Literature Review

Please use the attached rubric to guide your writing. In addition, please review the example Literature Review for guidance.

Requirements:

Times New Roman font, 12 points, double spaced (If you use another font, points will be deducted)

7-10 pages

12-15 sources (Peer-reviewed articles )

Correct APA 7th edition citations

Do not use any of the following: numbered lists, bullet points, images, or charts.

Literature Review Rubric

1
7.1 Rough Draft Literature Review
Raymond Blevins
Department of Leadership Studies, University of the Cumberlands
DSRT 837: Professional Writing and Proposal Development
Dr. Whitney Taylor
June 20, 2021
2
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Since 1992, the data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)
indicates only “modest gains” were made nationwide in student achievement (Granger, 2008, p.
208; McCarley et al., 2014, p. 322). This trend is consistent with Ohio’s most recent scores. A
comparison of the 2019 scores provided no significant differences in the tested subjects for Grade
4 and Grade 8. Examples of Ohio’s results include the average Grade 4 Reading score of 222 in
2019, which was the same in 2002. This score represented 36% of Ohio fourth-graders in 2019
who were reading at or above proficient compared to 34% of the same grade students in 2002.
However, the same time comparison provides that 68% of Ohio’s fourth-grade students were
reading at or above basic in 2002 and 2019. Additional examples for reading, mathematics, and
science for Grade 4 and Grade 8 provide similar results with little significant change in values
when comparing data from 2002 and 2019 for reading, from 2000 and 2019 for mathematics, and
2009 and 2015 for science (NAEP State Profiles, n.d.).
The 2019 Ohio NAEP results underscore the need for improvement in educational systems
and services to meet the needs of Ohio students. A review of scholarship concerning the
improvement of educational organizations and student achievement suggests that the leadership
style of the school principal can strongly influence these elements (Bogler, 2005; Shatzer et al.,
2013; Waters et al., 2003). The scholarship further suggests that two primary leadership models
as measured by the number of empirical studies are transformational leadership and instructional
leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Though the scholarship on the correlation
between these two leadership theories and student achievement is vast, the scholarship offers little
3
clarity and exploration of the relationship between transformational leadership practices and
academic progress instead of academic achievement. Additionally, few studies have focused on
Ohio schools. (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002).
This study will expand upon the current scholarship about transformational leadership
practices to inform Ohio educational systems. The study will determine what is the relationship
between a principal’s transformational leadership practice of inspirational motivation (IM),
individualized consideration (IC), idealized influence (II), intellection stimulation (IS), contingent
reward (CR), management by exception-active (MBE-A), management by exception-passive
(MBE-P), and laissez-fair leadership (LF) and the corresponding school’s academic progress
(Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013). The study uses the
foundation of Ohio’s plan for improving student achievement to connect the scholarship involving
transformational and instructional leadership practices to develop a framework for determining the
relationship between the transformational leadership practices and academic progress within Ohio
schools (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi,
2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Ohio Department of Education, 2016; Shatzer et al., 2014;
Southworth, 2002).
Accountability
National Accountability
The concept of modern accountability in the United States education system has existed
since the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the USSR. Then, accountability became part of public law in
1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included
expectations of accountability and high standards (Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). Since the initial
4
authorization of ESEA, the US Congress has reauthorized the law multiple times. These
reauthorizations included the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2016 (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011).
Notably, NCLB required a transition of focus from the equity of access and funding to a
focus on adequacy. This transition “created a more stressful, test-driven environment for school
principals as there was dire consequences for low student performance” (Styron, Jr. & Styron,
2011, p. 2). Though ESSA replaced NCLB, ESSA continues to maintain critical elements of
NCLB, and for the first time, requires that all students be taught to high academic standards.
Further, ESSA requires accountability and action to positively change the lowest-performing
schools or where groups of students are not making progress (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015).
However, school systems and principals continue to struggle with increasing student achievement
standards set by state and federal authorities (Quin et al., 2015; Styron & Styron, 2011).
Ohio Accountability
Following the requirements of ESSA (2015), Ohio developed an accountability system the
meets the requirements of ESSA. Ohio’s Accountability System is comprised of six components,
each of which contains one or more measures. The accountability system is defined in Appendix B
of Ohio’s Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan. The system addresses the ESSA
indicator requirement for academic achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics and the
requirement for the other academic indicator through an achievement component and a progress
component (Ohio Department of Education, 2016).
Achievement Component. The achievement component is a representation of a specific
point in time. The representation is the weighted sum of two measures. The first measure is the
Indicators Met and represents the number of students who scored at or above a proficient level on
5
any Ohio standardized state tests. The second measure is the Performance Index, representing how
well each child scored on each standardized state test. The Achievement component utilizes
weighted scores of 25% for the Indicators Met and 75% for the Performance Index (Office of
Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016).
Progress Component. The progress component represents student growth over multiple
years. Progress is a sequence of calculations that result in a value-added score. A value-added
score is calculated for the groups of all students, gifted students, students with disabilities, and
students whose performance was in the lowest 20% of students statewide. The progress
component is a sum of the weighted scores of the four groups. These weighted scores include 55%
for all students, 15% for gifted students, 15% for students with disabilities, and 15% for the lowest
20% of students statewide (Office of Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016).
Summary of accountability
Public law established accountability expectations for education systems in the 1960s.
These national expectations have changed over the past 50 years to focus more on the adequacy of
education and the instruction of high academic standards to all children (Every Student Succeeds
Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). To meet the expectations of ESSA, Ohio developed an
improvement plan and accountability system that is described in Ohio’s Revised State Template for
the Consolidated State Plan. A significant part of Ohio’s accountability system is based upon
determining an Achievement component and Progress component for each public school. These
components are used to determine what supports and consequences are issued to school systems
and leaders (Ohio Department of Education, 2016).
Leadership Practices
Transformational Leadership
6
Transformational leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses several
leadership practices. The model was first introduced in the late 1970s (Burns, 1978). Since the
1970s, the scholarship concerning transformational leadership has expanded considerably (Avolio
et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014;
Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood
& Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Although the scholarship has
primarily focused on business settings, transformational leadership incorporates many
organizations, including education systems and schools (Bass, 1998; Shatzer et al., 2013).
The transformational leadership model has evolved in the past decades. However, the
scholarship consistently holds that the model includes the practices of individual consideration,
intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass,
1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014;
Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius &
Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Modern scholarship of transformational leadership practices
includes elements of transactional leadership and practice elements of non-leadership or the
absence of leadership. These practices included contingent reward, management by exceptionactive, management by exception-passive, and laissez-faire leadership. Bass and Avolio (1994)
express that that the addition of the transactional leadership practices of contingent reward and
management by exception-active were necessary for organizational maintenance, but the practices
do not stimulate change (Leithwood, 1993). The authors also explain that the strong
transformational leaders would not demonstrate the practices of management by exception-passive
and laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Shatzer et al., 2013).
7
Transformational leadership is about “how” the leader influences followers (Bush, 2014, p.
443). Transformational leadership is associated with building an organization’s capacity while
providing reform and clarity during organizational change (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass &
Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014;
Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999;
Shatzer et al., 2013).
Transformational leadership correlation to achievement. The scholarship on
transformational leadership suggests that transformational leadership practices result in positive
outcomes on school climate, staff morale, school outcomes, teacher outcomes, and student
outcomes through direct or indirect influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio,
1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger,
2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al.,
2014; Shatzer et al., 2013). Further, “numerous researchers have studied the effects of
transformational leadership on school restructuring, and their findings support the belief that
transformational leadership strongly contributes to overall school improvement” (McCarley et al.,
2014). Within the minimal scholarship pertaining to Ohio, Dowling (2007) suggests that an
Assistant Principal’s transformational practices are a predictor of student achievement measured by
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).
Although numerous studies have suggested a positive correlation between transformational
leadership and student achievement, the scholarship is not consistent regarding the significance of
the positive correlations. Notably, Leithwood et al. (2006), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Ross
and Gay (2006) found that weaker relationships between transformational leadership practices and
student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement existed compared to other
8
relationships. These studies were conducted in schools representing urban, suburban, and rural
areas of the United Kingdom and Canada. The number of schools represented within the studies
ranged from ten to 100 and included schools representing urban, suburban, and rural areas. The
most extensive study included an equal representation of public and private Catholic schools over
ten years (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross & Gay; 2006).
Context. The leadership scholarship includes indications and references to the limitation of
context. The scholarship suggests that leadership must adapt to cultural context and policy context.
Specifically, this adaptation is required because educational, cultural context differs from nation to
nation, and educational policy context continues to evolve (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock & Walker,
2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003). Studies like Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) acknowledged the
importance of context and attempted to compensate for context. However, these studies did not
include evidence that removed context as a contributing factor resulting in the varying results in
transformational correlation to student achievement.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses strong directive
leadership practices focused on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011;
Robinson et al., 2008). These practices are categorized into three main goals of (1) defining the
school’s mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and (3) promoting a positive school
learning environment (Hallinger, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2013). Additionally, “instructional
leadership focuses predominantly on the role of the school principal coordinating, controlling,
supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction in the school” (Bamburg & Andrews,
1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 as cited in Hallinger, 2003, p. 331). By the same token,
instructional leadership is about the “direction” of the leader’s influence on followers due to the
9
emphasis on improving teaching and learning and takes precedence over the improvement process
(Bush, 2014, p. 443).
Ohio’s Leadership Practices
The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) defined the accountability expectations and
strategies to improve educational outcomes for children in Ohio’s Revised State Template for the
Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). A foundational element of Ohio’s
strategy to improve educational outcomes is to build the capacity of education leaders in
instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities,
n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). However, Ohio’s plan does not explicitly address the
leadership practices to accomplish large-scale reform and innovation. In addition, the plan does not
link transformational leadership practices and instructional leadership practices of leaders when a
school’s goals are focused on learning (Bush, 2014; Hallinger, 2003).
Summary of leadership
Since the 1970s, the scholarship on conceptual leadership models has grown vastly. The
two foremost models are instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003;
Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Unlike the emphasis on the “direction” of the leader’s influence in
instructional leadership, transformational leadership emphasizes “how” leaders exert their
influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443). The scholarship on transformational leadership suggests that a
positive correlation to exists between transformational leadership practices and multiple aspects of
organizational improvement (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al.,
2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al.,
1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al., 2014; Shatzer et al.,
2013).
10
However, the scholarship includes indications of the varying significance of
transformational leadership. These studies suggest weaker relationships between transformational
leadership practices and student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement
existed compared to other relationships (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross
& Gay; 2006). Although varying indications of the significance of transformational leadership
practices on student achievement exist, the identified studies do not fully address the implications
of context and portability limitation from one nation to another (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock &
Walker, 2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003).
Summary
Expectations of educational accountability were incorporated into public law for the US in
1965 with the enactment of the ESEA. However, principal leaders continue to struggle with
meeting the national and state academic standards established in accountability models (Quin et al.,
2015; Styron & Styron, 2011). The 2019 Ohio NAEP results serve as an example of the struggle
by Ohio’s principals. These results suggest that Ohio has made no significant progress in
improved student achievement since 2002 and support the need for improvement to Ohio’s schools
(NAEP State Profiles, n.d.).
Ohio developed a plan for continuous improvement and an accountability system for public
schools. Ohio’s improvement plan and accountability system are detailed in Ohio’s Revised State
Template for the Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). The
fundamental strategy of Ohio’s improvement plan is to build the capacity of education leaders in
instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities,
n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). Though the scholarship on instructional leadership suggests
a positive correlation to improved student achievement, this leadership model focuses on the
11
“direction” of a leader’s influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443; Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Robinson
et al., 2008). Ohio’s approach does not explicitly focus on the elements of a school’s reform
capacity and clarity during change. These elements are associated with transformational leadership
practices. (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014;
Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood
& Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013).
If a school’s improvement goals focus on learning, a link between instructional leadership
and transformational leadership approaches is possible (Bush, 2014). However, the scholarship
associated with the relationship between transformational leadership practices and Ohio student
achievement is limited and suggests a relationship. In addition, the scholarship does not address the
growth components of student achievement for Ohio. This study will add to the scholarship on
transformational leadership practices and inform Ohio education leaders and stakeholders
regarding principal transformational leadership practices that may positively increase student
progress.
12
References
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of
transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599110143366
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational
performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030201
Bogler, R. (2005). Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab teachers in Israel. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 145(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.145.1.19-34
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row.
Bush, T. (2014). Instructional and transformational leadership: alternative and complementary
models? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 443–444.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214526830
Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership &
Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
13
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 USC § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/senate-bill/1177
Granger, D. A. (2008). No child left behind and the spectacle of failing schools: The mythology of
contemporary school reform. Educational Studies, 43(3), 206–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131940802117654
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction,
staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3),
333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
Harb, B., & Sidani, D. (2019). Transformational leadership for organizational change in the
Lebanese public sector. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2), 205–216.
https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.15
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods for studying
school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Loouis (Eds.), The 2nd handbook of
research in educational administration (pp. 141–162). McCutchan.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,
38(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
14
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (2006). The development and testing of a
school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 441–
464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600743533
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Open
University Press.
Lucius, R. H., & Kuhnert, K. (1999). Adult development and transformational leader. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 6(1–2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900600105
McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2014). Transformational leadership related to
school climate. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214549966
NAEP State Profiles. (n.d.). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 16, 2021,
from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/OH?
cti=PgTab_Findings&chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=OH&fs=Grade&st=MN&year=2019R3&sg
=Gender%3A+Male+vs.+Female&sgv=Difference&ts=Single+Year&tss=2019R3-
2019R3&sfj=NP
Office of Accountability. (2020, January). Update to 2019–2020 Report Card Information. Ohio
Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/ReportCard-Resources/Sections/Report-Card-Components/The-New-A-F-Report-CardClean.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
Ohio Department of Education. (2016, January). Ohio’s Revised State Template for the
Consolidated State Plan. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Every-StudentSucceeds-Act-ESSA/OH_ESSA_SUBMISSION.pdf.aspx
15
Purpose & Priorities. (n.d.). Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional
Improvement (OLI4). Retrieved June 6, 2021, from
https://www.oli-4.org/about-oli4/purpose-priorities#oli4-overview
Quin, J., Deris, A., Bischoff, G., & Johnson, J. (2015). Comparison of transformational leadership
practices: Implications for school districts and principal preparation. Journal of Leadership
Education, 14(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.12806/v14/i3/r5
Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. Wiley.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×08321509
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects
of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20054196
Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of
instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445–459.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502192
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.
School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042
State Development Team. (2019, August). Foundation’s document 2.0: Resetting the foundation of
Ohio’s statewide system of support (SSoS). Ohio Department of Education.
16
https://citoolkit.ohioleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SDT_Foundations-Doc2.0_FINAL.pdf
Styron, Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. L. (2011). Critical issues facing school principals. Journal of
College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i5.8158
Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research
tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for
Education and Learning (McREL).
https://www.mcrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Balanced-Leadership%C2%AE-What30-Years-of-Research-Tells-Us-about-the-Effect-of-Leadership-on-StudentAchievement.pdf