Select Page
  

Requirements: Choose articles from scholarly journals of educational leadership. (See list below of sample journals.) Articles must be current (within the last five years) and must be related to issues in supervision.Type the article review using Microsoft Word (no other computer program is acceptable). Article Review should include title page, one page of article review and a reference page in APA style (3 pages total).Open the review with a strong thesis statement and summarize the author’s main points in the first paragraph. Using third person, state your personal reaction to the article in the second paragraph (“This author agrees/disagrees…”).It is suggested that you review articles that can be used as references in your presentations later in the course.
discussion_board_forum_grading_rubric_hill.docx

review_of_research_on_educational_leadership_and_management_in_asia.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
EDUC 642 Educational Leadership and management in Asia Article Review
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Unformatted Attachment Preview

EDUC 642
DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM GRADING RUBRIC
Criteria
Content 70%
Thread Content



Replies –
Content



Structure 30%
Thread –
Grammar,
Spelling and
Levels of Achievement
Proficient
22 to 23 points
Advanced
24 to 25 points
All key components of the
Discussion Board Forum
prompt are answered.
Thread has a clear, logical
flow.
Major points are supported
by the following:
• Good examples
• Thoughtful analysis
• Reading/lecture material
and/or Scripture
10 points

Each reply focuses on a
meaningful point made in
another student’s thread.
Each reply provides
substantive additional
thoughts regarding the thread
and an explanation of why
the student agrees or
disagrees with the idea
presented in the thread.
Each reply is clear and
coherent.




Spelling and grammar are
correct.




9 points


Advanced
5 points

Most of the components of the
Discussion Board Forum
prompt are answered.
Thread has a logical flow.
Major points are stated
reasonably well.
Major points are supported by
good examples or thoughtful
analysis.
Developing
1 to 21 points
One reply focuses on a
meaningful point made in
another student’s thread.
One reply provides substantive
additional thoughts regarding
the thread and an explanation of
why the student likes or dislikes
the idea presented in the thread.
Each reply is clear and
coherent.



Proficient
4 points


Some spelling and grammar
errors.
Sentences are presented well.

Not present
0 points
The Discussion Board Forum The thread
has not been
prompt is addressed
submitted.
minimally.
The thread lacks flow or
content.
Major points are unclear or
confusing.
Major points are not
supported by examples or
thoughtful analysis.
1 to 8 points
0 points
Neither reply focuses on a
point made in another
student’s thread.
Replies could be more
substantive regarding the
thread.
Replies lack clarity and
coherence.
Both replies
have not
been
submitted.
Developing
1 to 3 points
Not present
0 points
Spelling and grammar errors
distract the reader.
The thread
has not been
submitted.
Page 1 of 2
EDUC 642
Current APA
Formatting



Thread –
Word Count
Replies –
Grammar,
Spelling, and
Current APA
Formatting
The thread is 350 words.



Spelling and grammar are
correct.
Sentences are complete,
clear, and concise.
Paragraphs contained
appropriately varied
sentences structures.
Where applicable, references
are cited in current APA
format.
3 points
At least 2 replies are present and
are 200 words each.
Paragraphs contain some varied
sentence structures.
References are mostly cited in
current APA format.



2 points
The thread is 300-349 words.
4 points

Replies –
Word Count
Sentences are complete,

clear, and concise.
Paragraphs contain

appropriately varied sentence
structures.
References are cited in
current APA format.
3 points
The thread is fewer than 300
words.
3 points




Some spelling and grammar
errors.
Sentences are presented well.
Paragraphs contain some varied
sentence structures.
Where applicable, references
are mostly cited in current APA
format.
2 points
At least 2 replies are present and
are at least 150-199 words each.
Sentences are incomplete or
unclear.
Paragraphs are poorly
formed.
References are minimally or
not cited in current APA
format.
1 point
1 to 2 points




Spelling and grammar errors
distract the reader.
Sentences are incomplete or
unclear.
Paragraphs are poorly
formed.
Where applicable, references
are minimally or not cited in
current APA format.
1 point
At least 1 reply is present and
has a minimum word count of
150, and/or 2 replies are present
with 100-149 words each.
0 points
The thread
has not been
submitted.
0 points
Both replies
have not
been
submitted.
0 points
Both replies
have not
been
submitted.
Page 2 of 2
Article
Review of research on
educational leadership
and management in Asia:
A comparative analysis
of research topics and
methods, 1995–2012
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2015, Vol. 43(1) 5–27
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143214535744
emal.sagepub.com
Philip Hallinger and Junjun Chen
Abstract
Over the past two decades scholars have called for a more concerted effort to develop an empirically
grounded literature on educational leadership outside of mainstream ‘‘Western’’ contexts. This
paper reports the results of a review of research topics and methods that comprise the literature on
educational leadership and management in Asia between 1995 and 2012. The review of research
employed a quantitative descriptive form of systematic review of 478 articles published in eight
‘‘core’’ international journals in educational leadership and management over this period. The review
examined trends in publication volume and impact, as well as research topics and methods used by
scholars studying educational leadership and management in Asia. The study concluded that Asian
scholarship in educational leadership and management remains in the early stages of development.
Knowledge production is highly uneven across the continent, with only a few pockets of research
excellence. Significant growth trends were observed in terms of scholarly interest in studying
leadership in K-12 schools, school change, effects and improvement, and organizational behavior in
education. Although qualitative research methods were more popular in this literature prior to 2006,
the use of quantitative research methods has increased sharply during the past six years.
Keywords
Administration, educational leadership, educational management, Asia, K-12 schools
Introduction
Educational leadership and management is first and foremost an applied field of study. Historically,
our field’s theoretical contributions to scholarship in related fields of organizational behavior,
Corresponding author:
Phillip Hallinger, Professor of Education Management, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Email: [email protected]
5
6
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)
management, leadership, psychology, and sociology have been few and far between (Bridges,
1982; Campbell, 1979; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Donmoyer et al., 1995; Griffiths, 1979; March,
1978; Murphy et al., 2007; Ogawa et al., 2000). Thus, research on educational leadership and management must be evaluated primarily in terms of its ability to inform policy and practice in educational organizations.
Scholars have further noted that the literature on educational leadership and management has been
dominated by contributions from English-speaking, Western societies (Dimmock, 2000; Dimmock
and Walker, 2005; Hallinger, 2011b; Hallinger et al., 2005). Consequently, as a field of study, we have
only a limited understanding of how educational leadership and management is practiced outside of
these contexts. As recognition of this limitation has grown over the past 20 years, scholars have called
for a broader-based effort at building a ‘‘globally relevant knowledge base’’ in educational leadership
and management (e.g. Belchetz and Leithwood, 2007; Bush and Qiang, 2002; Dimmock and Walker,
2005; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998). A ‘‘global knowledge base’’ would be capable of providing a more fine-grained understanding of how school leaders meet the challenges of managing
schools across different organizational and socio-cultural contexts (Bajunid, 1996; Belchetz and
Leithwood, 2007; Cheng, 1995; Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Goldring et al., 2008; Hallinger,
1995; Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998; Hallinger et al., 2005; Walker and Dimmock, 2000).
The current study seeks to understand patterns of knowledge production in educational leadership and management across societies in Asia since the mid-1990s. The study addressed the following research questions:
What was the volume of articles published on educational leadership and management from
Asia and how has it changed since the mid-1990s?
How is this literature distributed in terms of the kinds of articles published in international
journals (e.g. non-empirical, empirical, review)?
What has been the topical focus of articles of scholars studying educational leadership and
management in Asia?
What methodological preferences are evident in the scholarship on educational leadership
and management in Asia?
What does the pattern of citation impact of publications reveal about knowledge accumulation in the ‘‘Asian literature’’ on educational leadership and management?
This research holds the possibility of making several contributions to the global literature on educational leadership and management. By outlining the contours of the Asian literature (e.g. topics,
kinds, methods), the review can highlight ‘‘blank spots and blind spots’’ in the existing Asian knowledge base (Hallinger and Heck, 1996). This should be of service to researchers as they select foci and
methods for future studies. In addition, the comparative approach taken in this review enriches our
perspective on the diversity of higher education development within Asia and globally. This is a necessary building block for the development of a ‘‘comparative literature’’ in educational leadership
and management (Hallinger and Leithwood, 1996, 1998; Walker and Dimmock, 2000, 2002).
Historical overview of knowledge production in the field of educational
leadership and management
Prior to examining Asian scholarship on educational leadership and management, we begin with a
historical overview of the field’s development since its inception in the mid-20th century. Reviews
6
Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia
7
of research provide signposts on the path of intellectual development (Hallinger, 2013b). Thus, we
begin by highlighting findings from a series of reviews of research on educational leadership and
management published since the early 1960s. This provides a ‘‘high ground’’ view of changes in
the field, and lays the foundation for employing a ‘‘comparative perspective’’ to interpreting the
evolution of the Asian literature.
Educational leadership and management first emerged as a field of formal inquiry in the United
States during the mid-20th century (Boyan, 1981; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). During the
1960s, selected scholars (Briner and Campbell, 1964; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Erickson, 1967;
Lipham, 1964) reviewed the first generation of empirical and theoretical research in educational
leadership and management, then referred to almost exclusively as ‘‘educational administration.’’
Scholarship during this period was heavily influenced by the newly emerging ‘‘theory movement in educational administration’’ (see Campbell and Faber, 1961; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). Previously, research in educational administration had consisted largely of a-theoretical case studies
and ‘‘school surveys.’’ This new intellectual movement sought to reframe research in educational
administration within the broader theoretical traditions of the social sciences (see Boyan, 1968,
1981; Campbell and Faber, 1961; Griffiths, 1959, 1979). Scholars not only encouraged researchers
to apply theoretical constructs from psychology and sociology but also to employ more varied and
systematic research designs and methods (e.g. Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1967;
Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979; Lipham, 1964).
The first published reviews also pointed the way towards more productive theoretical constructs, topical foci, and methods for future scholarship (see Briner and Campbell, 1964; Campbell
and Faber, 1961; Erickson, 1967; Lipham, 1964). The theory movement in educational administration continued to hold sway during the 1960s and 1970s as both senior scholars and doctoral
students sought to fulfill the vision of creating a ‘‘science of educational administration’’ (Campbell, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Kiley, 1973; Moore, 1974). These efforts represented the first explicit
attempts among scholars to employ systematic approaches towards knowledge production in educational administration (see Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1967, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979;
Kiley, 1973; Lipham, 1964; March, 1978; Moore, 1974).
Nonetheless, by the early 1980s the theory movement’s influence on scholarship in educational
administration began to wane. There was a growing feeling among scholars and practitioners that
the movement had failed to demonstrate substantive progress towards achieving the ambitious goal
of developing a science of school administration. This was acknowledged in a new series of critical
reviews conducted by leading scholars previously associated with the theory movement (e.g.
Boyan, 1981; Bridges, 1982; Campbell, 1979; Erickson, 1979; Griffiths, 1979; Haller, 1979).
For example, in 1979 Roald Campbell, founding editor of the Educational Administration
Quarterly (EAQ), was asked to conduct a retrospective assessment of the journal’s contribution
to knowledge. Campbell analyzed the full set of articles published in EAQ since its inception
15 years earlier. He concluded: ‘‘The published articles deal with such a wide range of issues that
one is led to conclude that . . . there has been little cumulative building of knowledge in the field’’
(Campbell, 1979: 16).
Around the same time, Edwin Bridges (1982) reviewed theories, methodologies and results
found within a large set of published articles and doctoral studies conducted since the mid1960s. His conclusions reprised a similar theme concerning the lack of knowledge accumulation.
Research on the school administrator for the period 1967–1980 reminds one of the dictum: The more
things change, the more they remain the same. The state-of-the art is scarcely different from what
7
8
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(1)
seemed to be in place nearly 15 years ago . . . In short, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that a
major theoretical issue or practical problem relating to school administrators has been resolved by
those toiling in the intellectual vineyards since 1967 (Bridges, 1982: 24-25).
Despite this apparent lack of substantive progress, other scholars claimed to see a hint of light
emerging on the horizon (e.g. Bossert et al., 1982; Erickson, 1979; Leithwood and Montgomery,
1982; Murphy et al., 1983). Although cognizant of continuing theoretical and methodological limitations in this literature, they suggested that some lines of inquiry related to the practice of school
leadership showed potential to yield intellectual fruit in the future. For example, in a prescient prediction, Donald Erickson (1979) made the following observation.
Three years ago I opined that the most promising relevant work, largely ignored by scholars identified
with ‘educational administration’ was the work on ‘school effects’. The literature during the last three
years has further reinforced my dual conviction that ‘school effects’ studies, broadly defined, represent
the current leading edge in the research domain I am assessing, and that few scholars affiliated with ‘educational administration’ are taking note of them, though nothing could be more profoundly pertinent than
the school effects studies to the consequence of educational organization (Erickson, 1979: 10).
These observations highlighted a growing recognition of the need for programmatic research
that explored causal connections between the practice of educational administration and teaching
and learning in schools (Bossert et al., 1982; Bridges, 1967, 1982; Erickson, 1979; Leithwood and
Montgomery, 1982; Murphy et al., 1983). Scholars further highlighted the importance of studying
how the practice of school leadership is shaped by the context in which it is enacted (e.g. Bossert
et al., 1982; Bridges, 1977, 1982; Getzels et al., 1968). Finally, it was noted that substantive progress would only come about through sustained programmatic inquiry that employed a more systematic application of theory and research methods (e.g. Bossert et al., 1982; Bridges, 1982;
Haller, 1979; Leithwood and Montgomery, 1982; Murphy et al., 1983).
Subsequently, during the 1990s, findings reported in a new series of research reviews gave credence to Erickson’s earlier prediction (Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 1998; Hallinger and Leithwood,
1994; Leithwood et al., 1990). These reviews identified progress in theoretical application,
research methodology and substantive results in research specifically focused on school leadership
and student learning. Equally important, they affirmed the potency of sustained programmatic
research on a specific line of inquiry as a necessary condition for knowledge accumulation. Thus,
Hallinger and Heck (1996) concluded:
The fact that such relationships are emerging form empirical analysis is of both practical and theoretical significance. For practical purposes, we can begin to imagine a day when prescriptions from
research on leadership effects will do justice to the complexity of the principal’s role. Of theoretical
significance, the simultaneous modeling of leadership effects in conjunction with organizational goal
structure and environmental context draws attention back to an important, though underexplored, line
of inquiry in the organizational theory literature . . . (1996: 38).
Thus, by the turn of the 21st century, the field was, for the first time, beginning to demonstrate
the capacity to generate verifiable, replicable research findings with relevance to practice. Moreover, progress gathered pace with four notable developments during the first decade of the 21st
century. First, a broader set of international scholars was becoming actively engaged in empirical
8
Hallinger and Chen: Review of research on educational leadership and management in Asia
9
research on educational leadership (Hallinger, 2013). Scholars in Europe (Day et al., 2010;
Southworth, 2002; Witziers et al., 2003) and Austral-Asia (e.g. Gronn, 2002; MacBeath and
Cheng, 2008; Mulford and Silins, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008; Walker and Dimmock, 2000) were
beginning to exercise intellectual leadership, thereby broadening the field’s reach beyond its traditional base in North America.
Second, the emergence of ‘‘educational administration’’ as a field of global interest also led to a
subtle but significant ‘‘re-titling’’ of the discipline. Although the American scholarly tradition had
used the term educational administration, this came to be viewed as an overly constrained conception of the discipline. As noted above, research on ‘‘leadership’’ in schools had assumed a more
central place in the field during the prior 20 years (Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 1998). Moreover,
leadership was no longer viewed as a function of organizational roles and hierarchy (e.g. Gronn,
2002). Thus, the term ‘‘educational leadership and management’’ has gradually supplanted ‘‘educational administration’’ as a more widely accepted title for the discipline since the turn of the 21st
century.1
Third, during the past decade, the trend of applying more powerful and diverse conceptual and
methodological tools to the study of educational leadership and management has continued to
evolve (Hallinger, 2011a; Heck and Hallinger, 2005; Murphy et al., 2007). Conceptual tools
include the explicit elaboration and application of more diverse theoretical models to the study
of school leadership (e.g. transformational, transactional, strategic, instructional, distributed leadership). Methodological advancements have centered on the use of more systematic approaches in
carrying out research. This is observable in the means of conducting qualitative research, quantitati …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP