Meta-analysis of school leadership effects on student achievement in USA and Turkey

Abstract

This research study aims to investigate the effects of school leadersip on student achievement in USA and Turkey. The method of meta-analysis is used to calculate the effect size of school leadership on student achievement. 39 researches were included in the study. However, several publications included in the research have examined more than one leadership approach. Due to this reason, the dataset used in 39 publications was determined as 68 in total. The results of the analyses performed with a random effects model revealed that school leadership has a small but positive effect on student achievement in general. However, in Turkey the effect size is at modest level while it is small in USA. When the leadership style is used as a moderator in the relationship between school leadership and student achievement, it is examined that instructional leadership has a more significant effect on student achievement than others do. Considering the findings of the study, It can be proposed that professional development opportunities should be supported for best practice of instructional leadership behaviours.

Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes

“…The fourth moderator is the type of primary studies. Uysal and Sarier (2018) found that effect sizes reported in dissertations were larger than those in articles in Turkey, but the reverse was true in the US. Some meta-analysts argue that dissertations may exhibit a higher level of quality than articles and have even analysed dissertation data exclusively (Sun and Leithwood, 2012).…”

“…However, secondary/high school teachers may be more qualified and therefore better able to support leadership initiatives. Meta-analytic results on the moderating influence of school grade levels are mixed (Chin, 2007; Karadag, 2020; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019; Marzano et al, 2005; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Uysal and Sarier, 2018). The third moderator pertains to the source of leadership data used in primary studies.…”

“…Previous meta-analyses report mixed results on whether leadership models or practices predict school outcomes better. For example, Uysal and Sarier (2018) found that instructional and transformational leadership were positively associated with student achievement whereas leadership practices were not. Karadag (2020) reported very similar effect sizes among leadership models and practices.…”

How school leadership practices relate to student outcomes: Insights from a three-level meta-analysis

“…This ignores the impact of multiple leaders within schools on student learning (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). Third, most meta-analyses have not embraced more expansive definitions of student learning that include non-achievement outcomes (Chin, 2007; Karadag, 2020; Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Uysal and Sarıer, 2018; Witziers et al, 2003). Lastly, existing meta-analyses (Chin, 2007; Karadag, 2020; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Uysal and Sarıer, 2018; Witziers et al, 2003) have not adequately considered school contextual moderators in investigations of leadership effects.…”

“…Third, most meta-analyses have not embraced more expansive definitions of student learning that include non-achievement outcomes (Chin, 2007; Karadag, 2020; Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Uysal and Sarıer, 2018; Witziers et al, 2003). Lastly, existing meta-analyses (Chin, 2007; Karadag, 2020; Liebowitz and Porter, 2019; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Uysal and Sarıer, 2018; Witziers et al, 2003) have not adequately considered school contextual moderators in investigations of leadership effects. In particular, there are calls to reconceive school leadership from a social justice perspective to improve learning of lower-socioeconomic status (SES) students (Berkovich, 2014).…”