Navigating Instructional Leadership: Lived Experiences of Higher Education Administrators Across Selected Colleges in Northwestern Mindanao, Philippines

Navigating Instructional Leadership: Lived Experiences of Higher Education Administrators Across Selected Colleges in Northwestern Mindanao, Philippines

Alvin R. Sumena Jr, Abigail B. Betache, Shaira Joe P. Oculares, Jockie Lyne Mae M. Alfeche

Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies LA Salle University Ozamiz City, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000358

Received: 08 July 2025; Accepted: 17 July 2025; Published: 18 August 2025

ABSTRACT

This qualitative study examines the lived experiences of higher education administrators serving as instructional leaders in three selected Philippine institutions: Tangub City Global College, Blancia College Foundation, Inc., and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology. Employing a phenomenological approach, the research utilized in-depth interviews, document review, and thematic analysis to explore how administrators conceptualize their instructional leadership roles, implement strategies to enhance teaching and learning, address institutional challenges, and contribute to overall academic improvement. Thematic analysis revealed seven core themes: (1) Perception of Administrative Role, (2) Strategies for Enhancing Teaching and Learning, (3) Support and Evaluation through Observation and Feedback, (4) Challenges in Instructional Leadership, (5) Opportunities for Professional Growth, (6) Balancing Standardized Compliance and Teaching Autonomy, and (7) Meaningful Institutional Contributions. Administrators identified themselves as both compliance enforcers and catalysts for faculty development, emphasizing collaborative curriculum design, professional learning communities, and partnerships with industry stakeholders. Despite challenges such as administrative workload, limited resources, and resistance to change, participants demonstrated resilience and adaptability through differentiated supervision and sustained professional learning. Findings underscore that effective instructional leadership—anchored in collaboration, flexibility, and commitment to faculty growth—significantly contributes to improved teaching practices, student outcomes, and institutional performance. The study recommends strengthening evaluator training, expanding professional development opportunities, and promoting shared leadership models to further advance instructional quality in higher education.

Keywords: instructional leadership, higher education, administrators, thematic analysis, Northwestern Mindanao Philippines, faculty development, qualitative phenomenological research

The Problem and A Review of Related Literature

In the labyrinth of contemporary-futuristic education, where the dimensions of innovation and equity converge, the college administrators’ instructional leadership emerges as a beacon — lighting institutions toward transformative teaching and learning paradigms (Sharma & Adeoye, 2024).

The entitlement of instructional leadership in higher education is both profound and a paragon. Administrators, as stewards of institutional vision, possess dual responsibility of networking faculty excellence and accelerate student accomplishment. Their influence echoed across curricular design, pedagogical strategies, and academic performance, implying their leadership indispensable to educational progress (New Leaders, 2025).

Instructional leadership has infinitely heralded as a cornerstone of fruitful educational ecosystems. Rooted in theories of distributed leadership and organizational change, it emphasizes strategic oversight, professional development, and collaborative cultures (Lumby & Foskett, 2019). While extensively studied in primary and secondary settings, its application within tertiary education remains underexplored — one of the gaps that risks stifling innovation at the collegiate level.

Despite mounting evidence affirming the impact of instructional leadership on teaching quality and student achievement, many colleges grapple with fragmented or inconsistent leadership practices. The vagueness of cohesive frameworks tailored to higher education compromises both faculty performance and learner engagement, leaving institutions ill-equipped to meet evolving societal needs (Robinson & Le Fevre, 2018).

Current domain predominantly focuses on K-12 instructional leadership, leaving insufficient insights into the unique dynamics faced by higher education administrators. This study addresses this gap by exploring the strategies, challenges, and contributions of college administrators in enhancing instructional quality and fostering an environment conducive to innovation and measurable academic improvement.

A study of Kilag & Sasan (2023) indicates that vigorous instructional leadership correlates strongly with improved teacher efficacy and enhanced academic rigor. Yet, when misaligned with institutional realities, even well-intentioned initiatives falter. For instance, initiatives promoting collaborative professional development and data-driven decision-making have been linked to enhanced teacher performance and improved student outcomes. Nonetheless, these findings are largely confined to lower educational tiers, necessitating analogous investigations within collegiate frameworks.

In another case, limited studies examine the dual imperatives encountered by college administrators: ensuring compliance with rigorous academic standards while nurturing faculty autonomy and creativity. This tension remains inadequately addressed in current available literature.

Empirical evidence from Weill (2024) unravels the cruciality of balancing standardization with innovation in educational leadership. Yet, these insights have yet to be contextualized within the unique dynamics of higher education institutions.

Institutions such as Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology, exemplifies diverse educational history where instructional leadership drives systemic change. By examining the practices of their administrators, this research illuminates localized yet globally relevant models of leadership excellence.

This study aims to achieve several key objectives: (1) to define instructional leadership from the perspective of college administrators and elucidate its diverse role in retaining student success; (2) to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of specific strategies implemented by administrators to enhance teaching practices; (3) to explore the challenges encountered by these leaders and examine the solutions they have devised to address specified obstacles; and (4) to assess how administrators strike a balance between standardization and teacher autonomy while promoting a culture of collaboration and innovation within their institutions.

Ultimately, this paper seeks to irradiate the multifaceted nature of instructional leadership among college administrators, offering actionable insights that bridge theory and practice. By capturing their lived experiences, it aspires to contribute to the broader discourse on educational leadership, empowering future administrators to spearhead with vision, empathy, and precision.

Review of Related Literature

This chapter ventures a critical review of the existing literature related to the lived experiences of higher education administrators in the context of instructional leadership. It explores prime leads, theoretical frameworks, and empirical studies that shed light on how administrators perceive, enact, and navigate their roles as instructional leaders.

The Concept and Scope of Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership, once viewed narrowly as the principal’s role in elementary and secondary schools, has extended in higher education to include deans, program heads, department chairs, academic coordinators, and more. Hallinger (2005) viewed instructional leadership in three core dimensions: defining the school’s mission, managing the instructional program, and promoting a positive school learning climate. While originally intended for K–12 contexts, these functions remain relevant and adaptable to colleges and universities, regardless whether it is public or private.

In higher education institutions like Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), instructional leadership acts as the managers in ensuring curriculum alignment with CHED benchmarks, monitoring faculty performance, recommending evidence-based pedagogy, and remodeling student learning competencies. Academic administrators are no longer merely compliance officers; they act as catalysts for innovation and visionaries for a quality educational landscape.

What’s more, instructional leadership in the Philippine borders is chiseled by national policies like the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 and CHED’s (Commission on Higher Education) blueprint on Outcome-Based Education (OBE). While the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) does not mandate a singular model of instructional leadership, colleges are expected to institutionalize learning-centered approaches. Contemplating in the views of Bucud and Pañares (2021), academic leaders in Philippine colleges are often in service as both instructional supervisors and organizational managers, requiring a balance between leadership and administrative roles.

This duality is observed in Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), where department chairs mentor junior faculty while also ensuring regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, at Tangub City Global College (TCGC), instructional leadership abides grassroots approach: faculty members are empowered to co-develop programs with heads, promoting shared leadership. On the other hand, Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), as a state college, has integrated instructional leadership into its strategic development framework, focusing on pedagogical capacity-building to meet regional development goals.

Instructional Leadership in the Philippine Higher Education Landscape

The instructional leadership landscape in Philippine colleges and universities has been hewed significantly by policy reforms and global shifts in pedagogy. The rollout of the Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) framework under CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 46, s. 2012, has shifted instructional leadership away from rote learning and lecture-based models toward performance-based, student-centered approaches. Academic leaders are perpetually liable for metamorphosing systems where learning outcomes are explicitly defined, measured, and ceaselessly revised.

Salandanan (2020) emphasizes that this paradigm shift requires a new generation of academic leaders who are not only pedagogically competent but also proficient in facilitating faculty joint effort, inspiring innovation, pushing limits and defying expectations. This demand is particularly challenging in under-resourced institutions where instructional leaders often wear multiple titles: as teachers, administrators, quality assurance coordinators, and even information technology support staff.

For instance, Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) department chairs often have to contextualize instruction due to the diversity of student backgrounds and then minimal access to instructional resources such as equipped modern laboratories and updated reference resources. Instructional leadership herein comprised adaptive master plan like maximizing community partnerships for experiential learning and using differentiated instruction to accommodate heterogeneous learning needs. Despite constraints, leaders cultivate academic quality by emphasizing relevance, inclusiveness, and cultural sensitivity.

At Tangub City Global College (TCGC), instructional leadership has evolved to integrate community-based approaches and organizational alliance. These influential figures routinely conduct program audits and curriculum revisions that involve external stakeholders, ensuring that programs are attuned to industry needs and societal demands. Likewise, the administrators refurbish tasks and institution-community engagement to secure standardized leadership images. This outward-facing approach makes instruction dynamic, and instructional leaders serve as facilitators of local development, not just institutional outcomes.

Meanwhile, Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology’s (NMSCST) approach is more structured, with emphasis on faculty development and instructional technology. Leaders invest in training programs that improve digital literacy, instructional design, and blended learning modalities. Instructional supervision includes the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS), data analytics for student performance tracking, and peer observation. This shows how instructional leadership has expanded into technological and research domains, reflecting the complex environment of modern higher education.

De Guzman and Torres (2019) observed that private colleges often struggle with instructional leadership due to financial impediment, excessive teaching loads, and the high turnover of part-time faculty. Yet, institutions like Tangub City Global College (TCGC) and Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) counter this through strong academic partnership, mentorship programs, and culture-building efforts that promote shared ownership of instructional outcomes.

The shift toward instructional leadership in Philippine higher education signals a redefinition of academic governance. It is no longer sufficient for leaders to manage: they must inspire, innovate, and empower, ensuring that instruction becomes a collective enterprise aligned with institutional vision and societal needs.

Roles and Practices of Instructional Leaders in Colleges and Universities

Instructional leaders in higher education are no longer passive overseers of curriculum delivery; they are active agents of pedagogical innovation, mentors, and strategic planners. In the context of colleges and universities, these roles are nuanced by institutional size, resources, and mission. They encompass curriculum alignment, faculty development, quality assurance, teaching evaluation, and learner support.

In institutions like Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), instructional leaders such as program heads and department chairs actively mentor new faculty, conduct syllabus reviews, and spearhead efforts to integrate constructivist and inquiry-based methods in instruction. This is crucial in ensuring that students develop not only content mastery but also critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Leaders also work to contextualize instruction given the limited availability of modern instructional facilities.

At Tangub City Global College (TCGC), instructional leaders champion collaborative instructional planning by engaging faculty in lesson design workshops, outcome mapping, and co-teaching arrangements. This shows the “distributed leadership” model discussed by Harris (2014), which emphasizes shared responsibility and collective efficacy. The practice empowers faculty and enhances instructional coherence.

Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), on the other hand, has institutionalized instructional leadership roles within its research, extension, and instruction agenda. Program heads are responsible not just for instructional supervision, but for ensuring that faculty integrate research outputs into their teaching and link instructional content with community-based projects. This tripartite role is aligned with the SUC (State Universities and Colleges) mandate of instruction, research, and extension as pillars of national development.

Instructional leaders also perform data-driven decision-making. According to Bush (2008), effective instructional leaders gather, analyze, and act on data related to student achievement, faculty performance, and instructional quality. This is evident in Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology’s integration of student feedback systems, classroom observations, and Learning Management System (LMS) analytics to inform instructional improvements.

Moreover, the increasing importance of digital pedagogy in post-pandemic education has added another layer to the role of instructional leaders. As noted by Lapada et al. (2020), leaders must now facilitate the digital transition, provide faculty training in remote learning strategies, and oversee the equitable distribution of learning technologies.

Challenges and Barriers to Effective Instructional Leadership

Despite the aspirational goals of instructional leadership, multiple barriers persist especially in the Philippine higher education context. These include resource limitations, faculty overload, lack of professional development opportunities, and resistance to change.

In Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), for instance, instructional leaders often face difficulty in implementing innovative strategies due to lack of textbooks, limited lab equipment, and inadequate instructional materials. These constraints often force leaders to rely on low-cost but creative instructional strategies, such as community immersion and localized instructional materials. However, such ingenuity requires time and energy that are often curtailed by administrative workloads.

Tangub City Global College (TCGC), being a smaller institution, struggles with faculty retention and professional development, particularly for part-time faculty. De Guzman and Torres (2019) stress that heavy teaching loads and insufficient training make it difficult for faculty to keep pace with instructional reforms like OBE. Instructional leaders must often juggle between supervisory roles and heavy teaching loads themselves, limiting their capacity to engage in transformative leadership.

Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), while more equipped in terms of structure, experiences bureaucratic bottlenecks in implementing instructional initiatives, especially those requiring interdepartmental coordination. The layers of approval and hierarchical governance sometimes stall innovation, as described by Navarro and Santos (2020) in their analysis of leadership challenges in Philippine SUCs.

Resistance to change is another major issue. Faculty members, especially tenured ones, may be reluctant to shift from traditional lecture-based approaches to more outcomes-based or student-centered methods. This cultural inertia requires instructional leaders to be not only technically competent but also emotionally intelligent and persuasive (Ng & Chan, 2014).

Lastly, technological inequality also hampers instructional leadership. Leaders must address the digital divide, especially among students in rural areas who struggle with online learning. This is a concern raised by UNESCO (2020) during the pandemic’s impact on education continuity, which remains relevant in post-pandemic policy reform.

Instructional Leadership and Educational Quality in the Local Context

Strong instructional leadership is correlated with higher educational quality, particularly when leadership is focused on improving learning outcomes, curricular relevance, and instructional responsiveness. In local institutions like Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), educational quality is pursued not just through compliance but through contextualized innovation and faculty empowerment.

Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), for example, despite limitations, has shown improvements in student performance and licensure exam results through strategic leadership efforts, such as localized instructional guides, peer mentoring, and community-aligned curriculum delivery. These efforts reflect the argument by Leithwood et al. (2004) that instructional leadership, when focused on teaching and learning, can mitigate systemic constraints and still produce positive outcomes.

At Tangub City Global College (TCGC), quality assurance is tied closely with instructional leadership practices like program-level monitoring, reflective faculty assessments, and external stakeholder consultation. These practices ensure that instructional activities are relevant and responsive to regional labor needs and community priorities. Meanwhile, Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology’s integration of instructional leadership into its institutional planning and faculty development roadmap illustrates how leadership can shape sustainable quality assurance systems. Faculty capacity-building programs, regular pedagogical audits, and alignment of instruction with regional and national progress plans exemplify a holistic approach to educational quality.

Ultimately, instructional leadership is pivotal in institutional transformation. As noted by Fullan (2001), sustainable reform is only possible when leaders engage with teachers at the level of teaching and learning. This insight is echoed in the local context by studies like that of Bucud and Pañares (2021), which argue that instructional leadership is essential for nurturing innovation and relevance in Philippine colleges.

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in Hallinger and Murphy’s Instructional Leadership Theory (1985), which serves as a fundamental aspect among instructional leaders in defining institutional goals, managing the academic program, and fostering a culture of teaching and learning excellence. The theory asserts that school leaders, whether in basic or higher education, directly influence teacher performance and student achievement through structured instructional support, frequent classroom monitoring, and a clear academic mission.

In the Philippine context, this framework is reinforced by the National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads (NCBSSH) developed by the Department of Education (DepEd, 2016). These standards emphasize the instructional leadership functions of educational heads, such as guiding curriculum implementation, promoting continuing professional development, and sustaining a learner-centered environment. While originally designed for school heads in basic education, the competencies have proven useful for academic administrators in higher education who similarly navigate challenges in faculty supervision, instructional quality, and policy implementation.

Additionally, the study incorporates elements from Transformational Leadership Theory (Burns, 1978), which views leadership as a process of inspiring and motivating others to exceed expectations. In the academic setting, this means that administrators must go beyond compliance and foster a culture of innovation, collaboration, and empowerment among faculty members. A study by Shah (2023) supports this, showing that administrators who demonstrate both authoritative guidance and empathy tend to strengthen teacher morale and institutional cohesion.

Together, these theoretical perspectives provide a dual lens for analyzing higher education instructional leadership, combining operational oversight with inspirational guidance. They offer a strong foundation for understanding how administrators shape instructional practices and ultimately influence student academic performance through effective and responsive leadership.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 Schematic Diagram of the Study

The framework above summarizes the schema of the study. Instructional leadership, exercised by school administrators, is the supremacy of effective educational biodiversity. It directly shapes teacher performance and student outcomes by establishing alliance, innovation, and accountability. This framework explores how administrators’ strategic measures affect both educators and learners, emphasizing the importance of comprehending their real-life experiences to navigate institutional success.

Instructional leadership profoundly amplifies teachers’ performance by equipping them with tools, strategies, and reinforcement. School administrator’s forefront curriculum revisions, facilitate professional development, and supply feedback through class inspection. These efforts steer unrelenting progress, enabling their image to transfigure into a mega premier education and intersect the demand of diverse learners effectively.

Meanwhile, instructional leadership directly elevates students’ academic performance by verifying achievement through data-driven systems and associative environments. Initiatives like differentiated instruction and technology integration cater to diverse learning styles, lifting engagement and outcomes. School administrators fortify alignment between institutional goals and teaching practices, configuring student success.

In conjunction, instructional leadership bridges teachers and students, stimulating a dynamic and responsive teaching-learning process. School administrators boost inclusive learning, reflective practices, the refinement of existing methods, while adhering to institutional standards, ensuring that teaching techniques address the needs of learners. This symbiotic relationship revolutionizes classrooms into vibrant abyss where both educators and students thrive, achieving mutual growth.

Basically, this framework spotlights the hallmarks of instructional leadership in shaping education. By examining higher education administrators lived experiences, it reveals connections between leadership, teacher performance, and student outcomes. A holistic approach balancing oversight and empathy is essential for securing excellence. Instructional leadership is a transformative power maneuvering systemic change, emboldening educators and learners to achieve their full potential.

Statement of the Problem

This research aims to explore the lived experiences of higher education administrators in instructional leadership.

Particularly, this study seeks to provision the following:

• How do higher education administrators perceive their roles and responsibilities as instructional leaders in terms of their designation:
• Vice President
• Dean
• Program Head
• What leadership strategies do they implement to enhance teaching quality and student learning outcomes?
• How do instructional leaders support and evaluate faculty through classroom observations and feedback practices?
• What challenges do instructional leaders encounter in their efforts to influence instructional improvement?
• In what ways do instructional leaders foster professional growth and collaboration among teaching staff?
• How do instructional leaders balance institutional standards with teacher autonomy and innovation in instructional practices?
• What do instructional leaders consider as their most significant contributions to improving teaching and learning in higher education?

Scope and Delimitation

This study focuses exclusively on college administrators from three institutions, namely: Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST). The research is limited to exploring the lived experiences and practices of instructional leadership as perceived by college administrators, excluding perspectives from teachers or students. Data collection will involve ten open-ended interview questions. The study employs qualitative methods, specifically thematic analysis, to identify recurring themes and insights. Ethical considerations, including adherence to the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) (National Privacy Commission, 2012), will guide all interactions with participants, observing confidentiality and informed consent.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will benefit the following individuals for the empowerment of instructional leadership, specifically:

School Administrators. This study entails actionable insights into effective instructional leadership strategies, allowing school administrators to impart their practices and how they improved institutional status quo.

Teachers. By accentuating successful initiatives and alliance frameworks, the findings can show how school leaders managed situations and can be an insight to their endeavor in becoming future leaders themselves.

Students. Improved instructional leadership directly impacts learning environments, revealing better academic performance and holistic development.

Future Researchers. Future research could enhance the findings by increasing the sample size and incorporating perspectives from both faculty and students, thereby employing triangulation to strengthen the robustness of the conclusions.

Policymakers. Insights from this research can inform policies aimed at strengthening leadership training programs and aligning them with contemporary educational needs.

METHOD

Research Design

This study outlines a qualitative research design, specifically a phenomenological research approach, since it reviews the lived experiences of the participants in their actual instructional leadership, maximizing a thematic analysis to interpret data garnered through semi-structured interviews and respondents are chosen via purposive sampling. Thematic analysis allows for an in-depth exploration of school administrators’ experiences, enabling the identification of recurring patterns, challenges, and successes in instructional leadership. The open-ended nature of the ten-item interview protocol guarantees dense, descriptive data that captures the complexities of leadership practices. This approach is suited to understanding subjective responses and contextual nuances, providing a comprehensive view of how instructional leadership affects teaching and learning.

Research Locale

This research will be initiated across three selected higher education institutions in Northwestern Mindanao, namely: Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST). These colleges were chosen for their diverse academic programs and varying collegiate contexts, visualizing a broad spectrum of perspectives on instructional leadership. Each institution’s remarkable conditions dispense valuable acumen into how leadership practices adapt to various challenges and opportunities, augmenting the study’s findings.

Tangub City Global College (TCGC) is one of two colleges in Tangub City, operating under the supervision of the city government. It was originally founded in 1984 as Tangub City College (TCC). In 1992, under the leadership of Gov. Philip T. Tan, the college was renamed Gov. Alfonso D. Tan Memorial College (GADTMC), with a vision to enhance its facilities and elevate educational standards. By 2003, during Mayor Jennifer Wee-Tan’s administration, it transitioned to Alfonso D. Tan College (ADTC). In 2007, it reverted to its previous name, Gov. Alfonso D. Tan College (GADTC). On August 18, 2023, the institution unveiled its current name and brand, Tangub City Global College (TCGC). Over the years, Tangub City Global College (TCGC) has undergone significant transformations, reflecting its commitment to academic excellence and community service. Today, Tangub City Global College (TCGC) stands as a symbol of pride for the community, represented by its green flag, as it continues to empower students to achieve their dreams and contribute meaningfully to society (Gadtc.edu.ph, 2023). The college has achieved significant milestones over the years. Its bachelor’s programs have earned accreditations from the Association of Local Colleges and Universities Commission on Accreditation (ALCUCOA), with several programs achieving Level 1 and 2 status and desiring to reach Level 3. It has also ranked among the top-performing schools in Region 10 for the Criminology Licensure Examination and boasted its first topnotchers in Midwifery Licensure Examination, thanks to the collective efforts of its administrators, faculty, and staff. Currently, Tangub City Global College (TCGC) operates five departments offering 15 bachelor’s degree programs in fields such as criminology, languages, midwifery, education, and computer science. Looking ahead, the college aims to introduce new degree programs to attract more enrollees and provide free tuition fees to sustain student enrollment while continuing to deliver quality education.

Figure 2 Map of Tangub City Global College (TCGC) located at Juan Luna St., Brgy. Maloro, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental, Philippines

Source: Google Search and Google Map

Meanwhile, the Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), situated in the heart of Molave, began in 1968 as Molave Institute, founded by Engr. Elcesor Bonecillo, initially offering high school and basic college programs. After financial challenges led to foreclosure, the Blancia family 19 acquired the institution in 1991, reestablishing it as Blancia Carreon College Foundation, Inc. under Dr. Ramon V. Blancia, Sr. With a mission to serve middle-class and economically disadvantaged families, the Blancia family expanded the college’s programs, notably introducing midwifery, nursing, and other allied health courses, which gained prominence for high board examination pass rates. In 2010, the school was restructured as Blancia College Foundation, Inc., led by Dr. Ramon O. Blancia, Jr., focusing on developing globally competitive, service-oriented professionals. Continuing its founder’s mission, Blancia College remains committed to academic excellence, Christian values, and community service, particularly for the underserved, in Salug Valley and surrounding areas. Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) has established itself as a respected educational institution, driven by a mission to make quality education accessible and affordable for all.

Figure 3 Map of Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) located at Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines

Source: Google Search and Google Map

The Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST) began as the Tangub Agro-Industrial School (TANAIS) in 1971, initially offering secondary agriculture and trade courses. After relocating in 1973, the institution expanded to post-secondary programs and became affiliated with Central Mindanao University from 1979 to 1984. Efforts to convert TANAIS into a state college began in the early 1990s, culminating in the formal establishment in 2001 through the contributions of local leaders and legislators. Atty. Philip T. Tan served as its first president, spearheading significant infrastructure development. Under the leadership of succeeding presidents, Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST) has continuously aimed to strengthen its standing as a prestigious institution for higher education in the region. Nowadays, the said institution offers a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate programs, with almost all of them recognized through Certificates of Program Compliance (COPC) or equivalent accreditation. The college currently employs 397 faculty and staff members, and serves a student population of 6,551 under the supervision of OIC President Mrs. Kris Mae B. Lagang. Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST) is currently in the process of being converted into a university, hallmarking as visionaries based on its ongoing development.

Figure 4 Map of Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST) at Brgy. Labuyo, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental, Philippines

Source: Google Search and Google Map

Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), are ideal research locales due to their faculty’s extensive administrative experience and involvement in curriculum revisions and national leadership conferences. These college establishments manage diverse undergraduate populations, offering valuable insights into the challenges and successes of instructional leadership. Their adaptability to societal and academic changes, along with their commitment to community engagement, reflects their resilience and dedication to holistic education. These qualities see them well-suited for an in-depth study of instructional leadership in higher education and relevant to this paper.

Research Respondents

The respondents were selected via purposive sampling technique. This comprised college administrators, specifically vice presidents, program heads, and department deans, who are directly exposed in leading instructional management, teaching, and learning operations. Their extensive experience in leadership designations qualifies them as the ideal ones for exploring the intricacies of instructional leadership. By focusing on apex administrators, the study aims to capture high-level collegewide perspectives on systemic approaches to improving higher education, while acknowledging their direct influence on institutional culture and teacher performance.

Research Instruments

The primary research instrument for this study is a researcher-developed, semi-structured interview guide composed of ten open-ended questions. These questions are designed to explore the instructional leadership experiences of higher education administrators by eliciting detailed responses on their leadership roles, strategies, challenges, and contributions to teaching and learning. The instrument is aligned with the study’s research questions and aims to capture rich, qualitative data by encouraging participants to share their personal insights and experiences.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data will be collected through one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with selected higher education administrators. Prior to the interviews, participants will receive a formal request for participation and an informed consent form outlining the purpose of the study, voluntary participation, and confidentiality assurances in line with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) (National Privacy Commission, 2012). Upon consent, interviews will be scheduled and conducted either in person or via a secure video conferencing platform. Each session will be audio-recorded with the participants’ permission to ensure accurate data capture. The recorded interviews will then be transcribed verbatim to prepare for the subsequent data analysis.

Ethical Consideration

In compliance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173) (National Privacy Commission, 2012), all participants will be informed of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their rights as respondents. Letter of permission will be obtained before conducting interviews, and participants will be assured that their identities and responses will remain confidential. Any identifying information will be anonymized during data analysis and reporting. Additionally, participants may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty, securing their autonomy and ethical treatment throughout the research process.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter elucidates the findings derived from the in-depth interviews conducted with six higher education administrators. These individuals, occupying various roles such as deans, program heads, and principals, provided comprehensive insights into their lived experiences as instructional leaders. The results presented herein are directly aligned with the study’s core research questions, specifically focusing on their perceived responsibilities, the strategic interventions they employ to elevate pedagogical standards, and the resulting impact on student performance. Through thematic analysis, the responses were clustered into emergent categories, which are subsequently examined alongside pertinent literature to provide a rich contextual understanding. Moreover, in this chapter, the respondents shall have its own designated number (e.g. R1 or Respondent 1) to distinguish ownership of the responses in accordance with the questionnaire in constructing this literature.

Perception of Administrative Role

Vice Presidents. Respondent 1 articulated a proactive and data-driven approach to leadership, emphasizing the need to align academic priorities with institutional goals. Their focus on feedback loops, faculty consultations, and student-centered instruction reflects a deep understanding of systemic leadership: “It’s my responsibility to set a clear academic direction, ensure quality standards, and provide consistent support for teaching improvement” (Respondent 1). This aligns with Hallinger’s (2005) model on instructional leadership that highlights mission definition and instructional monitoring. Conversely, Respondent 2 emphasized the importance of humility and alignment with top-tier directives: “A good leader is a good follower… we follow instructions from the management… it will also promote excellence in students and faculty” (Respondent 2). This perspective reveals a culturally embedded leadership orientation common in hierarchical academic structures in the Philippines.

Deans. Deans portrayed themselves not merely as administrators but as thought leaders who embody academic excellence. Respondent 3 provided a resolute view of instructional leadership: “I do not simply manage people, I shape the direction of our institution… Every decision I make is anchored on student outcomes and academic integrity” (Respondent 3). This powerful framing echoes of Salandanan (2020) who emphasized leadership that pushes boundaries and fosters innovation. Respondent 4, who was newly installed, provided a more vulnerable yet authentic perspective: “Sometimes the pressure gets to me… But I’m learning that how I lead greatly influences our academic culture” (Respondent 4). Her openness to self-reflection and adaptive learning exemplifies Fullan’s (2001) principle of leadership as a continuous improvement process.

Program Heads. Program heads demonstrated a commitment to institutional vision through curriculum leadership and faculty mentoring. Respondent 5 stressed the anchorage of all decisions on the VMGO, noting: “Referring to the VMGO really makes an impact because it leads to more consistent and well-grounded outcomes” (Respondent 5). This substantiates Bush’s (2008) assertion on mission-oriented leadership as a driver of instructional coherence. Respondent 6 highlighted strategic planning, curriculum alignment, and faculty mentoring as vital elements of her role: “I lead in curriculum planning, mentoring our teachers, and ensuring that our programs are aligned with the goals of the college” (Respondent 6). This level of operational foresight confirms Harris’ (2014) model of distributed leadership, emphasizing collaborative academic governance.

The collected narratives depict instructional leadership as a continuum, ranging from operational compliance to visionary transformation. Vice presidents view their roles as strategic and reflective, focused on aligning macro-level institutional goals with faculty empowerment. Deans emerge as the linchpins of quality assurance and pedagogical vision, while program heads act as curricular engineers who ensure that learning trajectories reflect institutional aspirations. A significant pattern is the shared acknowledgment of the importance of alignment—whether with VMGO, institutional mandates, or student-centered philosophies. However, variations arise depending on tenure, personal philosophy, and institutional resources. This variation is crucial for understanding how leadership is shaped not only by personal values but by institutional cultures and constraints.

The results resonate profoundly with the perspectives delineated by Hallinger (2005) and Fullan (2001), who both accentuate leadership as a process of aligning organizational systems with instructional outcomes. The emphasis on VMGO, student performance, and faculty mentoring mirrors the theoretical foundations found in Bush’s and Harris’ models. Furthermore, the resource-based challenges narrated by the respondents are consistent with the findings of De Guzman and Torres (2019), who highlighted workload, resource scarcity, and faculty turnover as endemic in Philippine private colleges. The respondents’ proactive responses—mentoring, contextualization, and community linkages that support the argument of Salandanan (2020) on adaptive leadership in resource-strapped institutions.

An unanticipated yet insightful revelation came from Respondent 4, whose emotional honesty about adjusting to a dual-role leadership position unveiled the oft-overlooked emotional labor in academic leadership. Despite being in a position of authority, she candidly admitted the psychological toll and pressure. This is not widely reflected in the literature, which tends to spotlight functional or strategic leadership over emotional and psychological resilience. This result prompts a deeper exploration into the mental health and well-being of academic leaders.

Strategies in Improving Teaching and Learning

Implemented Strategies Supporting Faculty Performance. One prevailing theme in the data is the strategic and intentional role of administrators in enhancing instructional quality. Respondents consistently emphasized the proactive implementation of faculty support systems to ensure pedagogical alignment with institutional goals and regulatory expectations.

Table 1 Summary of Instructional Leadership Strategies Supporting Faculty Performance

The responses unveil an expansive interpretation of instructional leadership—one that is neither singular nor static, but layered with administrative duty, relational dynamics, and pedagogical guidance. The findings confirm that instructional leadership in higher education is performed not only through administrative compliance but also through mentorship, curricular scaffolding, and faculty empowerment. Respondents diverged in their leadership styles: some adopted collaborative and nurturing practices, while others leaned toward institutional protocols and systemic oversight. Despite these differences, all respondents exhibited a shared commitment to enhancing instructional quality. Notably, Respondents 1 and 3 demonstrated nuanced leadership, integrating emotional intelligence with rigorous instructional supervision, which aligns with the emerging scholarly focus on human-centered leadership in academia.

The findings corroborate several core concepts discussed in the literature. As proposed by Bucud and Pañares (2021), instructional leaders in Philippine colleges indeed operate in dual capacities: pedagogical guides and compliance officers. Respondent 2’s emphasis on deadlines, document submissions, and mandatory planning mirrors this duality. Moreover, the experiences recounted by Respondents 4 and 6 reflect the distributed leadership model advocated by Harris (2014), where instructional planning and technology integration become collective undertakings. Similarly, Salandanan (2020) emphasized the need for instructional leaders to be innovation facilitators and faculty motivators. Respondents 5 and 6 affirm this, especially in their emphasis on peer-led development and seminar-workshops that extend beyond compliance and toward pedagogical growth. In line with Bush (2008), Respondent 3’s use of data via lesson audits and feedback mechanisms reflects data-informed leadership practices.

While the findings largely support the theoretical and empirical foundations of instructional leadership, a few unexpected elements emerged. For instance, Respondent 4’s admission of inconsistency—“I know there are times I change plans midway, which can be confusing for them”—presents a contrast to the idealized image of instructional leaders as coherent and deliberate planners. This highlights a nuanced reality where leaders, though well-intentioned, navigate competing demands that sometimes compromise clarity. Another unexpected yet refreshing insight was the spontaneous “re-echoing” approach described by Respondent 5: “I truly believe in the value of re-echoing these learnings to our constituents…”—a culturally resonant yet undocumented leadership practice that leverages relational trust and community learning.

Implemented Strategies Supporting Student Performance. These themes are reinforced by the participants’ reflections on how their instructional leadership practices influenced student performance and faculty competence.

Table 2 Summary of Instructional Leadership Strategies Supporting Student Performance

The results unequivocally demonstrate that instructional leadership has a profound impact on both faculty performance and student learning outcomes. Respondents consistently highlighted that when faculty members feel supported, monitored, and guided by academic leaders, they exhibit greater confidence and instructional clarity—an effect that ripples positively into student engagement (R1, R4). This connection reinforces the findings of Hallinger (2005) regarding the triadic leadership focus: setting the mission, managing instruction, and fostering a positive climate. The role of monitoring, especially through tools like OBTLP, appeared instrumental in aligning instruction with learning outcomes. As one administrator aptly noted, “…since the activities are monitored…we can ensure that it is with the activities that are student-centered” (R2). This reflects a sophisticated integration of data-driven leadership practices as identified by Bush (2008), showing how evaluative mechanisms can reinforce excellence. Furthermore, the narratives illustrate how leadership strategies catalyze tangible academic improvements. “From a struggling department, we now have board passers…” (R3) points to a transformative instructional culture anchored in faculty development and strategic vision. Such evidence validates the instructional leadership model as a fulcrum for educational change.

The findings resonate strongly with existing literature on instructional leadership within the Philippine higher education context. As articulated by Bucud and Pañares (2021), administrators play a dual role as both supervisors and pedagogical leaders—a phenomenon echoed by respondents who described themselves as both motivators and mentors. The integration of community partnerships, as referenced by Respondent 5 through seminar workshops and hands-on application, mirrors the grassroots leadership model discussed in relation to Tangub City Global College in the literature. The respondent noted, “…if we conduct a seminar workshop on lesson planning… the students really learn and understand because they are applying what they know” (R5). This substantiates Salandanan’s (2020) assertion that effective instructional leadership embraces constructivist, student-centered learning. Additionally, the challenge of uneven instructional guidance aligns with Navarro and Santos (2020), who documented bureaucratic inertia as a common impediment to consistent instructional implementation in Philippine SUCs.

An intriguing discovery in this study was the contradiction between the perceived support for faculty and the inconsistencies in instructional guidance. Respondent 4 poignantly acknowledged, “…inconsistent guidance affects classroom outcomes… a wake-up call for me to establish stronger, more consistent follow-through.” This candid insight diverges from the normative assumption in leadership literature that faculty empowerment naturally results in instructional cohesion. This tension suggests that while leadership initiatives may be well-intended, their uneven execution can cause dissonance at the instructional level. It also indicates a need for clearer frameworks and sustained professional development to bridge gaps in policy and practice—an aspect underexplored in traditional leadership models.

Support and Evaluation for Observation and Feedback

The responses from six administrators reveal diverse approaches to classroom observations and feedback. These approaches range from collaborative and developmental strategies to more authoritative and immediate feedback methods. The findings also highlight institutional constraints and personal reflections influencing these practices.

Table 3 Summary of Support and Evaluation for Observation and Feedback

The findings unveil that instructional leadership, as experienced by these administrators, is a deeply nuanced and context-sensitive function. Respondent 1 articulated a formative and partnership-driven perspective, viewing classroom observations as collaborative engagements rather than evaluative exercises. This echoes Hallinger’s (2005) emphasis on developmental instructional leadership and affirms the position of Bucud and Pañares (2021) that Philippine administrators often adopt supportive, rather than supervisory, stances to foster trust and growth. In contrast, Respondent 3 embodied a more assertive philosophy, employing surprise observations and direct corrective feedback to instill pedagogical discipline. “Sometimes, if the mistake is repetitive… I correct them on the spot,” (R3) reflects a leadership modality driven by accountability and performance immediacy. Respondent 4 shared a narrative that sits at the intersection of leadership commitment and emotional complexity. Their admission of previously delivering public criticism—”Looking back, I realize that some issues could have been discussed privately” (R4)—points to a recurring dilemma in academic leadership: the tension between upholding standards and preserving collegial decorum. Respondent 6 described a balanced practice involving both planned and surprise visits, followed by individualized coaching that integrates practical suggestions—an approach aligned with data-driven mentorship ideals found in Bush’s (2008) model of informed instructional leadership. Meanwhile, Respondent 5 distinctly highlighted the bureaucratic structure at Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST), asserting that classroom observation is “not within our scope of authority,” thus illustrating a disjunction between leadership titles and instructional agency. Such insight amplifies Navarro and Santos’ (2020) critique of hierarchical constraints in state universities, where policy delineations often impair adaptive leadership.

The multifaceted findings of this study find resonance—and some divergence—in established literature. The developmental orientation seen in Respondent 1 and Respondent 6 aligns strongly with the distributed leadership model (Harris, 2014), wherein authority is shared to cultivate collective efficacy and professional growth. This is particularly observable in Tangub City Global College’s grassroots approach, where instructional co-design is encouraged. The contrasting leadership style of Respondent 3, though arguably stern, upholds Bush’s (2008) contention that effective leaders must be decisive and grounded in evidence-based judgment. Respondent 2’s reliance on institutional tools and frameworks supports the assertion by Salandanan (2020) that OBE and CHED-aligned models are reshaping instructional supervision by integrating standard rubrics. Yet, the pragmatic limitation—”sometimes it doesn’t work out because of the number of us” (R2)—mirrors De Guzman and Torres’ (2019) concerns about capacity shortfalls and systemic overload in private institutions. The reluctance or inability to perform observations due to institutional policy boundaries, as highlighted by Respondent 5, underscores a discrepancy in the role-actualization of academic leaders. While literature encourages instructional agility (Leithwood et al., 2004), the bureaucratic rigidity of certain institutions restricts such adaptability, creating a mismatch between theoretical expectations and on-ground enactments.

An unexpected revelation was the emotional vulnerability expressed by Respondent 4, who admitted to letting “emotions get the best of me.” Such self-reflection adds an unanticipated human dimension to instructional leadership, often overlooked in literature that portrays leadership in procedural or strategic terms. Moreover, the exclusion of program heads like Respondent 5 from observation roles challenges the conventional assumption that academic administrators are directly involved in instructional supervision. This divergence from the expected role continuity suggests that leadership structures in Philippine HEIs are not universally standardized, thus necessitating context-sensitive policy clarifications.

Challenges in Instructional Leadership

The interview responses converged around several thematic categories: (1) Role enactment and leadership strategies, (2) Instructional transformation and collaboration, (3) Resistance and adaptation, and (4) Managing complexity and innovation in instructional reform. These themes collectively capture the dynamic and evolving nature of instructional leadership as experienced by the respondents. Presented below is a tabular summary of responses to Question 5, which probed the challenges administrators faced and their resolutions.

Table 4 Summary of Challenges and Coping Mechanisms in Instructional Leadership

The themes of the table extracted from these responses were substantiated by cross-case comparisons and internal consistency in experiential narratives.

The participants uniformly emphasized that instructional leadership is a continuous negotiation between authority and empathy, innovation and inertia. Respondent 1 highlighted the importance of modeling and facilitating change, underscoring how inclusivity in instructional reform fosters acceptance: “It’s easier to gain support when people feel they are part of the process.” This was echoed by Respondent 6, who emphasized the power of participatory forums to diffuse resistance. Respondents 2 and 3, meanwhile, dealt with change aversion through a combination of structured mandates and confrontational but data-backed persuasion. These accounts underscore the reality that instructional leadership is not merely technical; it is relational, context-sensitive, and deeply human. Notably, Respondent 4’s narrative reflected the complexities of balancing multiple administrative layers—a reality in many public institutions. The dual demands of higher education governance and instructional supervision often stretch leaders beyond conventional roles, creating tension between reactive and reflective leadership. These tensions, when navigated successfully, lead to adaptive strategies that benefit both faculty and students. Respondent 5’s experience highlighted an essential facet of instructional leadership: the capacity to accommodate heterogeneity in student and faculty needs through flexible, inclusive strategies. Instructional leadership, therefore, was shown not as a singular approach, but as a mosaic of adaptive practices, underpinned by context, institutional culture, and individual initiative.

The study’s findings strongly corroborate the existing literature on instructional leadership in higher education. As Hallinger (2005) conceptualized, the tripartite dimensions of defining the mission, managing instruction, and promoting a positive learning climate are evidently enacted by the respondents. For example, the shared leadership approaches cited by Respondents 1 and 5 are congruent with Harris’s (2014) model of distributed leadership, where empowerment and collaboration form the bedrock of effective instructional governance. Moreover, the respondents’ coping strategies for resistance—ranging from personal coaching to mandated compliance—echo the adaptive strategies emphasized by Bucud and Pañares (2021), who underscored the duality of leadership and administrative roles in Philippine colleges. The data also aligns with Salandanan’s (2020) findings that leadership in higher education must now embrace pedagogical innovation, especially under the Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) framework, a theme repeatedly referenced by participants. The responses from Tangub City Global College (TCGC) and Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) leaders regarding community engagement and curriculum alignment with local needs further affirm the literature’s position that instructional leadership in the Philippines is increasingly being shaped by regional relevance and contextual sensitivity. These themes validate Leithwood et al.’s (2004) assertion that leadership significantly influences student outcomes when grounded in instructional priorities.

An unanticipated insight emerged from Respondent 4’s experience—balancing the leadership of a basic education unit while simultaneously managing collegiate academic functions. This layered role was not previously emphasized in the literature, yet it revealed a worth-seeing aspect of instructional leadership: role multiplicity. While most studies view leadership within one institutional level, this finding suggests a need to explore how vertical integration of leadership roles impacts performance, decision-making, and emotional strain. Furthermore, the unexpected resilience of instructional leaders in poorly resourced institutions—particularly in Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI)—challenged the assumption that material constraints severely limit instructional innovation. Instead, as seen in Respondents 2 and 5, ingenuity and institutional culture often compensated for the lack of infrastructure, with collaborative planning and contextualized resources acting as effective counterbalances.

Professional Growth Opportunities

Collaboration and Professional Learning. Through careful analysis of the interview data, the following themes emerged:

Table 5 Thematic Analysis on Faculty Collaboration Practices

The analysis above was derived from the 6th interview question determining the encouragement of collaboration or professional learning among faculty members, as summarized below:

Table 6 Summary of Faculty Collaboration Practices

A pervasive narrative across all respondents was the conscious enactment of instructional leadership as a relational and developmental practice rather than a top-down mandate. Respondent 1 emphasized initiating “informal group reflections after major academic activities,” which not only anchored instructional recalibration but also cultivated professional empathy and solidarity. This was echoed by Respondent 3 who asserted that collaboration is “non-negotiable,” revealing a leadership stance grounded in deliberate collectivism. These insights underscore the shift from individual faculty autonomy toward institutionalized collegiality—a finding that directly addresses the research objective of identifying leadership practices that shape faculty engagement and pedagogical excellence. Moreover, the data reveals that instructional leaders are not passive observers but architects of instructional vision. Respondent 6’s practice of organizing “team teaching and collaborative lesson planning” highlights a proactive stance in engineering faculty synergy and curriculum alignment. Respondent 4, who fosters “peer mentorship through structured yet encouraging spaces,” illuminates the fine balance between authority and trust. These nuances point to the multidimensionality of instructional leadership: not merely administrative enforcement but emotionally intelligent guidance that catalyzes instructional coherence.

These findings reflect the theoretical underpinnings outlined in the literature review. Hallinger’s (2005) tripartite model—defining mission, managing instruction, and promoting a learning climate—is clearly observable in the respondents’ experiences. Respondent 2’s emphasis on departmental meetings for synchronized GE course delivery supports the literature’s assertion that coherence in instructional delivery demands deliberate alignment of learning outcomes across instructors. Additionally, the practice of distributed leadership, as proposed by Harris (2014), is vividly present in Tangub City Global College, where co-development of instruction is not only encouraged but institutionalized—a reflection affirmed by Respondent 5’s emphasis on integrating empathy and shared responsibility in faculty practice. The Review of Related Literature underscored the context-specific operationalization of instructional leadership in Philippine colleges—where resource scarcity, overlapping roles, and policy pressures shape the leadership landscape. Respondents consistently reported multitasking as both instructors and leaders, a reality articulated by De Guzman and Torres (2019), who noted the dual burdens of instruction and administration in under-resourced colleges. Despite this, the respondent’s manifest resilience, deploying creative strategies such as peer-led training, co-teaching, and community-driven instruction to meet institutional mandates—an embodiment of the “contextualized innovation” cited by Bucud and Pañares (2021).

One notable deviation from expected findings was the voluntary, almost organic nature of collaborative culture in some institutions. While resistance to change and bureaucratic inertia were anticipated challenges, Respondent 3’s account of assigning “group lesson planning” and “co-teaching” as normalized practices reflects a maturing culture of collective pedagogical responsibility. This suggests that in select institutions, instructional leadership has transcended policy compliance to become a shared identity. Furthermore, contrary to the assumption that part-time faculty are disengaged, Respondent 2 indicated that with HR’s facilitation, even non-mandatory training have become points of convergence for knowledge exchange. This counters literature suggesting rigid resistance among faculty, revealing instead that collaboration thrives when institutional support and empathetic leadership converge.

Programs Supporting Professional Development. These themes encapsulate the administrators’ proactive efforts in supporting faculty growth, innovating pedagogy, addressing institutional limitations, and enhancing teaching quality.

Table 7 Summary of Initiatives for Faculty Professional Development

The collected narratives illustrate that instructional leadership among the respondents is characterized by a robust commitment to faculty capability-building despite systemic challenges. Respondent 3 demonstrated a commanding presence as an instructional leader by initiating in-house Outcome-Based Education (OBE) training and mandating graduate studies, reflecting the belief that “they can do more.” Meanwhile, Respondent 6 institutionalized mentorship programs and encouraged digital training participation, indicating a strategic and future-ready leadership posture. Respondent 1 also exhibited a strong grasp of CHED-aligned quality assurance by facilitating workshops on syllabus alignment and outcome mapping. While Respondent 2’s response highlighted logistical challenges—such as budgetary constraints—the supportiveness of the leadership was unwavering, marked by readiness to endorse faculty to outside training when opportunities arise. A particularly resonant insight was shared by Respondent 4, who voiced a critical yet often overlooked gap in faculty development: “My current challenge is ensuring that what they learn in training is actually applied in the classroom,” an admission that underscores the need for sustained post-training engagement. This thematic breadth showcases instructional leaders not merely as facilitators of knowledge, but as catalysts of professional identity and educational transformation.

The results of this inquiry reinforce the assertions of Hallinger (2005), who framed instructional leadership within the triad of defining mission, managing instruction, and fostering learning climate. The respondents’ initiatives directly speak to managing the instructional program and enhancing the learning climate through workshops, seminars, mentorships, and performance feedback mechanisms. The study also echoes Harris’s (2014) “distributed leadership” model, particularly in the ways administrators encourage faculty collaboration (R1, R3), promote co-teaching practices, and engage in team-building efforts (R2). Respondents from institutions with limited resources, such as Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) and Tangub City Global College (TCGC), reflect the concerns noted by De Guzman and Torres (2019) regarding overloaded roles and funding limitations. Yet, in line with Fullan’s (2001) framework of sustainable change through active leader-teacher engagement, the respondents have found innovative means to fulfill their roles—such as R3’s decision to shoulder faculty conference costs and R5’s focus on student-responsive seminars. Furthermore, the emphasis on contextualized leadership aligns with the views of Bucud and Pañares (2021), particularly on the duality of administrative and instructional responsibilities. These parallels validate the credibility of this study’s findings and suggest continuity between theoretical insights and lived administrative practices.

While many findings reinforced the expectations derived from literature, a few anomalies emerged. Notably, despite the comprehensive endorsement of external training programs, some administrators admitted a lack of follow-through mechanisms. Respondent 4 stated, “Without follow-up, it’s hard to measure impact,” highlighting a gap between training provision and its classroom integration. This admission runs counter to Bush’s (2008) emphasis on data-driven leadership and outcome evaluation. Similarly, Respondent 2’s focus on “team building” as a principal professional development strategy was surprising, as it deviated from more pedagogically explicit initiatives seen in other narratives. This underscores the necessity of differentiated approaches in faculty development, particularly in institutions with varying leadership capacities. Moreover, Respondent 5 noted students’ appreciation for teacher-focused seminars, suggesting an indirect but significant benefit of faculty training on learner engagement—a result not widely covered in existing instructional leadership frameworks. These nuances underscore the diversity and complexity of local leadership contexts and suggest a need to revisit prevailing models to account for grassroots realities.

Balancing Between Standardized Compliance and Teachings

The data gathered through semi-structured interviews with six academic administrators were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four major themes emerged:

Table 8 Thematic Analysis on Balancing Between Standardized Compliance and Innovation

The thematic analysis above was derived from the responses of question 8 asking how instructional leaders balance standardized compliance while allowing teacher autonomy and creativity, as summarized below:

Table 9 Summary on Balancing Between Standardized Compliance and Innovation

The findings reveal a nuanced understanding of instructional leadership where higher education administrators act as both gatekeepers of academic standards and enablers of pedagogical innovation. The respondents consistently acknowledged the importance of adhering to CHED policies and institutional mandates, particularly through the lens of OBE. Yet, they simultaneously expressed a willingness—even an imperative—to create spaces for faculty creativity. For example, Respondent 3 clearly delineated that “alignment with course outcomes, adherence to CHED guidelines, and ethical teaching practices must always be followed,” but welcomed gamified or case-based learning strategies so long as standards were not compromised. This reflects a leadership ethos grounded in both accountability and adaptability. Furthermore, the data suggest that instructional supervision, while bureaucratic in structure, is frequently personalized and context-sensitive. Respondent 5 emphasized structured compliance by following CHED Memorandum Orders through mandated classroom observations, yet this is mirrored by Respondent 6’s collaborative, feedback-oriented system that fosters faculty innovation via best practice sharing.

The results resonate significantly with Hallinger’s (2005) triadic model of instructional leadership—defining mission, managing instruction, and promoting a learning climate. Respondents actively enforce academic standards (mission), oversee instructional delivery (management), and empower faculty to explore diverse strategies (learning climate). This dual function is echoed in Bucud and Pañares (2021), who observed that Philippine academic leaders are compelled to harmonize their roles as both administrative enforcers and pedagogical facilitators. Moreover, the distributed leadership approach evident in Respondent 2’s co-designed learning activities and Respondent 4’s trust-based innovation aligns closely with Harris’s (2014) model of shared instructional agency. The use of localized strategies and institutional flexibility highlighted in the interviews complements Salandanan’s (2020) emphasis on leadership responsiveness in under-resourced settings. In parallel, the data from Blancia College Foundation, Inc. and Tangub City Global College illustrate how instructional leaders contextualize national mandates by anchoring them in local academic ecosystems—a finding also underscored by De Guzman and Torres (2019), who noted the creative adjustments necessitated by financial and logistical constraints in private colleges.

While instructional leadership is often theorized as a transformative role, several respondents indicated limitations in fully realizing this ideal due to structural impediments and cultural inertia. Notably, Respondent 4’s candid admission—“Sometimes I’m not firm enough in enforcing deadlines or standards”—illuminates a tension between fostering autonomy and ensuring compliance. This reveals a vulnerability often omitted in prescriptive leadership models. Additionally, Respondent 5’s institutional rigidity, driven by strict adherence to CMOs, introduces a counterpoint to the flexibility celebrated by others. Such findings suggest that while academic freedom is valued, it is unevenly distributed and often tempered by institutional hierarchies, revealing how leadership flexibility can be constrained by broader governance frameworks.

Significant Contributions in the Institution

Most Significant Contributions. The thematic analysis of the interviews revealed five major themes representing the multidimensional scope of instructional leadership: (1) Strategic Alignment and Pedagogical Shifts, (2) Faculty Mentorship and Capacity Building, (3) Instructional Vision Amid Constraints, (4) Collaborative Culture and Emotional Intelligence, and (5) Legacy and Institutional Impact.

Table 10 Thematic Analysis of Instructional Leaders’ Personal and/or Significant Contributions

The responses to Question 9, regarding the most meaningful contribution as instructional leaders, provided rich qualitative accounts summarized below:

Table 11 Summary of Instructional Leaders’ Personal and Significant Contributions

The data reveal that instructional leadership in the selected higher education institutions is both adaptive and multifaceted. Respondent 1 emphasized the importance of pedagogical intentionality through OBE integration, stating, “Faculty became more intentional… learning expectations were clearly communicated and measured.” This aligns with the CHED Outcome-Based Education mandate and reflects the operationalization of performance-based learning. Similarly, Respondents 3 and 6 embody leadership through mentorship and culture-building. Respondent 3 stated, “From having no classrooms to producing board passers… that legacy lives in every classroom today,” showcasing a longitudinal impact. Respondent 6 affirmed, “Our faculty are motivated to improve for the benefit of our students,” revealing an emotionally intelligent approach to instructional supervision. Respondent 4, despite acknowledging personal shortcomings, highlighted the emotional dimension of leadership: “I celebrate their efforts and support them even when they make mistakes.” Such narratives reveal a shift in leadership models—away from top-down monitoring to relational, empathetic engagement with faculty.

The findings strongly resonate with Hallinger’s (2005) model of instructional leadership, which emphasizes mission definition, instructional program management, and climate building. Respondents’ emphasis on OBE, faculty support, and classroom supervision reflects these elements. Additionally, the results mirror Harris’ (2014) “distributed leadership” paradigm. At Tangub City Global College (TCGC), for instance, shared instructional planning and co-teaching exemplify collaborative strategies identified by Respondent 1. This echoes the practices described by Bucud and Pañares (2021), who observed academic leaders wearing dual hats of supervisors and enablers. Moreover, the accounts from Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST) support Bush’s (2008) data-driven leadership model. Respondent 6’s emphasis on openness and strategic collaboration suggests institutional frameworks that integrate analytics, peer reviews, and professional development.

An unexpected insight emerged from Respondent 2, who, despite modestly downplaying their contribution (“Maybe it’s just a little bit…”), focused on research as a form of instructional leadership. This perspective broadens the conceptual boundaries of instructional leadership, often limited to teaching, curriculum, and faculty supervision. Here, research facilitation is acknowledged as a catalytic force in instructional innovation, particularly through community extension and interdisciplinary learning. Another anomaly is the considerable administrative involvement emphasized by Respondent 5, whose leadership extends to student housing and accreditation processes. While not traditionally categorized as “instructional leadership,” such roles shape the learning environment and uphold institutional quality, echoing Navarro and Santos’ (2020) assertion that leadership extends beyond the classroom.

Measuring or Evaluating Success in Instructional Leadership Efforts. The qualitative data gathered from the in-depth interviews were subjected to thematic coding, resulting in the emergence of five major themes:

Table 12 Thematic Analysis in Measuring or Evaluating Success in Instructional Leadership

Based on the table above, instructional leadership, as articulated by the respondents, encompasses a multifaceted approach that balances strategic supervision, collaboration, data-driven decision-making, and human-centered practices while navigating systemic constraints. Administrators view direct engagement with faculty, such as classroom observations and mentoring, as pivotal to ensuring instructional rigor and alignment, with success measured through improved student outcomes and faculty satisfaction. This relational focus is complemented by a shift toward participatory governance, where shared responsibility and faculty involvement in curriculum reviews foster a culture of growth and ownership, reflecting distributed leadership models. At the same time, respondents emphasize the growing importance of data-driven practices, utilizing tools like student achievement metrics, grading rubrics, and feedback surveys to guide continuous improvement. However, these ideals are tempered by systemic limitations, including resource scarcity, over-reliance on student evaluations, and institutional politics, which create challenges in fully realizing instructional leadership goals. Despite these constraints, an emergent ethic of care and transformative leadership underscores the emotional labor involved, as administrators prioritize empathy and relational resonance alongside measurable outcomes, illustrating the complex interplay between idealism and practicality in higher education leadership.

The findings of this study resonate profoundly with existing literature that frames instructional leadership as a multi-faceted, context-responsive endeavor. Hallinger’s (2005) model, with its emphasis on mission definition, instructional supervision, and positive learning climate, is evident in the administrators’ practices of faculty mentoring, classroom oversight, and student-focused improvements. These results also align with Bucud and Pañares’ (2021) assertion that academic leaders in Philippine colleges embody dual roles of instructional supervisors and organizational managers. Likewise, the leadership challenges echoed by respondents find parallels in the works of De Guzman and Torres (2019), who observed that financial limitations and faculty overload hinder the full realization of instructional leadership in private institutions. Tangub City Global College (TCGC) and Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI) has strategies—community immersion, flexible evaluation, and program-level audits—mirror Salandanan’s (2020) argument that transformative leadership must thrive even under constraints. Meanwhile, the practices at Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST)—such as integrating LMS analytics and faculty research into teaching—exemplify the modern reconceptualization of leadership described by Lapada et al. (2020) and Harris (2014). This technological and research-oriented turn reflects a synthesis of instructional, digital, and strategic leadership models.

An unexpected outcome emerged from the reluctance or inability of some respondents to specify clear metrics or tools for measuring leadership success. While leadership literature often advocates for objective key performance indicators, Respondent 5’s reserved position and emphasis on respect for institutional hierarchy points to a cultural dimension of leadership—where humility and discretion are valued over self-promotion. Similarly, the absence of institutionalized success measures in some settings contradicts assumptions of standardized evaluation in higher education, revealing a gap between policy rhetoric and ground realities. These findings suggest that instructional leadership may be more relational and intuitive in practice than structured and measurable.

The entire results and discussion has provided a thorough discussion on the themes, summary of responses, interpretation of results, comparison to existing literature, as well as its unexpected results. The findings irradiated the indispensable role of leadership in shaping instructional quality, faculty development, and institutional coherence. The next chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions and recommendations, drawing from these preceding chapters to propose actionable insights for policy makers, institutional leaders, and future researchers aiming to enhance instructional leadership in higher education.

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

This final chapter synthesizes the study’s key findings, emphasizing the transformative role of instructional leadership in higher education while recognizing existing gaps. Specifically, this chapter identifies the summary, findings, conclusion, and recommendation.

Summary

This qualitative research sought to explore the lived experiences of higher education administrators as instructional leaders in three institutions: Tangub City Global College (TCGC), Blancia College Foundation, Inc. (BCFI), and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology (NMSCST). Using semi-structured interviews with six participants composed of deans, vice presidents, and program heads, the study examined their perceptions of instructional leadership, the strategies they employed, the challenges they encountered, and their perceived contributions to improving teaching and learning. Data were gathered through audio-recorded interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed thematically.

Chapter 3 revealed diverse leadership styles, ranging from authoritative to collaborative approaches, each grounded in contextual realities. It showed how administrators navigate dual roles, as managers and mentors, while upholding instructional quality and promoting faculty growth. Strategies such as mentoring systems, professional development programs, observation feedback, and outcome-based planning were consistently highlighted. Additionally, systemic challenges such as resistance to change, limited institutional resources, and role ambiguity were identified.

The findings of this study support the conceptual frameworks proposed by Hallinger (2005), Bucud and Pañares (2021), and Harris (2014), while also revealing lived nuances that go beyond theoretical expectations. Through this exploration, the study has contributed valuable insights into the multifaceted and relational nature of instructional leadership within the Philippine higher education context.

Findings 

This section presents the research findings, offering a synoptic analysis of the data that explored the lived experiences and strategies of instructional leaders. Particularly, the findings are as follows:

Perceptions of Instructional Leadership Responsibilities

Respondents demonstrated varied perceptions of their instructional leadership roles. Vice presidents emphasized institutional alignment and strategic planning; deans viewed themselves as shapers of academic culture, while program heads focused on curriculum design and mentoring. Respondent 3, for example, articulated a data-informed leadership style where decisions are “anchored on student outcomes and academic integrity”. This reflects Hallinger’s (2005) model that instructional leadership involves defining mission, managing instruction, and promoting a learning climate.

Strategies for Enhancing Teaching Practices

Instructional leaders employed a range of strategies such as peer mentoring, lesson audits, co-teaching, and instructional planning reviews. For instance, Respondent 1 conducted OBE-based workshops, while Respondent 3 institutionalized a mentorship system. These practices reflect both directive and supportive leadership, consistent with Bush’s (2008) emphasis on evidence-based supervision

Impact on Student Engagement and Performance

Respondents reported that well-implemented strategies positively impacted student outcomes. Respondent 3 noted, “From a struggling department, we now have board passers,” attributing gains to consistent instructional supervision and faculty preparedness. This aligns with Fullan’s (2001) premise that leadership must engage deeply with classroom practice to foster change.

Classroom Observation and Feedback Practices

Observational practices varied across leaders. Some conducted surprise visits (R3), while others used structured mentoring (R6). Feedback was both formal and informal, with some respondents noting they gave feedback during meetings, even publicly, which occasionally breached professionalism (R4). These approaches reveal tensions between emotional intelligence and enforcement in instructional supervision.

Challenges Encountered in Instructional Change

Resistance from seasoned faculty, workload demands, and inconsistent leadership practices emerged as major barriers. Respondent 4 admitted, “I know there are times I change plans midway, which can be confusing for them.” This inconsistency points to the need for leadership stability and coherence.

Fostering Collaboration and Professional Growth

Respondents utilized team teaching, peer reviews, and PLCs to foster collaboration. Some relied on empathy, while others institutionalized performance monitoring. Respondent 6 promoted openness through regular team planning and feedback sharing, reflecting Harris’s (2014) distributed leadership paradigm.

Balancing Compliance with Innovation

Administrators navigated standardization (e.g., CHED alignment, MELCs) alongside teacher autonomy. Most stressed non-negotiables while allowing creative pedagogy like gamification. Respondent 3 clarified: “Creativity is welcome, but never at the cost of structure”.

Significant Contributions to Instructional Leadership

Key contributions included institutionalizing OBE (R1), faculty mentoring (R3), and culture-building (R6). Respondent 3 highlighted her legacy of building an institution from scratch and producing top-performing graduates.

Measuring Instructional Leadership Success

Success was measured via retention, student feedback, faculty development, and board exam performance. However, some admitted a lack of systematic evaluation, emphasizing relational and intuitive judgments over rigid metrics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, study reveals that instructional leadership in Philippine higher education is dynamic, relational, and deeply contextualized. Administrators are not merely implementers of policy but are instructional visionaries navigating constraints with empathy and strategic action. Leadership strategies such as mentoring, monitoring, and collaborative planning significantly influence teaching quality and student outcomes. However, inconsistencies, emotional strain, and structural limitations temper the full potential of instructional leadership.

These insights affirm that leadership must be responsive, not only to institutional goals, but to the lived realities of faculty and students. Instructional leaders must balance data-driven supervision with emotional intelligence, standardized compliance with innovative practice, and administrative load with pedagogical vision.

Recommendations

This section provides recommendations derived from the study’s findings, aiming to benefit administrators, instructors, learners, and the institutions.

• Enhance Leadership Training Programs for Administrators. Colleges and universities should provide structured and continuous training focused on instructional leadership, especially for new or transitioning administrators. Training must include areas such as instructional supervision, emotional intelligence, communication skills, and evidence-based decision-making to help administrators effectively balance instructional and managerial tasks.
• Develop Clear Evaluation Frameworks for Leadership Effectiveness. Institutions are encouraged to implement standardized evaluation tools to assess instructional leadership. These may include performance rubrics, faculty and student feedback, and teaching and learning outcome assessments. This ensures accountability and allows for ongoing improvement of leadership practices.
• Promote Shared Leadership and Faculty Empowerment. Instructional leadership should not rest solely on administrators. Leaders should empower faculty by promoting collaborative lesson planning, team teaching, and mentoring programs. This distributed approach enhances faculty commitment, builds trust, and fosters professional learning communities (Harris, 2014).
• Institutionalize Post-Training Integration Mechanisms. After faculty attend professional development activities, schools must ensure knowledge transfer through classroom monitoring, peer reviews, and coaching. These follow-up mechanisms help bridge the gap between theory and practice, ensuring that skills gained in training are actually applied.
• Provide Role Clarification and Support to Avoid Leadership Burnout. To prevent role strain, especially in cases where an administrator holds dual functions (e.g., dean and principal), institutions should provide clear role expectations and possibly designate support staff or deputies. This helps maintain focus on instructional priorities while managing administrative responsibilities efficiently.
• Foster a Culture of Consistency and Professionalism. Based on the observed leadership challenges, institutions must emphasize the importance of consistent policy implementation, private handling of personnel concerns, and emotionally intelligent leadership. Training and mentoring for leaders should emphasize these values to avoid negative impact on faculty morale and instructional quality.
• Leverage Technology in Instructional Supervision. Use of digital tools such as Learning Management Systems (LMS), classroom observation apps, and performance dashboards can help track instructional effectiveness in real-time. These tools promote transparency, encourage data-informed feedback, and support faculty growth through timely monitoring.
• Strengthen Feedback Mechanisms. Constructive feedback should be regularly provided to faculty in a supportive and respectful manner. Establishing a culture of reflective feedback, both formal and informal, helps foster continuous improvement and positive professional relationships.
• Address Faculty Development Needs Based on Student Outcomes. Administrators should analyze student performance trends to identify areas where faculty development is most needed. Linking professional development to specific student needs ensures that faculty training is relevant and impactful.
• Integrate Instructional Leadership in Institutional Strategic Plans. Instructional leadership should be embedded in the institution’s strategic goals. This includes aligning faculty development, curriculum innovations, and instructional supervision with long-term educational outcomes and institutional accreditation standards.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research would not have been possible without the genuine assistance of those who nourished us, especially during extraneous perplexity throughout the semester.

Firsthand, we thank the Almighty God for His constant love, wisdom, and blessings, who bestow upon us the strength and tenacity to realize this study.

To our families, relatives, and friends, we are deeply in debt for their emotional support, motivation, and optimism in us. Their presence kept us inspired and focused on attaining our aspirations.

We also extend our appreciation to La Salle University – Ozamiz City for granting us the opportunity to exceed professionally and academically. The university’s commitment to maneuver meaningful research has empowered student educators to kindle breakthroughs within classroom instruction that resonate with timely and significant concerns.

We are incredibly thankful to the administrators of Tangub City Global College, Blancia College Foundation, Inc., and Northwestern Mindanao State College of Science and Technology, who willingly accepted the request as respondents.

Lastly, we extend our heartfelt admiration to our course instructor and research adviser, Dr. Jockie Lyne Mae M. Alfeche, for her pleasing demeanor, valuable advice, and faith in our abilities. Her guidance, as our pillar, illuminated the future of this study.

The Researchers

REFERENCES

1. Bucud, M. & Pañares, M. (2021). Instructional leadership practices among program heads in private colleges in the Philippines. Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 1(2), 23–37.
2. Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. SAGE Publications.
3. CHED (2012). CMO No. 46, series of 2012: Policy-Standard to enhance quality assurance in Philippine higher education through an outcomes-based and typology-based QA. Commission on Higher Education.
4. De Guzman, A. B., & Torres, J. B. (2019). Understanding instructional leadership in Philippine private higher education institutions. Philippine Journal of Education, 97(2), 45–60.
5. DepEd (2016). April 16, 2010 DO 32, s. 2010 – National Adoption and Implementation of the National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/04/16/do-32-s-2010-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-national-competency-based-standards-for-school-heads/
6. Dizon, R. C., & Magno, C. (2021). Multiple role performance of academic heads in selected Mindanao HEIs. Philippine Journal of Educational Leaders, 5(2), 27–35.
7. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. ISBN-0-7879-5395-4. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467449.pdf
8. edu.ph (n.d.). History. http://www.gadtc.edu.ph/history
9. 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
10. Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities and potential. Corwin Press.
11. Kilag, O. K. & Sasan. J. M. (2023). Unpacking the Role of Instructional Leadership in Teacher Professional Development. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368938076_Unpacking_the_Role_of_Instructional_Leadership_in_Teacher_Professional_Development
12. Lapada, A. A., Miguel, F. F., Robledo, D. A., & Alam, Z. F. (2020). Teachers’ COVID-19 awareness, distance learning education experiences and perceptions towards institutional readiness and challenges. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19 (6), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.8
13. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2004). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. National College for School Leadership.
14. Lumby, J., & Foskett, N. (2019). Professional Development and Collaborative Cultures in Higher Education: The Role of Instructional Leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2019-0052
15. National Privacy Commission (2012). REPUBLIC ACT 10173 DATA PRIVACY ACT OF 2012. https://privacy.gov.ph/data-privacy-act/
16. Navarro, A. M., & Santos, R. C. (2020). Challenges in implementing instructional leadership in Philippine state universities and colleges. Journal of Higher Education Research, 20(1), 15–30.
17. New Leaders (2025). Strong Instructional Leadership: What Does It Look Like? https://www.newleaders.org/blog/strong-instructional-leadership-what-does-it-look-like
18. Ng, P. T., & Chan, D. (2014). Instructional leadership in Singapore schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.860277
19. Robinson, V., & Le Fevre, D. (2018). Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement: Bridging the Gap in Higher Education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218765156
20. Salandanan, G. (2020). Teaching and the teacher: A multidisciplinary approach to effective instruction. Lorimar Publishing.
21. Shah, Z. (2023). Role of School Administrators as Instructional Leaders in Assisting Teachers to Close Achievement Gaps: Administrators’ and Teachers’ Perception. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375864887_Role_of_School_Administrators_as_Instructional_Leaders_in_Assisting_Teachers_to_Close_Achievement_Gaps_Administrators’_and_Teachers’_Perception
22. Sharma, S. N. & Adeoye, M. A. (2024). New Perspectives on Transformative Leadership in Education. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382076598_New_Perspectives_on_Transformative_Leadership_in_Education
23. UNESCO (2020). COVID-19 and higher education: Today and tomorrow – Impact analysis, policy responses and recommendations. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373479
24. Weill, W. (2024). Standardization and personalization in education: The right balance. https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/personalization-standardization-education

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Interview Questionnaire