching and learning environment. In other words, leaders should have clear vision and mission on in order to ensure the effectiveness in school education which involved the responsibility among principals, teachers, school administration and students. As indicated by Hallinger (2005), instructional leadership provides the theoretical support for the principal’s indirect influence on student learning and direct influence on the instructional behaviors, beliefs, knowledge, practices, and competencies of teachers. Furthermore, an instructional leader would increase the quality of education at schools (Marks & Printy, 2003). An instructional leadership also has come into eminence together with the importance of expectations from schools and efforts to establish an accountable school system and it has drawn as considerable interest of researchers (Ozdemir & Sezgin, 2002).

Study shows that instructional leadership has been most important in educational setting. Instructional leadership remains one of the most important and enduring leadership models, chiefly because of its connection to, and its proven impact upon, school and student outcomes (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leith wood et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2008).

The Development of Instructional Leadership

As eloquently stated by Goldring (2009), the studies on importance of instructional leadership has been over more than three decades by the international scholars based on models of instructional leadership practice. The knowledge about instructional leadership still emerging (Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a, b). This can be proven as there are many developing countries still at its infancy on literature leadership and leadership practices (Walker and Hallinger, 2015; Harris and Jones, 2015a, b). Furthermore, in Asia, the evidence base about leadership and leadership practices, including instructional leadership, remains particularly patchy and is relatively underdeveloped (Harris and Jones, 2015a, b; Hallinger and Chen, 2015; Hallinger, 2011).

There are few countries in Asia has started to explore instructional leadership such as in Vietnam, Mainland China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand (Hallinger and Bryant, 2013a). Moreover, Asian countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Indonesia are focusing another comparative piece of work (Harris and Jones, 2015a, b). The purpose of each study mentioned above is to contribute the knowledge base about educational leadership in depth and empirical investigation.

In Malaysia, Institute Aminuddin Baki (IAB) has been accountable in training for principal leadership since 1988. The preparation and training for leaders in Malaysia has varied quite considerable before 1999. Nevertheless, a national program called National Professional Qualifications for Headship (NPHQ) has been introduced and delivered by Institute Aminuddin Baki (IAB) in 1999. According to Bajunid (1996), it was adapted from English qualification in order to increase standard of preparation for all school leaders. National Professional Qualifications for Headship (NPHQ) has been replaced by National professional Qualification for School Leadership in 2009 and became compulsory essential for all principals in Malaysia.

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy

School teachers influence and shape the thought process of children in their tender years (Knowles and Brown, 2000). In past studies, its indicates that specific characteristics, group of students and school contextual characteristics and the impact of leadership influence the Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE). As indicated by Guskey & Passaro (1994), teacher’s self-efficacy (TSE) or their ‘belief or conviction that they can influence how well students learn, even those who may be difficult or unmotivated. There are various studies shows that teacher effectiveness is contributing directly towards student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Heck, 2009; Sanders and Horn, 1998; Sanders and Rivers, 1996). There are various studies done by researchers regarding teacher effectiveness. As stated by Becenti (2009), teacher effectiveness can be defined as the ability to leverage research practices and implement the curriculum to enhance and sustain student performance. Teacher self-efficacy is another factor that can be linked to teacher effectiveness. As mentioned by Coladarci and Breton (1997), teacher self-efficacy is reflected by teacher’s confidence that he or she personally is capable of such instruction that one possesses personal agency with respect to the task education.

Education is important for develop a nation. In developing countries, this approach is inspired by adult education which focusing more on self-efficacy as critical foundation of positive livelihood and health-seeking behaviors with active-learning pedagogies used in schools throughout the world. For example, in India, education is considered as the key to India’s growth and future (Rao et al., 2004). The effectiveness of teachers is important as they are playing important roles in the schools. Studies have argued the urgent need to increase effectiveness of teachers in India (Sindhi and Shah, 2013).  Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are related to their classroom management skills and instructional skills (Gibson and Dembo, 1984).

Campbell (2003) in his study revealed that ‘teacher-efficacy’ impacted student learning. According to Coladarci (1992), teacher’s self-efficacy has a positive effect concerning to classroom setting, class-size and student’s age. Klassen and Chiu (2010) in their study mentioned that there are their domains relationship which are between self-efficacy (instructional strategies, classroom management and student engagement), two types of job stress (workload and classroom stress) and teacher socio-demographic information. Students tend to be more motivated when the teachers are high in self-efficacy. According to Malmberg et al. (2014), a positive influence of teacher’s self-efficacy on students’ achievement was reported. According to Goddardmet al., (2004), for better organize and plan practices at school to improve the quality education and implement more humanistic classroom management skills, it is better to have teachers with high self-efficacy in the classroom. Furthermore, the transition from high to low teacher’s self-efficacy tend to appeared with negative influence on student’s math achievement (Midgley et al., 1989). Thus, students are more engaged in their learning when the teachers are more self-efficacious (Guo, Justice, Sawyer, & Tompkin, 2011; Pas et al., 2012). In other words, teachers with higher teacher’s self-efficacy were found to be better in engage students in the lessons (Holzberger et al, 2014).

Hence, teachers who set self-efficacy more challenging goals able to control and handle their emotions and task that has been given. Furthermore, confidence also will added their abilities in controlling behaviors and more successful person in the future (Bandura, 1997). In a nutshell, it is important to have teachers’ self-efficacy in student learning, capacities using the students, teachers’ making use of their professional competencies and instructional practices.

Instructional Leadership and Teacher Self-Efficacy

Instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy are two variables that are fundamental in influencing organization’s effectiveness in general. Day and Sammons (2013) indicates that in order to achieve school improvement, they indicate that instructional leadership is directly related to the school setting in which teachers operate. Instructional leadership style will support the school by setting educational goals, curriculum planning and evaluation of teachers and classroom teaching. This is why the role of school principals is important as they are tend to pay attention on creating better environment in school for better student to achieve in their academic and curriculum striving to encourage better quality in teaching and learning.

The school leaders are expected to increase teacher’s self-efficacy by collective efficacy. By this method, it could escalate the sense of efficacy in teachers and hope to improve the standard of education as a whole. Hence, this can be shown that school leadership behavior and teacher self-efficacy are related to each other.

According to Bandura (1993), strong leadership can help overcome difficulties and improve student achievement by increasing collaboration among teachers. This shows there are relationship between a leader and teachers to achieve vision and mission of the school. This study can be supported by Goddard et al., (2000) whereby student’s characteristics, the resources at school, leadership, social support and positive or negative results in students’ performance in school can be influence by the evolution of teacher efficacy.

A good leader with strong sense of purpose will encourage the teachers to overcome any difficulties in instructional practices and learning process in classroom. By this way teachers will develop an understanding towards students of their achievements and create positive school atmosphere (Bandura, 1993). In addition, Bandura (1997) did mentioned that strong leadership behaviors regarding improving instruction are frequently observed in schools with high levels of efficacy. Hence, school leaders’ creation of a powerful vision can develop collective efficacy (Demir, 2008). Thus, a school leader must assist teachers in the form of faith and trust in their self-efficacy which related to student learning.

Research Objectives

The research objectives of this study are:

1. To identify the impact of the instructional leadership on teachers’ efficacy.
2. To investigate teachers’ perception on their efficacy in teaching.
3. To identify the relationship between principal instructional leadership and teachers efficacy in teaching

Research Questions

The research questions of this study are:

1. What is the impact of the perceptions towards the principal’s instructional leadership?
2. What is the teachers’ perception on their efficacy in teaching?
3. Is there any relationship between the principal instructional leadership and teacher efficacy in teaching?

Research Design

In order to investigate the relationship between instructional behaviors and efficacy among teachers of SMK Cheras Perdana, quantitative survey approach was used in this study. This study focuses on a correlation design as it related to two variables, which are instructional leadership and teacher efficacy by using statistical analyses.

Population and Samples

In this study, it consists of the public secondary schools in the District Education Office (DEO) of the area of Hulu Langat. There are thirty-six (36) secondary schools in this District Education Office (DEO) area. Out of thirty-six (36), the researcher had chosen SMK Cheras Perdana as the sample school. The researcher used stratified sampling method, where the researcher come out with a list of secondary schools, taken from the district education office. The researcher grouped all the thirty-six (36) schools into six groups with six (6) schools in each group. Next, the researcher took the 3^rd school in each list with four (4) schools in another group in the list. Next, the researcher counted the total schools of thirty-six (36) is calculated. Hence, SMK Cheras Perdana was selected throughout the process. The sampling for this study comprised the teachers of SMK Cheras Perdana, Cheras, Selangor, which out 101 teachers, 71 teachers (N=71) have been chosen to participate in this study. The 101 teachers were selected through the simple random technique, which the researcher distributed the questionnaires randomly to the teachers. It is 4 weeks was given to the teachers in SMK Cheras Perdana to answer the questionnaire wholeheartedly.

Demographic Profile (Gender)

Table 1: Gender

Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the gender of the respondents involved in this study. There were a total number of 71 (N=71) respondents, consists of 6 male teachers with the percentage 8.5% and 65 female teachers with the percentage of 91.5%. At this level and percentage, it can be inferred in this analysis that female respondents had the most feedback for the result.

Demographic Profile (Age)

Table 2: Age

Table 2 shows the demographic profile of the age of the respondents involved in this study. There were a total number of 71 (N=71) respondents. There were 11 teachers aged between 36 – 40 years old with the percentage 15.5%, 7 teachers with aged 31 – 35 years old with the percentage 9.9% and 12 teachers aged 26 – 30 years with percentage 16.9%. There were teachers aged more than 51 years and above participate in this study, which the percentage of 23.9% with the total numbers of 17 teachers. There were also two groups of teachers aged between 41 – 45 years old with the frequency of 8 teachers and percentage 11.3% and teachers aged between 46 – 50 years old, participated in this study which is 13 in numbers with 18.3%. Teachers with aged 25 years and below is 3 in numbers with the percentage of 4.2%. Though this frequency and percentage it can contribute to the inference that the respondents aged 51 years and above has the most contribution for the result in this study.

Demographic Profile (Education Background)

Table 3: Education Background

Table 3 shows the demographic profile of the education background of the respondents involved in this study. There were a total number of 71 (N=71) respondents in this study. There were 61 teachers with Bachelor Degree education background with percentage 85.9% and 9 teachers with Master’s Degree education background with the percentage 12.7%. Teacher with Doctor of Philosophy education background is 1 in number with percentage 1.4%.  Though this frequency and percentage it can be concluded that respondents with Bachelor Degree education background has the most contribution for the result in this study.

Demographic Profile (Years of Teaching Experience)

Table 4: Years of Teaching Experience

Table 4 shows the demographic profile of the years of teaching experience at current school of the respondents who are involved in this study. There were total 71 (N=71) respondents. There were 50 teachers who have more than 9 years of teaching at current school with the percentage 70.4%. There are 13 number of teachers who have been serving for 1 -3 years teaching with percentage 18.3% and 6 teachers with 4 -6 years of teaching with percentage 8.5%. There are also 2 teachers who have 7 – 9 years of teaching with percentage 3.8% at the school. Though this frequency and percentage it can be concluded that respondents with more than 9 years’ experience in teaching has the most contribution for the result in this study.

Research Question 1 What are the impact of the perceptions towards the principal’s instructional leadership of Secondary School in Selangor?

Table 5 shows the mean scores of the Perceptions towards Principal’s Instructional Leadership of Secondary School in Selangor. All the items dimensions obtained the mean scores between the ranges of three to four. It was deduced that the average level of the dimensions is in range of “Slightly Agree” and “Agree”. The item that obtained the higher mean scores of Perceptions towards Principal’s Instructional Leadership is “To discuss the school’s academic goal with teachers at faculty meetings” (M=4.35, SD=0.69), while the lowest mean score is “Point out specific weakness in teacher instructional practices in post-observations feedback” (M=3.75, SD=0.79).

Table 5: Mean Score of Perceptions towards Principal’s Instructional Leadership

(Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Slightly Agree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree)

Research Question 2

What is the teachers’ perception on their efficacy in teaching?

Table 6 shows the mean scores of the Teachers Efficacy in Secondary School in Selangor. All of the items obtained mean scores between the ranges of four to two. It was deduced that average level of the dimensions is in the range of “Slightly Agree” and “Agree”. The first three item that obtained higher mean scores of the Teachers Efficacy in Secondary School in Selangor are “In this school, students are told that making mistakes is OK as long as they are learning and improving” (M=4.35, SD=.78), followed by “In this school, the emphasis is on really understanding schoolwork, not just memorizing it” (M=4.21, SD=.67) and “I make a special effort to recognize students’ individual progress, even if they are below grade level” (M=4.21, SD=.58). The last three items that obtained the lowest mean of Teachers Efficacy in Secondary School in Selangor are “In this school, grades and test scores are not talked about a lot” (M=2.76, SD=1.06), followed by “There is little I can do to ensure that all my students make significant progress this year” (M=3.17, SD=1.11) and “Some students are not going to make a lot of progress this year, no matter what I do” (M=3.31, SD=1.03).

Table 6: Mean Score of Teachers Efficacy

(Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Slightly Agree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree)

Research Question 3

Is there any relationship between the principal instructional leadership and teacher efficacy in teaching?

Correlation Between Instructional Leadership Style and Teachers’ Efficacy

Table 7: Correlation between Instructional Leadership and Efficacy Teacher

Table 7 shows the result of research question of the study which is to investigate whether there was any relationship between the Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviour which is the independent variable and Teacher Efficacy which is dependent variable in Secondary School in Selangor. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation test was used to measure the two variables. Based on The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, the Pearson’s r could be range starting from -1 to 1. Pearson’s r of -1 indicates a perfect negative linear relationship between the variables, followed by Pearson’s r of 0, which indicates no linear relationship between the variables. Pearson’s r of 1 indicates a perfect positive linear relationship between the variables. Based on the table 4.7, the data represents that there was a weak, positive and significant relationship between Principal Instructional Behaviour and Teacher Efficacy (r=.457**, p < 0.00). Therefore, there was a weak, positive and linear relationship between Principal Instructional Behaviour and Teacher Efficacy.

Outcome of the Study

Based on this study, the researcher was to (1) identify the impact of instructional leadership on teacher’s efficacy, (2) to investigate teacher’s perception on their efficacy in teaching and (3) to identify relationship between principal instructional leadership and teacher’s efficacy in teaching.

Research Question 1

What is the impact of the teacher’s perceptions towards the principal’s instructional leadership?

According to Clark (2009), school leaders, such as principals who by nature have the greatest influence or impact upon teacher’s efficacy and levels of confidence exhibited by faculty. The teachers in Secondary School in Selangor acted as respondents was evaluating their school principal towards leadership style and the result shows that a good instructional leadership do give impact to the teachers and will influence the school performance as it will affect the teacher’s efficacy learning in classroom.  The higher of leadership responsibilities in school will make the higher of return in school performance in future. In addition, according to Ogola and Sikalieh, Linge (2017), stated that the leaders who encourage their employees to seek for innovative methods and think critically when dealing with problems will do a better performance.

Research Question 2

What is the teacher’s perception on their efficacy in teaching?

Based on the result in previous chapter, the result of the teacher’s perception on their efficacy in teaching revealed that the teacher’s did have good efficacy in teaching. According to Alhajri (2014), the scholars have not only documented a positive relationship between principal leadership and teacher commitment but also with other teacher attitudes that correlate with teacher commitment. These include teacher morale, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. It shows that teachers are more commitment to their job at school as influence by the good instructional leader in school.

Research Question 3

Is there any relationship between the principal instructional leadership and teacher efficacy in teaching?

In the study, the research revealed that, there was a weak, positive and linear relationship between Principal Instructional Behaviour and Teacher Efficacy. This study is aligned with previous study which proposed that by employing instructional leadership practices such as those within the domains of defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate, school principals may positively enhance the efficacy beliefs of their teachers and, indirectly, improve classroom instruction and the achievement of their students (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Kruger, 2009; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002; Blase & Blase, 2000; 1999; Hipp & Bredeson, 1995; Bandura, 1993).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study is hoping to add values to the leaders especially principals of schools to improve the leadership behavior and manage the organizations effectively. The findings of the present study provided important discernments of effect toward instructional leadership behaviors and teachers’ efficacy in secondary school in Hulu Langat District

REFERENCES

1. Ngang, T. K. (2012). A comparative study on teacher leadership in special education classroom between China and Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 231–235. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.047
2. Ail, N. M. B. M., Taib, M. R. B., Jaafar, H. B., Wan Aida Rohana Bt Mohamed Salleh, & Omar, M. N. B. (2015). Principals’ Instructional Leadership and Teachers’ Commitment in Three Mara Junior Science Colleges (Mjsc) in Pahang,            Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1848–1853. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.512
3. Khairani, A. Z. B., & Razak, N. B. A. (2010). Teaching Efficacy of University Sains Malaysia Mathematics Student Teachers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 35–40.doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.005
4. Emam, M. M. (2018). Assessing the contribution of principal instructional leadership and collective teacher efficacy to teacher commitment in Oman. Qatar Foundation Annual research Conference Proceedings Volume 2018 Issue 4. doi: 10.5339/qfarc.2018.ssahpp307
5. Piaw, C. Y., Hee, T. F., Ismail, N. R., & Ying, L. H. (2014). Factors of Leadership Skills of Secondary School Principals. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 5125–5129. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1085
6. Hassan, R., Ahmad, J., & Boon, Y. (2018). Instructional Leadership in Malaysia. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.30), 424. doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.30.18346
7. Cansoy, R., & Parlar, H. (2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567. doi: 10.1108/ijem-04-2017-0089
8. Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’ perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49–69. doi: 10.1108/jea-12-2015-0116
9. Fairbrother, G. P. (2007). Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Comparative Education. Comparative Education Research, 39-62. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6189-9_2
10. Houser, R. (2010). Cram101 textbook outlines to accompany Counseling and educational research: Evaluation and application, Rick A. Houser, 2nd edition. Ventura, CA: Cram101.
11. Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. R. (2015). Quantitative Methodology: A Guide for Emerging Physical Education and Adapted Physical Education Researchers. The Physical Educator. doi:10.18666/tpe-2015-v72-i5-6133
12. Jamian, L. S., Nazir, M. S., Sidhu, G. K., Othman, K., &amp; Saidin, N. (2020). Multitasking and Job Satisfaction amongst Secondary School Teachers at the District of Klang, Selangor Malaysia. Social and Management Research Journal, 17(1), 61. doi:10.24191/smrj.v17i1.8143
13. PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? (2013). Paris: OECD.
14. Ogola, M.G., Sikalieh, D., & Linge, T.K. (2017). The Influence of Idealized Influence Leadership Behavior on Employee Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises in Kenya.
15. Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2014). Modelling the effects of principal leadership and school capacity on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 481-501. doi:10.1080/13632434.2014.938039
16. Rew, W. (2013). Instructional Leadership Practices and Teacher Efficacy Beliefs: Cross-National Evidence from Talis. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:183873 /datastream/PDF/view