Instructional leadership behaviors of elementary school principlals in ho chi minh city, vietnam = 越南胡志明市国民小學校長教學領導行爲之研究 博士論文

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Name of Institute: Department of Educational Policy and Administration, College of Education, National Chi Nan University Graduation Time: March, 2014 Student N

中華民國 103 年 3 月

First and foremost, this doctorate is dedicated to my wonderful husband, Nguyen Phi

Vu, who has supported me throughout my work I thank you for his loyalty, love, support,

patience, encouragement and belief in me throughout the years I have been pursuing my

education and career I am grateful for the joy and happiness he has brought into my life This

doctorate would not have been possible without him I love him with all my heart

I would also like to thank my parents, my parents-in-law, my older sister, and my

sister-in-law Words cannot express how much their love, support, and understanding

throughout this process has meant to me Their constant encouragement and belief in me

made completion possible

Mommy and daddy have taught me the importance of education and provided

unconditional love, and support, expressing their pride in my educational achievements I

have felt their affection throughout my education and career Now I can say to them that their

dream has come true I am honored and lucky to have parents like them

Lastly, I would also like to dedicate this doctorate to my beloved son, Nguyen Thien

Phuc, who gave up so much time with his mother, from age one to five, to allow his mother

to follow her dreams

Only my family knows the stress, pressure, and endless energy it took to finish this

academic journey I am so proud of my family, and I could not have done this without their

support and love

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported

and advised me throughout my doctoral studies I received so much to my advisor, committee

members, the faculty and assistant at Department of Educational Policy and Administration,

friends and colleagues throughout the process It is with heartfelt thanks that I extend my

sincerest appreciation to them

I am especially indebted to my advisor, Prof Yang Chen-Sheng His knowledge,

patience and words of encouragement were invaluable Without his significant and valuable

suggestions for improvement, the present results would have been far fewer Thank you for

your understanding and flexibility throughout my pursuits of my personal and professional

goals

I am also grateful to my dissertation committee chair, Prof Lin Ming-Dih, and each

of the committee members: Prof Li An-Min, Prof Wu Ching-Ling, and Prof Chang I-Hua I

thank them for serving on my committee, sharing their time and expertise, and for their

advices, and feedback which have greatly improved the quality of my dissertation

I would also like to thank faculty of the Department of Educational Policy and

Administration at National Chi Nan University The knowledge and wisdom I have learned

from all of you will guide my professional life in the future

I would also like to extend my special thanks to National Chi Nan University and Prof

Chang Dian-Fu, Prof Wu Ching-Ling, Prof Xiao Lin, Prof Feng Feng-I from the

Department of Educational Policy and Administration for sponsorship and financial aid

throughout the years I also would like to extend my thanks to Prof Philip Hallinger for his

kindness in waiving fee for PIMRS for this study

Sheng, Mr Duong Minh-Quang, Ms Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh, Ms Vu Xuan Bach Duong, Mr

Chang Shiau-Chi, Ms Chou Wen-Ching, Mr Chang Chih-Wei, Ms Nguyen Thi Le Hang,

for their helps and friendship over the past years You have all stood by me through this

process and gave invaluable assistances when I coped with the obstacles of daily life My

appreciations also to Prof Robert Reynolds (National Chi Nan University, Taiwan), Dr La

Thi Thanh Thuy (Midwest Education Group LLC, America), Prof Nguyen Trung Hung

(New Mexico State University, America), and Dr Nguyen Duy Mong Ha, Dr Nguyen Thi

Hong Tham, Mr Bui Chi Binh (University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Ho Chi Minh

City, Vietnam) for taking time to proofread and edit my work as well as providing feedback

throughout all the stages of my dissertation Most of all, thanks for being such dear friends

and colleagues over the years

I would like to give thanks to my former dean Dr Nguyen Anh Hong and her family

for their understanding and willingness to support me throughout this process

Finally, I would like to thank all persons who contributed to the completion of my

doctorate program Thank you all from the bottom of my heart

NAME: Nguyen Thi Hao

NATIONALITY: Vietnamese

DATE OF BIRTH: October 10, 1982

EDUCATION: Ed.D 2014, National Chi Nan University, Taiwan, R.O.C

M.Ed 2007, University of Technical Education Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

B.Ed 2004, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

EXPERIENCE: 2004-present: Lecturer at the Faculty of Education, Vietnam National

University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

校,院,系：國立暨南國際大學教育學院教育政策與行政學系 頁數：177 畢業時間：民國一○三年三月

學生姓名：阮氏好

學位：博士 指導教授：楊振昇

摘要 本研究的主要目的是探討越南胡志明市國民小學校長教學領導之行為。除了探討校長與教師之間對校長教學領導認知的差異外，並檢視學校規模、座落地點、校長基本的人口統計變項對校長自我認知其教學領導的影響；同時，也檢視教師基本的人口統計變項對教師認知之校長教學領導行為的影響；最後，也分析校長與教師對於增進校長教學領導的建議。

本研究使用量化與質化方法以回答七個研究問題。本研究從 120 個小學進行抽取樣本：校長樣本以分層抽樣方法、教師樣本以系統抽樣方法選取。研究工具為 Hallinger 發展的「校長教學管理評定量表」，此外，並另附上一開放性問題，以調查校長與教師對增進校長教學領導之意見。

本研究的主要結論如下：

(a)校長於教學領導之工作職能反應較高之層面如下：制定學校目標、提供教師誘因、統籌協調課程、提供學生學習誘因、溝通學校目標、以及督導與評鑑教學。

(b)教師對於校長教學領導工作職能反應較高之層面如下：制定學校目標、統籌協調課程、溝通學校目標、提供教師誘因、提升教師專業發展、以及提供學生學習誘因。

整體而言，比起座落於鄉村的學校校長，都市的學校校長在教學領導上較為積極。

(d)任職校長年資與教學經驗較淺的校長，對於統籌協調課程與維護教學時間之層面的領導，則顯示較不積極。

關鍵字：校長教學管理評估量表、教學領導行為、越南國民小學校長

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Name of Institute: Department of Educational Policy and Administration, College of

Education, National Chi Nan University

Graduation Time: March, 2014

Student Name: Hao Thi, Nguyen

Page: 177

Degree Conferred: Doctor of Philosophy

Advisor Name: Chen-Sheng, Yang

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore instructional leadership behaviors of

elementary school principals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam as perceived by both elementary

school principals and the teachers they direct It examines the differences between teachers

and principals’ perceptions of the principals’ instructional leadership behaviors In addition, it examines the effects of variables including school size, location, and principal demographics

on principal self-perceptions Moreover, it examines the effects of teacher demographics on

teacher perceptions of their principal instructional leadership behaviors Finally, it analyzes

principal and teacher suggestions to improve instructional leadership behaviors

The study proposes seven major research questions Stratified sampling was used to

select principals for the principals and system for the survey from 117 elementary schools in

Ho Chi Minh City Systematic sampling was used to select teachers from the same schools

The survey instrument used in this study was adapted from the Principal Instructional

Management Rating Scale (Hallinger, 1983) An open-ended question was added to each

survey to elicit principal and teacher recommendations to improve instructional leadership

behaviors

Major conclusions of the study are:

incentives for teachers; coordinating the curriculum; providing incentives for learning;

communicating the school goals; and supervising and evaluating instruction

(b) Teachers gave high scores in job functions framing the school goals; coordinating

the curriculum; communicating the school goals; providing incentives for teachers;

promoting professional development; and providing incentives for learning

(c) The principals in smaller schools were more active in providing incentives for

teachers and providing incentives for learning In addition, urban school principals were more

active instructional leaders than rural school principals were

(d) The fewer years of experience as principals and teachers that principals had, the

less active they were in coordinating the curriculum and protecting instructional time

Keywords: Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale; Instructional Leadership

Behaviors; Vietnamese Elementary School Principals

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem 2

1.2 Purpose of the Study 4

1.3 Research Questions 4

1.4 Significance of the Study 5

1.5 Definition of Terms 6

1.6 Limitation of the Study 9

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation 10

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11

2.1 Overview of Vietnam’s educational system 11

2.1.1 National education system in Vietnam 11

2.1.2 The development of educational administration in Vietnam 13

2.1.3 The new elementary education curriculum 15

2.1.4 Recruitment process and training of the elementary school principal 19

2.1.5 Roles and functions of elementary school principals in Vietnam 20

2.2 Review of Instructional Leadership 22

2.2.1 Definition of instructional leadership 22

2.2.2 The instructional leadership role of the principal 25

2.2.3 Factors influencing principals’ instructional leadership 30

2.2.4 Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model 33

2.3 Review of Empirical Studies on Principal Instructional Leadership 34

Summary 38

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 41

3.1 Research Design 41

3.2 Population and Sample Selection 43

3.3 Research Instrument 47

3.3.1 The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale instrumentation 47

3.3.2 Reliability and validity of the PIMRS instrument 48

3.5 Data Analysis 63

Summary 67

4 RESULTS 69

4.1 Description of the Sample 69

4.1.1 Principals’ demographic profile 69

4.1.2 Teachers’ demographic profile 71

4.2 Responses to Research Questions 72

4.2.1 Responses to research question 1 and 2 73

4.2.1.1 Principals’ own perceptions of instructional leadership behaviors 74

4.2.1.2 Teachers’ perceptions of instructional leadership behaviors 78

4.2.2 Responses to research question 3 83

4.2.3 Responses to research question 4 86

4.2.4 Responses to research question 5 98

4.2.5 Responses to research question 6 108

4.2.6 Responses to research question 7 114

Summary 122

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 125

5.1 Summary 125

5.1.1 Summary of the purpose of the study 125

5.1.2 Summary of the research procedures and methods 125

5.1.3 Summary of the findings 126

5.1.3.1 Summary of demographic profiles of respondents 126

5.1.3.2 Summary of findings regarding research questions 127

5.2 Conclusion 131

5.3 Recommendations 132

5.3.1 Recommendations for educational authorities 133

5.3.2 Recommendations for elementary school principals 135

Summary 136

REFERENCES 139

APPENDICE 153

Appendix A Structure of the Education System in Vietnam 153

Appendix B Granting Permission to Use the Instrument 154

Appendix E Vietnamese Version of Teacher Form 166

Appendix F Introductory Letter 170

Appendix G Recommendation Letter 171

Appendix H Introductory Letter 172

Appendix I Descriptive Statistic of Principal Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS 173

Appendix J Descriptive Statistic of Teacher Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS 175

Appendix K Instruction for Answering Questionnaire Surveys 177

Page

1 Primary Education: Weekly Lesson Timetable (National Guidelines) 12

2 Distribution of Study Population and Sample 45

3 Reliability Estimates of the PIMRS Subscales 50

4 Terms and Sentences That Presented Difficulty in Translation 54

5 Factor Analysis Result and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of the PIRMS Ten Subscales for Vietnamese Version Teacher Form 57

6 Factor Analysis Result and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of the PIRMS Ten Subscales for Vietnamese Version Principal Form 58

7 The Construction of the PIMRS-Vietnamese Version 61

8 Matrix of Research Questions, Variables, and Survey Items 66

9 Demographic Profile of Principals Participating in This Study 70

10 Demographic Profile of Teachers Participating in This Study 71

11 Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors as Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptions 73

12 Principals’ Self-Perceptions of Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job Function Based on Demographic Variables 75

13 Principals’ Self-Perceptions of Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job Function Based on School Size and School Location 78

14 Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Instructional leadership Behaviors for Each Job Function Based on Demographic Variables 81

15 Comparison of Principals’ and Teachers’ Ratings Using Dependent Samples T-Test 84

16 Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Male Teachers and Female Teachers’ Ratings of Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors 87

17 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances 90

Working Together with the Current Principal 92

19 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances 94

20 ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Five Groups of Years

of Teaching Experience 96

21 Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Male Principals and Female

Principals’ Ratings of Principal Instructional Leadership Behaviors 98

22 Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Two Groups of Principals in

Term of Years of Experience as a Principal 102

23 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances 106

24 ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Four Prior Teaching

Experience Groups 107

25 Results of the Independent Samples T-Test of Differences of Urban School Principals and

Rural School Principals’ Self-Ratings of Their Instructional Leadership Behaviors 109

26 Levene’s Test of Homogeneity of Variances 112

27 ANOVA Results of Instructional Leadership Job Functions among Three School Size

Groups 113

28 Principals’ and Teachers’ Recommendations to Improve Instructional Leadership

Behaviors 115

29 Descriptive Statistics of Principal Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS 172

30 Descriptive Statistics of Teacher Responses to Individual Items of the PIMRS 174

1 Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model 33

2 Research framework 42

DOET Department of Education and Training

HCMC Ho Chi Minh City

M Mean

MOET Ministry of Education and Training

PIMRS Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale

SD Standard Deviation

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The principal’s role has become an interested topic of research in educational

leadership field (Lineburg, 2010) According to Bridges (1983), there were ninety four

percent of studies on educational leadership topic from 1967 to 1980 focused on public

school administrators The role of principal was the focus of numerous studies because it has

been identified as a key aspect of an effective school (Cotton, 2003; Goodwin, Cunningham,

& Childress, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 996)

Regarding playing an important role in effective schools, principals are often

considered essential to the success of schools, and have a discernible effect on a school's level

of productivity (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985), as well as playing a critical role in effective

instructional interventions (New York City Department of Education, n.d.) Principals exert

this influence primarily as instructional managers or leaders (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985)

even though they have many roles to serve in schools’ business They are thus motivated to become more active as instructional leaders and must have strong instructional skills and

extensive knowledge of teaching and learning (Lineburg, 2010)

The school principal’s instructional leadership role has interested researchers from

both developed and developing countries and has been a popular topic of research examining

accountability and standards movement Since 1980s, instructional leadership role of the

principal became popular which called for transferring manager or administrator role to

instructional leader Currently, this research topic has been still received a lot of attention

because of academic standards movement and accountability increasing (Babb, 2012) This

trend put pressure on school principals in leading their schools to high achievement for all

students (Lineburg, 2010)

Vietnam’s national development strategy states that “Education is national priority policy” and emphasizes that “Educational management is a key factor for enhancing quality

of national education” (National Assembly, 1992) Thus, Vietnam has begun developing teaching and administrative staff with an emphasis on standardization, quality assurance,

adequate quantity, and uniform structure Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has

also asserted that improving teaching and learning in all classrooms is one of the best ways to

enhance educational quality In this context, Vietnam education has designed the curriculum

of general education that focuses on improving teaching methodology The curriculum has

leaded changing in teaching practice that called for shifting teaching methodology

In Vietnam, however, principals give attention to both instructional and

non-instructional tasks Principals spend more time in managerial and administrative duties even

though the MOET’s requirement of improving teaching and learning quality Principals thus

have less time given to instructional leadership and balancing the administrative role with the

instructional leadership role remains one of their greatest challenges

1.1 Statement of the Problem

School principals play a pivotal role in society, mediating between teachers, students,

and parents In most developed countries, elementary school principals typically have

master’s degrees in educational leadership or educational administration or at least

administrator/ principal licenses which require formal leadership training, before assuming

leadership positions (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Yang, 1996)

In contrast, elementary school principals in Vietnam are given leadership positions

because they are good teachers with a range of experience in teaching within the elementary

school system They do not need to obtain licenses in educational leadership or educational

administration before or after assuming their positions Furthermore, most of them have not

attended a formal professional school management program This is a consequence of the

recruitment process of Vietnam’s educational system According to MOET, the national

education system employs 90,000 school administrators; of these, 40% received their training

in short-term courses on educational administration, and only 0.02% has earned bachelor and

master’s degree in educational administration (cited in Institute of Educational Managers Ho Chi Minh City, 2005)

According to MOET (1994), elementary education is the foundation for formation,

development of the comprehensive human personality, and quality of elementary education is

the basis for ensuring educational quality at all level Thus, renovation of educational quality

has been mentioned since 1996 in discussion on reforming curriculum and textbooks

However, renovation efforts of schools have not fulfilled the expectations of society and

educational quality is still a serious concern of scholars and educational authorities This has

put pressure on elementary school principals to enhance teaching and learning and create

powerful learning environments for their students as well as to ensure students’ achievement

every school year

Unfortunately, elementary school principals in Vietnam spend most of their time on

work unrelated to instructional leadership: supervising school buildings, preparing budgets,

developing school-community relationships, managing human resources, attending in-service

political training courses, and meeting with higher authorities This also influences the quality

of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning in the context that textbooks are being updated and adjusted to reduce the load (Thanh Nien, 2013)

How elementary school principals demonstrate their instructional leadership

behaviors in the context of Vietnam’s education that elementary school principals lack of formal educational leadership training is the concern of this study There have not yet been

any studies focused on elementary school principals’ instructional leadership roles in

Vietnam (Gian et al., 2012) This is the first study that investigates elementary school

principals’ instructional leadership behaviors

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore instructional leadership behaviors of

elementary school principals in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam as perceived by both

elementary school principals and teachers Principals’ instructional leadership behaviors were

defined in terms of the ten job functions identified by Hallinger (1983): (1) framing school

goals, (2) communicating school goals, (3) supervising and evaluating instruction, (4)

coordinating curriculum, (5) monitoring student progress, (6) protecting instructional time, (7)

maintaining high visibility, (8) providing incentives for teachers, (9) promoting professional

development, and (10) providing incentives for learning These 10 job functions consisted of

50 distinct behaviors This instructional leadership framework was clearly explicated and it

also provided a valid and reliable instrumentation for studying instructional leadership role of

principals (Hallinger, 2011)

This study investigated the differences between teachers and principals’ perceptions

of elementary school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors In addition, it examined the effect that the school size variable, the school location variable, and principal

demographic variables have on the principal’s self-perception of instructional leadership

behaviors Moreover, it also examined the effect that teacher demographic variables have on

teachers’ perceptions of elementary school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors Lastly, principals’ and teachers’ recommendations to improve principals’ instructional

leadership behaviors were analyzed

1.3 Research Questions

Based on the purpose, this study raises seven research questions:

1 How do elementary school principals perceive their own instructional leadership

behaviors?

2 How do elementary school teachers perceive their principals’ instructional leadership

behaviors?

3 Are there significant differences between principals' perceptions and teachers’

perceptions of principals' instructional leadership behaviors?

4 Are there significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ instructional

leadership behaviors in terms of teacher demographic variables?

5 Are there significant differences in principals’ perceptions of their instructional

leadership behaviors in terms of principal demographic variables?

6 Are there significant differences in perceiving principals’ instructional leadership

behaviors in terms of school size and school location?

7 What recommendations do respondents offer to improve instructional leadership

behaviors?

1.4 Significance of the Study

There are many studies pertaining to instructional leadership in different countries

However, this study is the first to examine elementary school principals’ instructional

leadership behaviors in Vietnam using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale

(PIMRS) Therefore, the significance of this study is as follows:

1 The knowledge gained through this study can benefit principals interested in

improving their instructional leadership practices and enhancing the quality of teaching and

learning It can provide principals knowledge and skills in practicing their instructional

leadership at the school levels It also has significance for other practitioners and researchers

in Vietnam who are interested in studying teaching and learning in general education

2 According to Hallinger et al (1994), training programs are often enhanced when

they take into account data-based findings drawn from the local or national context The

findings of this study can provide suggestions for the MOET, universities of education and

other educational administration training institutions to develop in-service training programs

that focuses on instructional leadership and set the time for principals to implement

knowledge and skills they learn Moreover, the study provides data to use to coach and

mentor principals as instructional leaders since principals in Vietnam are not trained prior to

becoming school principals

3 This study adds to the very limited body of literature regarding elementary school

principals’ instructional leadership behaviors in Vietnam

1.5 Definition of Terms

Major terms used throughout this study are defined below for clarity and

understanding

Elementary schools are public educational units at the primary level, comprising

classes from grade 1 to grade 5

Elementary school principals are qualified officers, appointed by educational

authority responsible for organizing and administering public elementary schools’ activities

and education quality The principals in this study are school leaders who have at least one

year of experience as elementary school principals on or before September 5, 2012

Elementary school teachers are public elementary school educators, whose teaching

assignment is from first grade through fifth grade The teachers in this study consist of

classroom teachers who work together with sampled principals in current schools at least one

school year on or before September 5, 2012

Instructional leadership behaviors are defined as the principals’ actions which are

linked with the teachers’ teaching and students’ learning in their schools According to

Hallinger (2005), the instructional leadership role of the principal has three dimensions:

defining the school’s mission; managing the instructional program; and promoting a positive school learning climate These three dimensions are further delineated into ten leadership

functions comprising 50 leadership behaviors which are stated on the PIMRS The ten job

functions of instructional leadership are as following:

1 Framing school goals: This function refers to a principal’s role in determining the

areas in which school staff will focus their attention and resources during a given school

year

2 Communicating school goals: This function is concerned with the ways in which the

principal communicates the school’s important goals to teachers, parents and students

3 Supervising and evaluating instruction: A central task of the principal is to ensure that

school goals are translated into classroom practice” (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, p 222)

4 Coordinating curriculum: School curricular objectives are closely aligned with both the

content taught in classes and with achievement tests

5 Monitoring student progress: Instructionally effective schools emphasize both

standardized and criterion-referenced testing Tests are used to diagnose programmatic

and student weaknesses, to evaluate the results of changes in the school’s instructional program, and to make classroom assignments

6 Protecting instructional time: Principals who successfully implement policies that limit

interruptions of classroom learning time can increase allocated learning time and,

potentially, student achievement

7 Maintaining high visibility: Visibility on the campus and in the classrooms increases

interactions between the principal and students as well as the teachers

8 Providing incentives for teachers: An important part of the principal’s role in creating a positive learning climate involves setting up a work structure that rewards and recognizes

teachers for their efforts

9 Promoting professional development: Principals can inform teachers of opportunities

for staff development, lead in-service training activities, and support teachers through

staff development and training that is linked to school goals and monitor implementation

in the classroom

10 Providing incentives for learning: It is possible to create a school learning climate in

which students value academic achievements by frequently rewarding and recognizing

student academic achievement and improvement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985, pp

221-224)

Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale is a survey comprised of 50

statements regarding principal instructional leadership behaviors using five-point Likert scale

(ranging from almost never to almost always) This study used two kinds of form: Principal

Form and Teacher Form

Years of experience as a principal are the total number of years that sampled

principals have been appointed as principals and as principals at the current schools

School size is the total number of classes at an elementary school It could be divided

into three categories: (a) category one is 28 or more classes; (b) category two is from 18 to 27

classes; and (c) category three is fewer than 18 classes (MOET & Department of Government

Staff Organization, 1995)

Years of prior teaching experience are the total number of years that sampled

principals had been classroom teachers at elementary schools before they had been appointed

as principals

School location refers to location of the elementary school It could be classified into

two regions in HCMC, Vietnam: urban and rural Urban districts consist of District 1, District

2, District 3, District 4, District 5, District 6, District 7, District 8, District 9, District 10,

District 11, District 12, Binh Tan District, Binh Thanh District, Go Vap District, Phu Nhuan

District, Tan Binh District, Tan Phu District, Thu Duc District Rural districts conclude Binh

Chanh District, Can Gio District, Cu Chi District, Hoc Mon District, Nha Be District

1.6 Limitation of the Study

This study, like all research, had limitations that must be considered The following

factors and circumstances were acknowledged as potential limitations of the current study

The current study was limited to public elementary schools in HCMC Therefore, the

results could be generalized to HCMC public elementary schools but were not generalized to

elementary schools of other regions in Vietnam

The population from which the sample was drawn was principals and teachers, and

findings based upon the perspective of selected individuals The study did not collect and

triangulate data from students, parents, general and local educational administrators

Therefore, the validity of the study was influenced because of not using additional sources in

analyzing the data

Teachers who participated in this study were in charge at current schools, and

therefore, the results could be subjective Teachers rating their principals' leadership

behaviors may have been influenced by several factors, such as: personal liking, personal

relationship, or any confrontation between teachers and principals may have impacted the

truthfulness of the teacher perception In addition, elementary school principals rated

themselves, thus this caused subjectivity and possible bias

Only principals had been in their current position for at least one year prior to the

2012-2013 school year and teachers working with principals at least one year were surveyed

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is structured in five chapters, as follows:

Chapter 1 presents background of the study; statement of the problem; purpose of the

study; research questions; significance of the study; definition of terms; limitation of the

study; and organization of the dissertation

Chapter 2 reviews the literature on instructional leadership and gives an overview of

Vietnam’s educational system as well as reviews empirical studies on principal instructional leadership

Chapter 3 presents a detailed explanation of the research design and implementation

used in the study This chapter includes a description of research design; population and

sample selection; research instrument; data collection procedures; and data analysis used in

this study

Chapter 4 reports the data and its analysis It also provides discussion for findings

Chapter 5 provides a summary of the research; conclusions drawn from the findings;

and recommendations for educational authorities and elementary school principals

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter provides a review of related literature on the study topic It examines

both empirical studies and the theoretical base underlying instructional leadership The

chapter is organized into three major components Firstly, an overview of Vietnam’s

educational system mentions the national education system in Vietnam; the development of

administrational education in Vietnam; the new curriculum of elementary education; the

recruitment process and the training of elementary school principals in Vietnam; the roles and

functions of elementary school principals in Vietnam Secondly, the review of instructional

leadership focuses on the definition of instructional leadership; the instructional leadership

role of the principal; factors influencing principals’ instructional leadership; and Hallinger

and Murphy’s instructional leadership model Finally, the study reviews empirical studies on the principal’s instructional leadership

2.1 Overview of Vietnam’s Educational System

2.1.1 National education system in Vietnam

In the Vietnam socio-economic development strategy, education has been determined

as one of the national policy priorities (Vietnam National Assembly, 1992) Thus, the

nation’s process of transition from a centrally planned economy to a multi-sector based economy managed by the government, has increased the national concern about

market-education and an increasing share of the annual national budget only reflects this change For

general education, there is discrepancy in government funding that primary education

receives the highest allocation in comparison with other levels (MOET, 2012)

Due to the Đổi Mới (Renovation) with a reform policy program in 1986, a more comprehensive and flexible structure of education system was created in 1993 by the

Government (Resolution 04-NQ/HNTW, dated 14th January 1993, on Education Renovation

Continuation) The new organization of the education system consists of formal education

and non-formal education and is divided into: pre-school and kindergarten education, 12

years of general education, 2 years of vocational education, and 4 years of college education,

followed by 2 to 5 years of graduate study Vietnamese schools are organized in three main

forms: public schools; people-founded schools; and private schools (see appendix A)

In 1990, the Government promulgated the Law on Compulsory Primary Education for

children from the years of 6-14 and set a goal of accomplishing the standards of universal

primary education by the year of 2000 In accordance with the Article 11 of the 2005

Education Law, primary education was made compulsory This means that nationwide, 6-

year-old children must enroll in the first grade and complete the primary level by the age of

eleven, as the government states "Education is the right and responsibility of every citizen,

and primary education is compulsory and tuition-free to all children" (National Assembly,

1992) As a result, the number of primary schools has increased during the last half decade

For instance, in the school year of 2007-2008, there were 14,939 primary schools and this

number rose to 15,337 in the school year of 2011-2012 (MOET, 2013)

Since the school year of 2002 -2003, the Government has instructed the

implementation of nationwide reforms in the primary education starting from grade 1 up to

the next grades in following years The renovation of the curriculum is accompanied by the

renovation of textbooks, teaching methodologies and assessment methodologies The

program must be followed by all schools nationwide In the context of internationalization

and global integration, Vietnam needs more resources to improve educational quality and

human capital, especially school leadership that plays a key role in bridging the gaps in the

educational quality in Vietnam compared with that of other countries in the region?

2.1.2 The development of educational administration in Vietnam

MOET is the central government agency in charge of Vietnam education at all levels

from preschool, kindergarten to general education, higher education and vocational education

It is also the central policy maker at the national level MOET works out annual and five-year

educational plans that are approved by the Communist Party National Assembly for the

course of action, funding and policies In each annual and five-year plan, MOET always

emphasizes the important role of administrators and school leaders in completing the

missions of the institutions Therefore, improving the quality of educational administration is

a matter of great concern in the whole society in general and the national education system in

particular

For the purpose of improving educational administration, recently, MOET proposes

decentralization to increase the autonomy and responsibility of local administration in order

to help them solve and prevent problems effectively For instance, decentralization in

management responsibility for school construction, staffing, and distribution of financial

resources for the universities to be directly managed by MOET, upper secondary education

schools and professional secondary schools to be managed by the Provincial Department of

Education and Training, and lower secondary schools and elementary schools to be managed

in the District Bureau of Education and Training (UNESCO, 2011) This leads to the current

needs of training for educational administrators at the executive levels from the national and

local department of education Thus, in the last few years, the MOET and the government

emphasize the issues of training for educational administrators, especially the principals’ training in general education

Currently, MOET has assigned two main agencies to be responsible for the training of

educational managers and administrators in Vietnam and some local universities These are

the National Institute for Educational Management (NIEM) in Hanoi, the capital city, in

North Vietnam and Institute of Educational Managers in Ho Chi Minh City, South Vietnam

which provide formal and in-service trainings for educational administrators These

institutions offer training courses to enhance knowledge and skills which could be used for

school leadership practices, such as planning, understanding organization, managing human

resource, managing infrastructure and finance, managing teaching and learning, etc

According to the principal recruitment policy, school and educational administrators in

Vietnam are appointed for administrative positions without the requirements for

administration or management licenses in education field Thus, in-service training programs

and short-term courses provided by these institutions are really essential for improving their

administrative competencies and skills

In addition, the National Universities in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City and several

local universities throughout the country also offer educational administration programs for

school administrators The departments of Educational Administration in the national and

local universities, however, only provide formal training programs for educational

administrators and managers who study for/which offer degree programs, such as bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctoral degree While giving the essential short-term training and in-service programs that help promote administrative staff for schools (i.e., vice principal,

principal) is not a function of these departments From this context of leadership training, it

could be said that there is still a big gap between the policy and the practice in training and

developing educational administrators in Vietnam nowadays

In the same vein, administrators in primary education receive relatively little the

training for their roles as educational administrator and manager that can affect directly the

quality and development of administrative staff in primary education As a result, the

majority of newly appointed principals always face challenges as well as difficulties in daily

matters of schooling and school strategic development, and how to overcome these obstacles

as well as meet the demand of teaching and learning quality become their increasing concerns

(Nguyen & Wu, 2012)

In summary, unlike other countries and the areas in the region such as Singapore,

Malaysia and Hong Kong, where the human resource development and infrastructure of the

educational systems is well developed (Gian et al., 2012), Vietnam desires that school

principals at basic education level should lead schooling reforms may find a less stable and

systematic approach to training and development

2.1.3 The new elementary education curriculum

In order to fulfill the nation’s modernization and industrialization process, redesigning

the new curriculum of general education that is unified nationwide is required The new

curriculum is mentioned as the centre-piece of educational quality improvement in Vietnam

regarding evidence from various policy documents (Hamano, 2008) On December 9, 2000

the National Assembly issued a directive that was aimed at revising the curriculum and

textbooks for general education (including primary education, lower secondary education and

upper secondary education)

The curriculum reform is accompanied by the textbook reform and changes in

teaching methodologies, forms of organizing educational activities and evaluation

methodologies This new national curriculum and textbooks were implemented, beginning

with the first and sixth grade, throughout the country since the school year of 2002-2003 after

a period of time for pilot implementation (UNESCO, 2011) Each year later, new educational

curriculum and textbooks were realized for the consecutive primary grades and lower

secondary grades The grade 10 (the first grade of upper secondary education) took effect in

2006-2007 school year After a period of 5-10 year of implementation, the curriculum will be

reviewed so that it will be able to match the contents to the actual learning needs of the

society (UNESCO, 2011)

For the topic of the study related to elementary education, the primary education

curriculum is described in more details Firstly, considering the role of primary education in

the national education system and then the detailed primary education curriculum is

illustrated Finally, the effect of new curriculum on principals’ instructional leadership is presented

In the Government’s documents such as the 2005 Education Law, the 1992

Constitution, Resolutions, etc, primary education has been the central focus of education

policy, in which primary education is a fundamental foundation for shaping and developing a

comprehensive personality and setting the basis for secondary education As Article 27 of the

2005 Education Law stated that: “The goal of primary education is to provide pupils with initial and essential bases for proper and life-long development in terms of morality,

intellectual capacity, physical strength, aesthetics and basic skills for their progress into

secondary education" (MOET, 2005) Thus, the implementation of new elementary education

curriculum is aimed not only at fulfilling the demands for international integration but also at

meeting the goals of national development

According to the new curriculum, a school year lasts 35 weeks, which extends to 165

weeks in the five years This 165-week curriculum is uniform throughout the country, thus

the schools in the past, which adopted 120 or 100 weeks of schooling are now required to

move to the 165 weeks curriculum By 2006, the new curriculum had covered all the five

grades of primary education level Under the new curriculum, six subjects are obligatory for

grades 1–3, and nine subjects for grades 4 and 5 The following table will illustrate the

subjects and weekly lesson delivery in the material of national guidelines

Note: Each teaching period lasts about 35 minutes Health Education is integrated into

Natural and Social Studies in Grades 1-3, and into Science in Grade 4 and 5 In Grades 1-3, the subject “Arts” includes music, drawing and technology/handicraft Schools are

encouraged to adapt the guidelines to the local situation and to include local contents suitable for pupils’ characteristics Some schools offer foreign languages and informatics (optional subjects), two periods per week in Grade 3-5 There are special regulations for primary schools attended by pupils from ethnic groups (i.e increased emphasis on the teaching of Vietnamese), schools offering foreign languages, full-day primary schools, and schools under particular circumstances Reprinted from “Elementary Education Curriculum” by MOET,

2009, Education Publishing House

This new curriculum remains an advantage of defining standard of knowledge and

skills that students must and could obtain through subjects as well as educational activities

This advantage was illustrated by the design of textbooks and learning materials Textbooks

and learning materials were designed to meet the requirements for ensuring that pupils obtain

simple and necessary knowledge about nature, society and human beings; achieve basic skills

in listening, reading, speaking, writing and calculating; have habits of physical exercise and

hygiene; initial understanding of singing, dancing, music and arts

In addition, knowledge and skill standards are foundations for textbooks design,

teaching management, student assessment in each subject and education activities New

textbooks are laid out like workbooks so that students can directly write on them

Furthermore, a set of teaching materials has been made available so that classes can be

handled in a flexible way (Suzuki & Howe, 2013)

The teaching of compulsory subjects does not last more than four hours per day and is

divided into periods, each of which lasts about thirty five minutes As for optional subjects,

schools adapt the guidelines and include the local contents up to 15% of the total amount of

time, for example, schools can teach foreign languages and informatics or life skills

(UNESCO, 2011)

The new curriculum required that the principal should get highly involved in teachers’ instruction and students’ learning One of the reforms in this curriculum was the teaching methodology that required principals to monitor and evaluate teaching activities in their

schools There were many new subjects that were added such as music, physical education,

drawing, and handicrafts In addition, the major subjects’ contents were significantly

increased for every grade Thus, the principals had to support their teaching staff in attending

MOET’s New Textbook Targeted Training program given before a new school year Making some changes in the new curriculum requires principals to promote their roles as the

curriculum coordinators and monitor of instructional time

2.1.4 Recruitment process and training of the elementary school principal in Vietnam

According to Elementary School Regulations (MOET, 2011b), the recruitment of

elementary school principals in Vietnam begins at the end of each five-year principal tenure,

the District Bureau of Education and Training will announce the new appointment of a

principal for the next period The Head of Bureau of Education and Training appoints public

elementary school principals and approves the appointment of private school principals based

on the principal appointment and approval process

The appointment of the elementary school principal is based on the achievement of

the candidates’ application The criteria are specified as follow: (1) teachers who reach

professional standard (intermediate pedagogy diploma) or vice principals or former principals

who have just ended a five-year tenure, (2) at least three years of teaching experience in

elementary schools or at least one year of experience as an elementary school vice principal,

(3) completing a training program for administration cadres, (4) positive outlook in political

views, ethics, lifestyle, (5) qualified managerial competency, and (6) being in good health

Candidates apply for the post of an elementary school principal have to submit the documents,

including personnel records, evaluation from their colleagues, proposed appointment

statements, diplomas and other certificates (MOET, 2011b)

In reality, meeting the criterion of the Communist Party member, criterion number 4

mentioned above, is more important than meeting other criteria That means selecting a

candidate who “fits in”, regardless of their academic background and professional abilities Thus, “who you are” may be more important than “how well you perform.”

In the public sector, a principal is not permitted to hold more than two uninterrupted

tenures at the same school The tenure of an elementary school principal is five years

Sometimes, each principal is assigned for only one school per tenure In the cases that the

principals demonstrated exceptional leadership, and then he or she will be allowed to

continue the tenure, sometimes, it could be two or three appointments of tenure at the same

school Candidates for school leaders may be self-nominated, selected, nominated or

recommended by senior officials in the District Bureau of Education and Training (MOET,

2011b)

In order to control the quality of principal recruitment, since the school year of

2010-2011, MOET promulgated "set of elementary school principal standards" which has four

standards with 19 criteria The four standards include: (1) political viewpoint and ethics; (2)

professional and pedagogical qualification; (3) leadership and school management

qualification; (4) capacity to coordinate with students' families and society This is

implemented at the end of the school year for the evaluation and classification of elementary

school principals On the basis of principal self– evaluation, the district educational

department makes plans on training, retaining and promoting principals’ leadership It also serves as evidences for educational administration agency regarding the implementation of

principal appointment, dismissal, training, retraining and promoting as well as policy making

(MOET, 2011a)

New appointed principals usually start principal work immediately After that, they

are required to attend in-service training courses that were designed in 1990s for new

principals in summer months according to the requirements of MOET As mentioned above,

most of new principals’ background is typically that of former teachers with a range of experiences in teaching within the elementary school system Therefore, those training

courses will help them to improve knowledge and skills in school leadership including the

leadership of instruction programs

2.1.5 Roles and functions of elementary school principals in Vietnam

According to Article 20 Primary School Regulations (MOET, 2011b), elementary

school principals are responsible for organizing, managing educational quality and activities

of schools They play the roles of administrators and managers of vice-principals, lead

teachers, teachers, and students Their specific roles could be summarized as follows:

a Administration: to administrate schools as an administrative organization, a business

organization, a human resource organization, and a professional organization; to manage and

use of financial resources and facilities effectively

b Leadership: to lead schools in implementing educational programs and other tasks, in

which instructional leadership is the central task of the principals The major contents of

principals’ instructional leadership are as follows:

Managing the school’s instruction plans by each academic year, semester, month, week, lesson;

Organizing the implementation of the teaching plans: assignment of school

management board in charge of each grade, assignment of teachers in charge of classes,

setting up school timetable;

Directing the implementation of the teaching plans: direction of teaching staff through

the assistance of instructional vice principal in implementing curriculum, improving teaching

methodology and organizational forms;

Inspecting the implementation of teaching schedules, curriculum, scoring of teachers

in the schools

c Attendance of social activities: to coordinate and participate in educational activities

of communities

d Playing both the roles of an educator and a teacher: according to elementary school

regulations, principals are responsible for teaching an average of two periods per week

e Playing the role of a professional guide for teachers, and a consultant for students and

parents

f An effective and frequent pioneer in professional and personal development In

addition, they are the main factor in leading and developing school staff and teachers with

appropriate approach

g Doing research and applying research results to the school development (Trinh, 2009)

2.2 Review of Instructional Leadership

2.2.1 Definition of instructional leadership

During the last haft of the 20th century, the literature on principal leadership, effective

school leadership, instructional leadership supports two viewpoints of instructional leadership

Sheppard (1996) mentioned two perspectives as “narrow”’ and “broad” ones The narrow view of principal instructional leadership describes it as a separate element of the

administrative responsibilities and action of the principal (Murphy, 1988) Instructional

leadership in the narrow view reflects those actions that directly affect teaching and learning,

such as curriculum supervision, teacher instruction, learning appraisal In the broad view,

principal instructional leadership is defined as all activities that have an impact on student

learning (Donmoyer & Wagstaff, 1990; Murphy, 1998)

As for the narrow view of instructional leadership, literature reveals that several

researchers have discussed the essential role of principals as instructional leaders This

essential role emphasizes the behaviors that promote teaching and learning Specifically,

many researchers who agree with this narrow view of principal instructional leadership define

instructional leadership as a series of principals’ behaviors that influence classroom

instruction and instruction programs in their schools to promote student achievement (Babb,

2012; Hallinger, 1992; Leithwood, 1994; Whitaker, 1998) Some of instructional leadership

behaviors consist of: Close supervision of classroom instruction; coordination of the school’s curriculum and providing feedback; monitoring student academic progress by reviewing tests

results with teachers; assisting teachers in critiquing teachers determine their applicability in

the classroom In general, a strong instructional leader regarding the narrow view is a school

principal who spends a great deal of time and shows a lot of concerns in classrooms and

regularly provides suggestions to improve learning and teaching

In the broad perspective, however, principal instructional leadership entails all

activities that effect student learning A synthesis of the related literature shows that those

activities could be classified into four categories, including those of: (a) a resource provider;

(b) a communicator; (c) visible presence in the school; (d) and a learning and working

environment creator (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Mitchell & Castle, 2005)

As for the resource provider, instructional leaders pay attention to two areas The first

one is to provide resource needed for learning and teaching to occur, and the second one is to

provide resource for professional development of teachers Researchers who emphasize the

role as learning and teaching resource provider of the principal demonstrate the following

behaviors These behaviors conclude informing teachers about new educational strategies and

tools for effective instruction; securing the instructional resources needed for teachers and

learners; working with teachers to build a coordinated instructional program at school;

modeling effective teaching, giving praise for effective teaching; and working as a

curriculum expert (Blasé and Blasé, 2000; Jana Michelle Alig-Mielcarek, 2003; Leithwood,

1994; Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Whitaker, 1998; Wildy & Dimmock, 1993) Furthermore,

many researchers put strong emphasis on the behaviors of instructional leaders as that of

fostering professional development of teachers As a source provider for all staff members’ professional growth, principals provide human and material resources for teachers to ensure

success; keep up with the latest development in teaching, classroom management, and

assessment with teachers; organize staff meetings, workshops, and in-service training for

teachers (Hoy & Hoy, 2009; Mitchell & Castle, 2005)