Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Scaffolding leadership for 2014, Vol. 42(4) 474490
The Author(s) 2013

learning in school education: Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213502197
Insights from a factor emal.sagepub.com

analysis of research
conducted in Australian
independent schools

Scott Marsh, Manjula Waniganayake and Ian W Gibson

Abstract
The notion of leadership for learning as a resource for improving student learning in schools has
attracted much attention from scholars. However, its use lacks clarity or meaning for teachers
implementing this concept in schools. In seeking to pursue a better understanding of leadership for
learning based on a comprehensive review of relevant literature a scaffold of key themes was
established. This scaffold shows leadership for learning as a liberating process in which whole-school
communities actively engage in purposeful interactions that nurture relationships focused on improv-
ing learning. In examining the extent to which this conception of leadership for learning was evident
in schools, a survey was developed and tested for its veracity. This article presents the results of fac-
tor analysis and importantly, introduces two themes not originally included in the scaffold.

Keywords
Leadership for learning, authoritative leadership, school improvement, team effectiveness

Introduction
Leadership has been found to be an important resource for improving learning in schools (Gurr,
2008; Leithwood et al., 2008). Indeed as an area of research, leadership studies have generated
a plethora of styles and theories that seek to keep pace with the demands on schools and those
in leadership positions (Dimmock, 2012; Hallinger, 2009; Hargreaves, 2011; Lambert, 2002).
The notion of leadership for learning (LfL), is defined in the context of this paper as a liberating
process where whole school communities actively engage in purposeful interactions that nurture
relationships focused on improving learning (Marsh, 2012). This process has emerged as

Corresponding author:
Scott H. Marsh, Department of Education, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Ryde, New South Wales 2071,
Australia.
Email: scotthughmarsh@yahoo.com.au

474
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 475

RELATIONAL COMMUNITY

1. How effective is your school in building a culture where relationships and

conversations about learning flourish?
2. Is your school adept and responsive to change?
3. How responsive is your school to the unique needs of your community?
4. Are collective meaning and purpose evident and regularly monitored at your
school?
5. Is leadership distributed effectively beyond those in formal positions at your
school?
6. Do teachers share learning and teaching experiences and expertise at your
school?

LfL
LEARNING FOCUSED COMMUNITY

7. What role do those in formal leadership positions play in improving learning at your
school?
8. Is your school's curriculum coherent in both the content to be taught and how it is taught?
9. How effective is your school in supporting ongoing professional learning for teachers?
10. How effective is your school in using a range of sources of evidence to reflect upon and
improve practice?

Figure 1. LfL scaffold essential questions for schools.

leadership practice and has attracted much attention from various education scholars (Dimmock,
2012; Hallinger and Heck, 2011; Macbeath, 2008). However, while the concept of LfL is fre-
quently used by scholars, Southworth (2011) noted that its meaning was not clear.
In seeking to better understand the notion of LfL, the use of this expression in the literature
focusing on school leadership, school improvement/effectiveness and professional learning com-
munity research was examined. This involved reviewing over 200 papers published from 2000 to
2012, and led to the development of a scaffold consisting of 10 key elements central to the practice
of LfL (Figure 1).
The 10 elements identified in the LfL scaffold are presented in question form and seek to support
schools reflect upon their effectiveness in developing community capacity to foster relationships that
enhance the core business of improving student learning. In the study being discussed in this article,
data analysed to date shows the notion of community emerging as overarching and central in the
establishment of LfL as a community-wide activity. The scaffold seeks to define explicitly the nature
of leadership interactions and provide a clear framework to guide engagement with the school com-
munity. A full discussion of this understanding of LfL can be found in Marsh (2012).
The orientation of LfL as community engagement can be connected with key education scho-
lars, such as Harris and Lambert (2003), Lambert (2002), Morrison (2002) and Spillane et al.
(2011). This includes conceptualizing LfL as a holistic and comprehensive activity, a responsibil-
ity that is not limited to those in formal leadership positions. As a liberating process, LfL practice is

475
476 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

driven by an intrinsic moral purpose (Bezzina, 2007; Fullan, 2005). The notion of leadership is
understood here to be inherently interactive and relational (Day, 2011) and learning is enriched
through a diverse web of interactions, where individuals and teams challenge, support, encourage and
positively influence each other (Louis, 2006; Morrison, 2002; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Such a milieu
enhances agency (Frost, 2006; Penlington et al., 2008) and ultimately, the capacity of the school to
improve learning is developed. Capacity here is defined as the process of creating the experiences
and opportunities for people to learn how to do the right thing and do it effectively in different cir-
cumstances (Harris and Day, 2002: 972). According to Harris and Lambert (2003: 4) capacity build-
ing essentially involves building relationships, building trust and building community.
In seeking to explore the extent to which the community orientation of LfL was evident in
schools, the LfL School Survey was developed. Based on the data collected from this survey, a
factor analysis was completed to examine the reliability of this survey instrument. This article pre-
sents the factor analysis results and significantly, highlights the emergence of authoritative lead-
ership (Dinham, 2007a; Dinham and Scott, 2008; Goleman, 2000) and the notion of enhancing
team effectiveness; these are two key themes that emerged through the data collected in this
research. A brief overview of the literature that underpins the definition of LfL sets the context for
the research and the factor analysis reported in this paper.

Literature Review
First, the notion of LfL as a community-wide activity is closely aligned with leadership studies that
reject the traditional position based, hero leader constructs of leadership (Leithwood et al., 2008;
Timperley and Robertson, 2011). Central to this conception of LfL is an understanding of leadership
as an organizational behaviour (Youitt, 2004), a dynamic between individuals within and without
the organization (Harris and Day, 2002: 960). This conceptualization of LfL as a whole-school com-
munity activity, also draws on the evidence that increasingly indicates that leadership that is rela-
tional, and is an influence process focused on successful learning relationships that are reciprocal,
collaborative and empowering for all parties have an impact on student engagement, achievement
and well-being (Timperley and Robertson, 2011: 8).
Second, LfL is understood to explicitly emphasize the focus on relationships for the purposes of
improving learning. That is, relationships in schools have a significant purpose in cultivating com-
munity capacity, to do the right things, in order to improve student learning. Importantly, the LfL
scaffold seeks to identify concrete, research-based practices that may assist schools in developing
the kind of relationships that would develop professional knowledge about the improvement of
teaching and learning (Timperley and Robertson, 2011: 4).
The importance of relationships within the context of LfL is widely supported by scholars (Din-
ham and Scott, 2007; Duignan, 2008; Fullan, 2001; Morrison, 2002; Robinson, 2007) and themes
of trust, collaboration, collegiality and shared teaching practice are identified as areas that either
contribute to or benefit from a focus on relationships (Cooper and Boyd, 2007; Duignan, 2008;
Harris and Lambert, 2003; Lambert, 2002; Mulford et al., 2004; Robinson, 2007; Youitt, 2004).
Indeed, the importance of relationships as a central factor in supporting organizational change was
consistently represented in the literature as key to successful and sustainable LfL (Day, 2009;
Fullan, 2001, 2005; Hargreaves and Fink, 2006; Senge et al., 1999; Stoll and Temperley, 2009).
Further, the notion of change and the contribution of complexity theory (Plowman et al., 2007;
Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) as a means to understand change, appeared regularly in the literature
reviewed for this research.

476
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 477

In applying the science of complexity to LfL, this theory supports an understanding of leader-
ship as an emergent dynamic not restricted to formal positions (Morrison, 2002). Complexity the-
ory acknowledges the interconnectedness and fluid nature of organizations and the importance of
interaction and sophisticated communication (Oekerman, 1997; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Complex
adaptive systems (Boal and Schultz, 2007) value relationships and teams, and importantly are
attentive to their context (Morrison, 2002; Plowman et al., 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Indeed
the notion of context frequently appeared in the LfL literature with scholars stressing the impor-
tance of schools being attentive to their environment (Dimmock, 2012; Hallinger, 2009; Leith-
wood, 2004; MacBeath, 2006).
Having reviewed references to context, given the reality that there is more variation in the
responses of teachers within than across schools to the leadership they experience (Mascall
et al., 2009: 93), the process of clarifying the leadership practices and purposes within schools
emerged as an important step for schools as they seek to engage with LfL in their specific context.
While scholars advocate the importance of exploring the various leadership conceptions that may
exist in schools (Portin et al., 2008), there appears little research evidence that indicates whether
this is happening or how schools might be managing this. This presents as a blank spot (Harris,
2004) in the LfL literature.
As with establishing a shared understanding of leadership, the LfL literature noted the impor-
tance of establishing a shared sense of meaning and purpose in regards to the schools direction
(Elmore, 2000; Leithwood, 2004). Indeed, according to Perkins (2003: 155), true collaboration
occurs when people strive together toward the same outcome in ways that directly share the work,
thinking, and responsibility. The description of collaboration as presented by Perkins, where tasks
are shared, was a recurrent theme in the LfL literature. One can also find similarities with Perkins
description with other ideas presented in the LfL literature, such as teacher leadership (Crowther
et al., 2002; Durrant, 2004), participation (Brown, 2005; MacBeath, 2006), collective (Louis et al.,
2010) or distributed leadership (Harris, 2009b; Spillane et al., 2011).
The notion of distributing leadership (Harris, 2009b; Spillane et al., 2011) is presently one of the
big ideas on the leadership landscape (Louis et al., 2009). Bezzina (2008) has also identified
teacher leadership as a fundamental ethical imperative given the critical role the classroom teacher
plays in supporting students learning. In emphasizing learning, Bezzina noted the mutuality of
shared moral purpose and shared leadership as a teacher responsibility. While the notion of distrib-
uted leadership is attracting much interest, in no way does this make redundant the role of the school
principal (Spillane and Diamond, 2007). Through exhibiting characteristics such as honesty, fairness,
compassion, commitment, reliability, hard work, trustworthiness and professionalism (Dinham,
2008: 48), effective principals can remain an essential driver for change and source of support for
building leadership capacity among others (Hallinger and Heck, 2009: 101). As Bezzina (2008)
found, school principals can play a critical role in inspiring, supporting and facilitating leadership
within their school communities.
One important factor in determining the effectiveness of school leaders is their capacity,
whether directly or indirectly to support and improve teaching practice (Gurr et al., 2007; South-
worth, 2002); a capacity attributed to significant gains in student learning outcomes (Robinson,
2007, 2008). Further, the review of the LfL literature highlighted the concept of Instructional Pro-
gramme Coherence (Newmann et al., 2001), an approach to curriculum development in which
schools adopt common shared approaches to learning and teaching as an important strategy in
improving student learning. Dinham (2009: 149) identified that a framework and language to dis-
cuss pedagogy established across the whole school was useful in promoting thinking about

477
478 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

pedagogy, professional learning and improving student success. Further, the Innovative Designs
for Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) project (Andrews et al., 2004: 6), identified the
importance of shared pedagogical practices and that when these instructional strategies comple-
ment their schools philosophy, the effects on student achievement, particularly for disadvantaged
students, can be remarkable.
In synthesizing the key elements from the LfL literature, the theme of professional learning, and
specifically, the principles identified in the theory of situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991),
highlighted the importance of embedding learning opportunities for teachers into their daily work
in classrooms (Camburn and Han, 2009). Scholars have noted the benefits of teachers watching
their colleagues teach for some time (Dinham, 2009; Harris and Lambert, 2003; Timperley,
2006). Indeed, Reeves (2008) believed that direct observation of classroom teaching by teachers
should be adopted as a foundation for professional learning.
Finally, as schools pursue learning onsite, the notion of engendering evidence-based practice
arose as an important element within the practice of LfL (Earl and Timperley, 2009). Here schools
are prompted to identify explicit goals focused on improving student learning, and to engage in
activities such as action research and critical inquiry (Earl and Timperley, 2009; Lambert, 2002;
Reeves, 2008). Further, practitioners are encouraged to blend their tacit knowledge with academic
research-based findings in order to progress both student and teacher learning in schools (Dim-
mock, 2012); a potentially important area for attention for both teachers and school leaders in light
of the rising expectations and accountability agendas presently in place (Caldwell, 2010; Hallinger
and Heck, 2011).
The literature reviewed reflected the multifaceted, complex character of leadership (Avery,
2004) and found overwhelming evidence to support the importance of engendering an understand-
ing of LfL as a collective (Louis et al., 2010), community-wide pursuit, available to anyone with
the potential to improve student learning. Importantly, the scaffold presents clear research-based
evidence to guide interactions deemed necessary by scholars for improving student learning. In
order to examine the extent to which the LfL scaffold is evident in schools, the LfL School Survey
was developed. Subsequently, a factor analysis was conducted in order to test the reliability of the
survey. A brief outline of the survey development; how data was collected; and the results derived
from the factor analysis are presented next.

Method
Participants
The LfL School Survey was emailed to teachers in seven independent schools in Sydney, Austra-
lia. Completion of the survey was voluntary. The response rate was 47% with 293 responses
recorded. Given leadership as a field of study in schools has favoured the voice of senior staff (Din-
ham, 2007b; Southworth, 2002), it was pleasing to note that 57% of responses to this survey came
from classroom teachers (n 167), with the remainder coming from middle managers (n 84),
senior managers (n 23) or other (n 19) teaching staff.

Survey
The survey contained 93 items, which were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree;
to 5 strongly agree), four categorical and two open-ended responses. A range of demographic items

478
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 479

allowed for distinctions to be made between categories such as participants tenure and role or position
in the school.
The survey was piloted in three schools not participating in the research. Those who participated
in the pilot were teachers (n 3) and teachers who held positions of responsibility in either middle
(n 2) or senior (n 2) management positions within schools. Two university academics also
examined the surveys suitability for factor analysis and provided feedback on the survey. The
feedback from the pilot was used to refine key ideas that were not expressed consistently through-
out the survey and where questions were not specific and therefore potentially unclear to the staff
completing the pilot. The survey was then finalized and conducted online over a three-week period
in 2010 using SurveyMonkey.

Results
In seeking to explore the reliability of the LfL scaffold, principal component factor analysis using
varimax rotation was completed (Lester, 1987). Factor analysis is an iterative process that uses sta-
tistics to identify the underlying constructs that summarize a set of variables (Ford et al., 1986:
296). Lindstrom and Sharma (2008: 61) noted that factor analysis is a data reduction method,
allowing a reduction in the number of variables in a data set, while retaining a large fraction of
the information. Importantly, factor analysis enables the researcher to evaluate the effectiveness
of the survey in measuring the underlying constructs found in the survey (Lindstrom et al., 2008).
In acknowledging that there is no definitive technique for factor analysis (Haworth and Mar-
shall, 2005: 105), the subjective nature of this method of analysis and the importance of maintain-
ing a critical mind are noted (Lindstrom et al., 2008). Therefore throughout the iterative process, a
clear rationale was developed for each decision, decisions were reviewed when choices were made
and, interpretation of findings were made in accordance with the thinking that had guided decision
making in the development of this study (Ford et al., 1986).
The data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19
(IBM, 2010) and checked for missing values or data entry errors. Missing values were detected
where respondents selected N/A; an option available on 26 of the survey items. In total there were
215 items with missing data from 61 participants across 93 questions. Noting that any missing data
excludes a participants total responses from factor analysis, the missing values were replaced
using the series means calculated within SPSS.
Throughout the analysis, multiple solutions were pursued (Ford et al., 1986) and as a result of an
iterative process, four options emerged. As reflected in Table 1, the final solution was identified by
considering the number of items included in each of the four solutions, factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1, the factor loading values for individual items (see Table 2) and, the reliability scores
(alpha) for each factor. From this process, a 10-factor solution that accounted for 59% of the var-
iance was identified and is presented in Table 1. This solution produced a KaiserMeyerOlkin
(KMO) value of 0.938, which was excellent (Leech et al., 2005; Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996) and
Bartletts test of sphericity on the solution was significant (p < 0.00). The Cronbachs alpha for
internal consistency was 0.964. While there exists considerable debate as to the cut-off range for
reliability (Schmitt, 1996), with some researchers adopting an arbitrary cutoff point for alpha
value of .7 (Deo and Phan, 2006: 14). The Cronbachs alpha value attained in this solution rep-
resents a very strong indicator of reliability (Garson, 2004).
In identifying the solution, initially, Kaisers stopping rule (Garson, 2004) was adopted as one
method to discern the fit of potential items. Here factors that contained eigenvalues less than one

479
480 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Table 1. Factor solution for LfL School Survey items.

Number Total range for

of items loading values
in each Eigen across all items Reliability
No. Factor description solution value within the factor (alpha)

1 Authoritative leadership 19 20.512 0.412  0.828 0.941

2 Influence of formal leaders on teaching practice 9 4.381 0.387  0.657 0.891
3 Complex adaptive system 5 2.301 0.439  0.688 0.805
4 Shared language for learning and leadership 5 1.857 0.334  0.767 0.768
5 Teachers observing teachers in the classroom 5 1.713 0.536  0.834 0.786
6 Establishing collective meaning and purpose 6 1.646 0.395  0.698 0.785
7 Enhancing school team effectiveness 4 1.477 0.406  0.680 0.642
8 Evidence based practice 4 1.336 0.602  0.700 0.765
9 Ongoing professional learning onsite with colleagues 4 1.232 0.362  0.625 0.701
10 Strategic professional learning 3 1.121 0.516  0.695 0.728

Table 2. Factor loadings and items for authoritative leadership.

Factor
Loading
value Item

0.828 LFL32 The current principal is a gifted communicator (clear, articulate, consistent, timely, informative)
0.823 LFL10 The principal has a positive influence upon the overall school climate and culture
0.819 LFL03 The principal invests time in building relationships with staff
0.781 LFL38 The principal is good at knowing when to consult and when to simply make a decision and lead
0.652 LFL84 The principal values and models professional learning
0.641 LFL66 The principal regularly reinforces the need for a safe and supportive learning environment
0.625 LFL08 There is a strong sense of trust among staff (including executive staff) at this school
0.603 LFL33 The current principal regularly articulates the school wide goals and purpose
0.565 LFL40 Our principal regularly seeks out teachers with the relevant knowledge and expertise to lead
new projects
0.533 LFL11 Change at this school is best described as a positive ongoing process
0.531 LFL20 There is too much change: we move from one thing to the next and never consolidate and
celebrate what we achieve
0.490 LFL67 The principal has challenged me to move out of my comfort zone when it comes to learning
and teaching
0.466 LFL47 Projects at the school often appear uncoordinated and disconnected
0.456 LFL13 Innovation is encouraged at this school
0.445 LFL04 Teachers are supported to discuss their individual ideas or theories about learning and teaching
0.443 LFL41 Leadership tasks and responsibilities are often distributed with little or no planning
0.415 LFL34 There are limited opportunities for me to voice my ideas for the future direction of the school
0.413 LFL94 There is little support for teachers who may be struggling or underperforming
0.412 LFL18 The leadership culture and structures at this school are more orientated to maintaining
control rather than promoting learning

were identified and these individual items were subsequently removed from future solutions. The
iterative process constantly demanded a balance between explaining the greatest amount of var-
iance possible, and doing so with the fewest number of factors (Small, 2006: 599) as items were

480
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 481

removed, and then returned to the analysis as various combinations evolved. Further, in withdraw-
ing items and then returning previously discarded items to the process, there was an attempt to
retain as many items as possible in the eventual solution. Importantly, the analysis sought to iden-
tify solutions where a factor structure is simple to the extent that each variable loads heavily on
one and only one factor (Garson, 2004: 19).
The factor loadings analysis indicated the extent to which the individual items correlated with
each factor and the items with the highest loadings provided important insights into interpreting
and ultimately, determining each factor (Kachigan, 1986). In acknowledging 0.32 as the minimum
factor loading value of an item (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996), no individual item was accepted at
this level. Most items were above 0.45 acknowledged as the average acceptable value for factor
loadings (Comrey and Lee, 1992). Indeed eight items out of 61 were deemed to be excellent with
factor loadings of > 0.71 (Comrey and Lee) and four of these are identified in Table 2. The patterns
generated in the factor analysis solution (Lindstrom et al., 2008) revealed two factors that were
previously not identified from the literature review undertaken at the start of this study namely,
authoritative leadership (Dinham, 2007a; Goleman, 2000) and enhancing school team effective-
ness. The significance of these two themes in the context of LfL are discussed next.

Discussion
Authoritative Leadership
In seeking to define Factor 1 (see Table 1), the research into parenting styles (Baumrind, 1991) and
studies investigating the possible link between parenting styles and quality teaching (Scott and
Dinham, 2005), provided important background in discerning the characteristics of the factor. Fur-
ther, the extension of these studies to explore connections between parenting, teaching and lead-
ership (Dinham, 2007a; Dinham and Scott, 2007, 2008) and the descriptions of authoritative
leadership by Dinham (2007a) and Dinham and Scott (2008) appeared to be analogous with the
items found in Factor 1 (Table 2). Therefore, by drawing on the work of Dinham and Scott
(2008: 35) and their conclusion that authoritative leaders are essentially relationship people who
balance a high degree of responsiveness with demandingness, in the context of LfL, Factor one
was identified as authoritative leadership.
The focus on the principal as the school leader is evident in Table 2. While the study overwhel-
mingly seeks to explore an understanding of leadership as a collective activity, the survey did seek
to understand the impact of the principals leadership given the important capacity building func-
tion that this role serves (Hallinger and Heck, 2009). This approach is consistent with findings from
other scholars that while there are many sources of leadership in schools, principals remain the
central source (Louis et al., 2010: 54). Further, in designing questions centred on the specific char-
acteristics of principal leadership, the survey was consistent with Dimmocks (2012: 22) observa-
tions that greater attention needs to be paid to traits and dispositions as important influences on
leadership and its successful practice.
Bezzina (2008: 49), while noting the critical importance of principal leadership, observed that
there will always be circumstances in which those in formal positions of leadership within
the hierarchical structure play a significant role in shaping and giving force to initiatives. Here,
Bezzina acknowledged that strong leadership does not always have to be located within the hier-
archical structure of the school. The presence of authoritative leadership in the solution does not
mean that its practice is limited to those in formal positions. Such an understanding would

481
482 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

undermine the exhortation of LfL to be embraced as community activity. Therefore within the
context of LfL, the characteristics of authoritative leadership are of necessity embedded within the
interactions between community members who have the potential to influence student learning.
Indeed, in describing authoritative leadership Dinham (2007a), Goleman (2000) and Milofsky
(2000) each portrays a distributed perspective (Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2009a; Spillane et al.,
2011) as a characteristic of authoritative leadership.
In defining Factor 1, items LfL40, LfL41 and LfL47 pointed directly to the presence of distrib-
uted leadership (Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2009a; Spillane et al., 2011) within the factor. While the
overall solution failed to identify the notion of distributed leadership as an independent factor, its
presence within authoritative leadership, and other factors including complex adaptive system
(Morrison, 2002; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) and enhancing team effectiveness (Cranston and Ehrich,
2009) maintains this dimension as an important element of LfL. The solution therefore potentially
resembles the notion of an intelligent hierarchy (Louis et al., 2010: 35), that seeks to ensure that
organisations take advantage of the capabilities and strengths of most of their members while at the
same time ensuring careful coordination of effort in a common direction. Notably, the presence of
distributed leadership within the context of authoritative leadership, potentially introduces an oppor-
tunity to further understand this leadership construct and importantly, its role in advancing LfL.
While authoritative leadership is not widely referred to in the LfL literature, often references to
this construct denote hierarchical or authoritarian practice (Edmonson et al., 2001; Kezar, 2000;
Lindelow and Scott, 1989; McAdamis, 2010). In differentiating between the two leadership styles,
Dinham and Scott (2008), noted that given authoritative leaders do hold high expectations, they
can exhibit the positive elements of authoritarian leaders. Likewise, in a study of business execu-
tives Hay and McBer (cited in Goleman, 2000) concluded that authoritative leadership was the
most effective leadership style in driving up every aspect of an organizations climate. While Gole-
mans description of authoritative leadership was orientated towards the for-profit sector, there
were substantial similarities with the work of Dinham (2007a) and Dinham and Scott (2008). Sig-
nificantly, these authors have made note of the capacity of authoritative leaders to allow people the
freedom to navigate their own path in reaching an end point.
In discussing leadership in not-for-profit organizations, where people can determine their invol-
vement more through personal, values-guided understandings of what their responsibilities and
obligations are (Milofsky, 2000: 40) the value of authoritative leadership is again evident. While
acknowledging that individual motivations within the not-for-profit sector will vary, in applying
this view of participation to the nature of authoritative leadership, Milofsky concluded that author-
itative leaders are teachers who connect and utilize this association to support individuals to grow.
They provide timely and effective instruction and make resources and team cooperation available
(Milofsky, 2000: 39). Importantly, authoritative leaders operate through others and serve as cata-
lysts and enablers; again a reference to empowering others as opposed to directing or controlling.
Overall, according to Dinham and Scott (2007, 2008), authoritative leaders are resolutely com-
mitted to supporting learning. They effectively empower and develop individuals; are admired for
their vision, example, positive influence, authenticity and clear focus; cultivate cultures of high
expectations yet equally support their staff; are capable communicators able to give positive and
negative feedback; and finally, have the strategic skills to ensure the organization is effective in
achieving the goals of their core business; in the case of schools improving student learning. The
emergence of authoritative leadership in the LfL scaffold may offer new insights on the seemingly
dichotomous nature of positional leadership of principals and the notion of distributed school lead-
ership. School principals as authoritative leaders can make an important contribution to student

482
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 483

Table 3. Factor loadings and items for enhancing school team effectiveness.

Factor
loading Item

0.680 LFL48 My team (year group/subject area/executive) is well led

0.630 LFL55 My team (year group/subject area/executive) work collaboratively, regularly sharing ideas,
resources and problems
0.482 LFL92 My supervisor has helped me to identify an area where I am underperforming
0.406 LFL56 We have received training on how to build effective teams

learning through both personal characteristics and specific leadership activities. One specific lead-
ership activity can be the commitment to developing the capacity of other authoritative leaders
within their school context. Likewise, the emergence of the second unanticipated factor of enhan-
cing school team effectiveness is another way school principals can engender authoritative lead-
ership opportunities within their communities and this discussion is presented next.

Enhancing School Team Effectiveness

When required to respond to their work or involvement in school teams, participants consistently
rated their satisfaction with or value of this element highly. The solution, as identified in Table 3,
grouped together four items that sought to understand team learning, leadership, effectiveness and
staff reactions to the collegiality and support they received from both within and beyond the team.
The overwhelming support for effective teams in schools (Fleming and Kleinhenz, 2007;
Morrison, 2002; Sackney and Mitchell, 2008; Silins et al., 2002) and its consistency with the over-
arching understanding of LfL as a community-wide, collective endeavour supports its inclusion in
the scaffold. In seeking to define the notion of enhancing school team effectiveness in the context
of LfL, effective teams are led and enhanced by authoritative leaders who support individual and
team learning by providing learning and leadership opportunities and honest feedback so that indi-
viduals are held accountable for their contribution to improving the team and student learning. The
following discussion is based on key themes connected with the four items on team effectiveness
listed in Table 3. Further, the discussion seeks to explore the literature to identify additional areas
that may support the development of effective teams as an important element in LfL in schools.
The importance of teams was noted in the study by Van Den Berg and Sleeger (cited in Silins
et al., 2000) where they found that schools with a high capacity for innovation had strong team
involvement. Teams are often characterized by the presence of common objectives; a diversity
of complementary skills, abilities and personalities; and, individual members commitment to
work cooperatively towards shared purposes and to invest in developing positive interpersonal
relations (Morrison, 2002). Moreover, Senge (1990: 10) noted that when teams are truly learning,
not only are they producing extraordinary results, but the individual members are growing more
rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.
In exploring the notion of team learning, Senge et al. (2000: 74) defined this practice as a disci-
pline of regularly transforming day-to-day communication skills: taking existing conversations, for
example and conducting them in new ways. Here team learning is focused on cultivating genuine
dialogue as opposed to attending off-site retreats or team building sessions. In pursuing a dialogue,
teams can go beyond the practice of simply analysing an issue and reaching a shared conclusion.

483
484 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Through an investment in time and relationships, pre-conceived ideas and assumptions are open to be
explored and importantly, people can learn how to think collectively.
According to Southworth (2011: 78), dialogue is more than having a good talk. In pursuing gen-
uine dialogue one is aiming to increase our understanding, knowledge and skills of teaching and
learning, and to use that knowledge to enhance our teaching practice. Implicit in such conversa-
tions is a milieu where individuals feel safe to take risks (MacBeath, 2006), and learning is under-
stood to be a collective activity (Elmore, 2000; Schratz, 2006; Stoll, 2011). As teachers seek to
engage in conversations about how to improve learning, concepts such as collaboration, problem
solving, openness, empowerment, respect and trust are apparent (Silins et al., 2000). Harris and
Lambert (2003: 4) in studying the impact of leadership upon improving school capacity found that:

An improving school community consists of teachers who are active in constructing meaning and col-
laborating in mutual enquiry and learning. Learning of teachers is as important as the learning of stu-
dents. Relationships are therefore critically important in the school improvement endeavour.

In reviewing the LfL literature, references to teams frequently noted that team learning was not
a strong element in schools (Morrison, 2002; Sackney and Mitchell, 2008; Silins et al., 2002).
Given the concept of team learning is considered a fundamental requirement of learning organiza-
tions (Silins et al., 2002) it is therefore important that schools prioritize time, support and practice
to enhance the effectiveness of their teams (Fleming and Kleinhenz, 2007).
The importance of providing opportunities for staff to work in teams, and empowering and sup-
porting team work, has concomitantly been found to create an appropriate environment for devel-
oping distributed leadership (Dinham, 2009). In seeking to investigate conditions surrounding
specific action learning programmes across a number of schools, Dinham reported that as a result
of working in teams, teachers took on more responsibility for their professional growth and con-
tributed more to the school. Further, Dinham noted that the notion of teamwork contributed to a
change in attitude towards peer observation of teaching practice; an important element identified
in the LfL scaffold.
Central to the notion of LfL is the collective approach to improving student learning. As studies
highlight the primacy of the classroom teacher in improving student learning (Hattie, 2009) the
development of leaders with direct day-by-day responsibility for the development and support
of classroom teachers presents as a critical element in enhancing the capacity of teams in schools.
The review of the LfL literature revealed that the level of leadership traditionally occupied by year,
stage or faculty leaders was indeed an important resource for schools (Dinham, 2007b; ONeill,
2000). Nonetheless, while outlining the potential contribution from these leaders, scholars simi-
larly noted the complex nature of the role (ONeill, 2000) and the lack of training and adequate
preparation (Dinham, 2007b) for staff moving into positions involving team leadership.
Given departments, and their practices and effects, may vary as much or more within schools as
they do across them (ONeill, 2000: 13), it is evident that schools may benefit from first engaging
in dialogue to explore the various conceptions of leadership that exist and then seek to establish a
common approach to team leadership in order to maximize the effectiveness of school teams. Cer-
tainly, teams and specifically the leadership of these teams have been identified as an area in need
of further study (Cranston, 2006; Dinham, 2007b).
The solution in bringing a focus on the importance of teams also reinforces LfL as a collec-
tive, community-wide activity. Studies revealing the importance of team development in schools
(Cuttance, 2001; Moos, 2006; Murphy and Meyers, 2009) noted that effective teams improved

484
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 485

role satisfaction (Cranston and Ehrich, 2009; Cranston et al., 2003); enhanced trust (Muijs and
Harris, 2007); provided a forum for teachers to challenge preconceived ideas about teaching
practice (Schon, 1987); and importantly, helped to facilitate and enhance professional learning
(Dinham, 2009).
Scholars have noted that the nature and purpose of leadership is the ability of those within a
school to work together, constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively
(Harris, 2004: 5). Here, references to individual leaders are absent and the collective, interactive
nature of leadership is highlighted. The emergence and importantly, the strong synergy of teams
with LfL as explored throughout this discussion, reinforces the notion of enhancing team effective-
ness as an important addition to the LfL scaffold.

Conclusion
The emergence of authoritative leadership in this study reinforces the important role of school prin-
cipals and opens an area for further research to investigate the effectiveness of how authoritative
leaders distribute leadership within their school contexts. The inclusion of authoritative leadership
also highlights the notion of LfL as a community activity underpinned by learning and relation-
ships. Accordingly, the LfL scaffold reflects a distributed view of leadership espoused by scholars
such as Harris (2009) and Spillane et al. (2008). The emergence of the importance of effective
school teams similarly upholds this view of LfL. Given that participants in this research consis-
tently rated their experiences within their teams positively, this factor presented as an important
element in assisting schools cultivate LfL within their communities. Therefore, in combination
with authoritative leadership, how schools can enhance the effectiveness of teams presents as an
important area for further research.
This research outlines a scaffold that has the potential to foster LfL as an organizational beha-
viour (Youitt, 2004), a dynamic that can emerge anywhere, anytime. This means that LfL is an
activity that is not limited to those in formal authority (Lambert, 2002). The factor analysis con-
firmed empirically the reliability of the LfL School Survey and clarified further the scaffold and
orientation for LfL. The 10 factors identified in the factor analysis of this study provide a clear
framework that presents as potentially a rich resource for schools. Importantly, through offering
a research-based scaffold, the factor analysis solution can assist schools to explore a holistic con-
ception of LfL, in which leadership is understood to be a whole-school community activity, avail-
able to anyone who has the potential to positively influence student learning.

References
Andrews D, Conway J, Dawson M et al. (2004) School Revitalization The IDEAS Way. ACEL Monograph
Series, 34.
Avery G (2004) Understanding Leadership. London: SAGE Publications.
Baumrind D (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal
of Early Adolescence 11(1): 5695.
Bezzina M (2007) Moral purpose and shared leadership: the leaders transforming learning and learners pilot
study. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference.
Bezzina M (2008) We do make a difference: shared moral purpose and shared leadership in the pursuit of
learning. Leading and Managing 14(1): 3859.
Boal KB and Schultz PL (2007) Storytelling, time, and evolution: the role of strategic leadership in complex
adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 411428.

485
486 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Brown R (2005) Learning communities and the nature of teacher participation in a learning community.
Literacy Learning: the Middle Years 13(2): 815.
Caldwell BJ (2010) The impact of high-stakes test-driven accountability. Professional Voice 8(1): 4953.
Camburn E and Han S (2009) Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional
change. In: Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Springer, 2545.
Comrey A and Lee H (1992) A First Course in Factor Analysis. San Diego, CA: San Diego, University of
California Academic Press.
Cooper C and Boyd J (2007) Schools as collaborative learning communities. Education Horizons 9(6): 1012.
Cranston N (2006) Leading from the middle or locked in the middle? Exploring the world of the middle-level
non-state school leader. Leading and Managing 12(1): 91106.
Cranston N and Ehrich L (2009) Senior management teams in schools: understanding their dynamics, enhan-
cing their effectiveness. Leading and Managing 15(1): 1425.
Cranston N, Ehrich L and Billot J (2003) The secondary school principalship in Australia and New Zealand:
an investigation of changing roles. Leadership and Policy in Schools 2(3): 159188.
Crowther F, Kaagan SS, Ferguson M et al. (2002) Developing Teacher Leaders: How Teacher Leadership
Enhances School Success. California: Corwin Press.
Cuttance P (2001) School innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Day C (2009) Capacity building through layered leadership: sustaining the turnaround. In: Harris A (ed.)
Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Springer, 121137.
Day C (2011) The layering of leadership. In: Roberston J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership and Learning.
London: SAGE Publications, 1326.
Deo B and Phan HP (2006) Approaches to learning in the Southern Pacific region: a confirmatory factor anal-
ysis study. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Adelaide.
Available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/deo06050.pdf.
Dimmock C (2012) Leadership, Capacity Building and School Improvement: Concepts, Themes and Impact.
New York: Routledge.
Dinham S (2007a) Authoritative leadership, action learning and student accomplishment. Paper presented at
The Leadership Challenge: Improving Learning in Schools conference. Available at: http://www.acer.edu.
au/documents/RC2007_ConfProceedings.pdf
Dinham S (2007b) The secondary head of department and the achievement of exceptional student outcomes.
Journal of Educational Administration 45(1): 6279.
Dinham S (2008) How to Get Your School Moving and Improving. Victoria: ACER Press.
Dinham S (2009) The relationship between distributed leadership and action learning in schools: a case study.
In: Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Springer, 139154.
Dinham S and Scott C (2007) Parenting, teaching and leadership styles. Australian Educational Leader 29(1):
3032, 45.
Dinham S and Scott C (2008) Responsive, demanding leadership. Management Today April: 3235.
Duignan P (2008) Leadership: Influencing, Relationships and Authentic Presence. Victoria: Centre for Stra-
tegic Education.
Durrant J (2004) Teachers leading change: frameworks and key ingredients for school improvement. Leading
and Managing 10(2): 1029.
Earl L and Timperley H (2009) Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work. In: Earl L and
Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement.
Springer, 112.
Edmonson S, Fisher A, Brown G et al. (2001) Creating a collaborative culture. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration, Houston, TX.

486
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 487

Elmore R (2000) Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker
Institute.
Fleming J and Kleinhenz E (2007) Towards a Moving School: Developing a Professional Learning and Per-
formance Culture. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.
Ford JK, MacCallum RC and Tait M (1986) The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychol-
ogy: a critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology 39(2): 291314.
Frost D (2006) The concept of agency in leadership for learning. Leading and Managing 12(2): 1928.
Fullan M (2001) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan M (2005) Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. California: Corwin.
Garson D (2004) Syllabus for PA 765: Quantitative research in public administration. Available at: http://
www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm.
Goleman D (2000) Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review MarchApril.
Gronn P (2002) Distributed leadership. In: Hallinger KLP (ed.) 2nd International Handbook of Educational
Leadership and Administration. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic, 653696.
Gurr D (2008) Principal Leadership: What Does it Do, What Does it Look Like, and How Might it Evolve?
ACEL Monograph Series 42.
Gurr D, Drysdale L and Mulford B (2007) Instructional leadership in three Australian schools. Paper pre-
sented at the New Imagery for Schools and Schooling: Challenging, Creating Connecting ACEL Con-
ference, Sydney Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia.
Hallinger P (2009) Leadership for 21st century schools: from instructional leadership to leadership for learn-
ing. Paper presented at public lecture, Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2009) Distributed leadership in schools: does system policy make a difference. In:
Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Springer, 101117.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (2011) Leadership and student learning outcomes. In: Roberston J and Timperley H
(eds) Leadership and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 5670.
Hargreaves A (2011) Fusion and the future of leadership. In: Roberston J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership
and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 227242.
Hargreaves A and Fink D (2006) Sustainable Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harris A (2004) Teacher leadership and distributed leadership: an exploration of the literature. Leading and
Managing 10(2): 19.
Harris A (2009a) Distributed leadership: what we know. In: Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different
Perspectives. United Kingdom: Springer, 1124.
Harris A (2009b) Distributed School Leadership: Evidence, Issues and Future Directions. ACEL Monograph
Series, 44.
Harris A and Day C (2002) Teacher Leadership reflective practice and school improvement. In: Leithwood K
and Hallinger P (eds.) 2nd International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 957977.
Harris A and Lambert L (2003) Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Hattie J (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Haworth B and Marshall D (2005) Gambling beliefs and gambling self-efficacy survey results and
factor analysis. Paper presented at the National Association for Gambling Studies Conference, Alice
Springs. Available at: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn393398903788397;res
IELHSS.
IBM (2010) SPSS Statistics Premium Version 19. Somers, NY: IBM.

487
488 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Kachigan SK (1986) Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate and Multivariate

Methods. New York: Radius Press.
Kezar A (2000) Pluralistic leadership. About Campus 5(3): 6.
Lambert L (2002) Towards a deeper theory of constructivist leadership. In: Lambert L, Walker D,
Zimmerman D et al. (eds.) The Constructivist Leader, 2nd edn. New York: Teacher College Press
National Staff Development Council, 3462.
Lave J and Wenger T (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University
of Cambridge Press.
Leech N, Barrett K and Morgan G (2005) SPSS for Intermediate statistics: Use and Interpretation. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Leithwood K (2004) What we know about successful leadership. The Practicing Administrator 26(4): 47.
Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
Leadership & Management 28(1): 2742.
Lester PE (1987) Development and factor analysis of the teacher job satisfaction questionnaire (TJSQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement 47(1): 223233.
Lindelow J and Scott J (1989) Managing Conflict School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence, 1st edn.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Lindstrom C, Sharma MD and Symposium US (2008) Initial development of a physics goal orientation survey
using factor analysis. Paper presented at the symposium proceedings: visualization and concept develop-
ment. Available at: http://science.unizerve.edu.au/pubs/procs/2008/060.pdf.
Louis K (2006) Organizing for Educational Change. New York: Routledge.
Louis K, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom K et al. (2010) Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning:
Final Report of Research Findings. Wallce Foundation.
Louis KS, Mayrowetz D, Smiley M et al. (2009) The role of sensemaking and trust in developing distributed
leadership. In: Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. United Kingdom: Springer,
157180.
MacBeath J (2006) Leadership for learning: quest for meaning. Leading and Managing 12(2): 19.
Macbeath J (2008) Leadership for learning: exploring similarity and living with difference. In: Macbeath J
and Cheng Y (eds.) Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense, 112.
Marsh S (2012) Improving student learning in schools: exploring leadership for learning as a community
activity. Leading and Managing 18(1): 107121.
Mascall B, Leithwood K, Strauss T et al. (2009) The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers
academic optimism. In: Harris A (ed.) Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives. Springer, 81100.
McAdamis S (2010) Create a conversation. Journal of Staff Development 31(3): 2427.
Milofsky C (2000) The Role of Authoritative Leadership in Voluntary Organizations. New Orleans, LA:
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Moos L (2006) Leadership for learning: reflection on democratic purposes. Leading and Managing 12(2):
6472.
Morrison K (2002) School Leadership and Complexity Theory. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Muijs D and Harris A (2007) Teacher leadership in (In)action: three case studies of contrasting schools.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35(1): 111134.
Mulford B, Silins H and Leithwood K (2004) Educational Leadership for Organizational Learning and
Improved Student Outcomes. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Murphy J and Meyers CV (2009) Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround schools: insights from the
corporate, government, and non-profit sectors. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
37(1): 927.

488
Marsh et al.: Scaffolding leadership for learning in school education 489

Newmann FM, Smith B, Allensworth E et al. (2001) Instructional program coherence: what it is and why it
should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23(4): 297321.
ONeill J (2000) So that I can more or less get them to do things they really dont want to. Capturing the situ-
ated complexities of the secondary school head of department. Journal of Educational Enquiry 1(1): 1334.
Oekerman C (1997) Facilitating and Learning at the Edge of Chaos: Expanding the Context of Experiential
Education.
Penlington C, Kington A and Day C (2008) Leadership in improving schools: a qualitative perspective.
School Leadership & Management 28(1): 6582.
Perkins D (2003) King Arthurs Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organiza-
tions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Plowman DA, Solansky S, Beck TE et al. (2007) The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization. The
Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 341356.
Portin B, Knapp M, Plecki M et al. (2008) Supporting and guiding learning-focused leadership in US schools.
In: Macbeath J and Cheng Y (eds) Leadership For Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam:
Sense, 139150.
Reeves D (2008) Leadership and Learning. ACEL Monograph Series 43.
Robinson V (2007) School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. ACEL
Monograph Series 41.
Robinson VMJ, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of
the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635674.
Sackney L and Mitchell C (2008) Leadership for learning: a Canadian perspective. In: Macbeath J and Cheng
Y (eds) Leadership for Learning: International Perspectives. Rotterdam: Sense, 91100.
Schmitt N (1996) Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment 8(4): 350353.
Schon D (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schratz M (2006) Leading and learning: odd couple or powerful match? Leading and Managing 12(2): 4053.
Scott C and Dinham S (2005) Parenting, teaching and self esteem. Australian Educational Leader 27(1): 2830.
Senge P (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Senge P, Cambron-McCabe N, Lucas T et al. (2000) Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for
Educators, Parents and Everyone who Cares About Education. New York: Doubleday.
Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C et al. (1999) The Dance of Change: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Mastering
the Challenges of Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday.
Silins H, Mulford B, Zarins S et al. (2000) Leadership for organizational learning in Australian secondary
schools. In: Leithwood K (ed.) Understanding Schools as Intelligent Systems. Elsevier, 267291.
Silins H, Zarins S and Mulford B (2002) What characteristics and processes define a school as a learning orga-
nization? Is this a useful concept to apply to schools? International Education Journal 3(1): 2432.
Small K (2006) Application of factor analysis in the development of the social impact perception (sip) scale.
Paper presented at the CAUTHE 2006: To the City and Beyond, Footscray, Vic. Available at: http://
search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn681986362635399;resIELHSS.
Southworth G (2002) Instructional Leadership in Schools: reflections and empirical evidence. School Lead-
ership & Management 22(1): 7391.
Southworth G (2011) Connecting leadership and learning. In: Roberston J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership
and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 7185.
Spillane J and Diamond J (2007) Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Spillane JP, Healey K, Parize LM et al. (2011) A Distributed perspective on learning leadership. In: Roberston
J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 159171.

489
490 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4)

Stoll L (2011) Leading professional learning communities. In: Roberston J and Timperley H (eds) Leadership
and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 103117.
Stoll L and Temperley J (2009) Creative leadership: a challenge of our times. School Leadership & Management
29(1): 6578.
Tabachnick B and Fidell L (1996) Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Timperley H and Robertson J (2011) Establishing platforms for leadership and learning. In: Roberston J and
Timperley H (eds) Leadership and Learning. London: SAGE Publications, 312.
Timperley HS (2006) Learning challenges Involved in developing leading for learning. Educational Manage-
ment Administration & Leadership 34(4): 546563.
Uhl-Bien M, Marion R and McKelvey B (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the
industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 298318.
Youitt DJ (2004) Sailing into uncharted territories: is teacher leadership the key to school reform? Leading
and Managing 10(2): 3040.

Author biographies
Scott Marsh is currently Deputy Headmaster of an independent school in Sydney, New South
Wales. He is a PhD candidate at Macquarie University.

Associate Professor Manjula Wanikanayake is a lecturer in the Institute for Early Childhood,
Faculty of Human Sciences at Macquarie University.

Professor Ian Gibson Professorial Fellow, Teacher Education at Hope University, Liverpool,
United Kingdom.

490