Instructional Leadership of School Heads and Productive Learning Atmosphere of Public Elementary Schools
Quennie Lyn G. Almerez
Davao del Sur State College, Matti, Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines.
Elmer A. Dayon *
Sulop National High School, Sulop, Davao del Sur, Philippines.
Cynthia M. Hermosilla
Matutungan Elementary School, Matutungan Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur, Philippines.
Almer D. Maranga
Lutay Integrated School, Sitio Honguera, Lutay, Malungon, Sarangani Province, Philippines.
Benjie B. Juan
Upper Mainit, Malungon, Sarangani Provice, Philippines.
Kimberly Jane D. Enguito
Buguis Elementary School, Buguis, Sulop, Davao del Sur, Philippines.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Instructional leadership, in contrast to traditional administrative functions, is fundamentally oriented toward the improvement of teaching and learning processes. School leaders who adopt an instructional leadership stance prioritize curriculum coherence, teacher development, and evidence-based instructional supervision. This study examined the significance of the relationship between instructional leadership indices of school heads and a productive learning atmosphere. Employing a non-experimental quantitative approach with a descriptive-correlational design, data were collected from teachers in Sulop District, Davao del Sur, during the second semester of School Year 2020–2021. A convenience sampling technique was used, including only teachers who voluntarily participated and provided informed consent. Data were gathered through a validated researcher-made questionnaire utilizing a five-point Likert scale. Statistical tools such as mean and Pearson correlation were applied to analyze the extent of leadership practices and their relationship with learning environment indicators. The findings revealed that instructional leadership is moderately correlated with a productive learning atmosphere. School activities showed a high correlation, while learning centers had moderate correlation, and student interactions reflected low correlation. Classroom layout showed no significant relationship. Moreover, instructional leadership indicators—assessment, program development, instructional improvement, and supervision—significantly influenced the learning atmosphere. All results were statistically significant at the 0.05 level, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
Keywords: Educational leadership, goal setting, motivational approaches, professional development, school administrators