Content uploaded by Engin Karadağ
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Engin Karadağ on Jun 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement:
a meta-analysis study
Engin Karadag
˘
•
Fatih Bektas¸
•
NazımC¸og
˘
altay
•
Mikail Yalc¸ın
Received: 22 May 2014 / Revised: 18 January 2015 / Accepted: 30 January 2015 / Published online: 6 February 2015
Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2015
Abstract In this meta-analysis study, different leadership
styles were combined, and the relationship between
educational leadership and student achievement was ana-
lyzed. In the literature review, 57 research articles/disser-
tations, independent from one another, were brought
together, and 28,964 study subjects were included in the
sample group. The results of the analyses performed with a
random effects model revealed that educational leadership
has a medium effect on students’ achievement. As was
expected, the most comprehensive effect among leadership
styles was found in distributive and transformational
leadership. Considering the effect of educational leadership
on students’ achievement, it is recommended to examine
the effect of leadership on other components of school and
shareholders in future studies.
Keywords Leadership Educational leadership
Achievement Meta-analysis
Introduction
The great man leadership approach, which dominated
leadership discussions by the end of the 1800s, encouraged
the emergence of the trait leadership approach at the be-
ginning of the 1900s. This period was characterized by the
discussion of a ‘‘singularized power’’ and ‘‘authority.’’ The
source of this power and authority was the hierarchical
power granted by the group to the leader because of the
leader’s innate traits. The concept that ‘‘there is no sig-
nificant correlation between leadership and physical prop-
erties and high intelligence’’ expressed in the studies
conducted by Stogdill (1948, 1950) puts an end to the
notion that a leader bears innate leadership traits that are
specified in the trait approach and therefore puts an end to
the trait approach. In addition, Stogdill (1948) expressed
that capacity, success, responsibility, participation, and si-
tuational assessment constitute the sub-categories of the
personal factors associated with leadership and that it was
not possible to be a leader with certain traits. In the 1940s,
group leadership began to prevail in the leadership field.
Whyte (1943) described group leadership as an influence
free from relationships based on power and self-interest. In
group studies in the 1950s, the group approach was shown
to be effective and concordantly paved the way for be-
havioral theories that attempted to explain leadership by
the tendencies of the leader. These studies prompted the
first experimental studies on leadership to be conducted at
Ohio State University (Halpin and Winer 1957) and the
University of Michigan (Katz and Kahn 1952), which were
the sources of the first modern studies. In line with this
development, in the 1960s, the behavioral leadership ap-
proach became recognized. Fiedler (1967) explained that
the behavioral approach was designed to help employees
perform their jobs in a coordinated manner. The Ohio
State and Michigan studies discussed leadership in terms of
two behavioral dimensions: consideration and initiating
structure.
After this period, situational leadership approaches
were conceived; these use the situation as the reference
point. These theories are as follows: efficient leadership
theory (Fiedler 1967), which puts the tendency toward duty
E. Karadag
˘
(&) F. Bektas¸ M. Yalc¸ın
Faculty of Education, University of Eskis¸ehir Osmangazi,
Meselik, Eskisehir, Turkey
e-mail: engin.karadag@hotmail.com; enginkaradag@ogu.edu.tr
N. C¸og
˘
altay
Faculty of Education, University of Mus¸ Alparslan, Mus¸, Turkey
123
Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2015) 16:79–93
DOI 10.1007/s12564-015-9357-x
or relationships to the forefront; 3D leadership theory
(Reddin 1970), which adds the dimension of efficiency to
the duty and relationship dimensions of situational lead-
ership theory; path-goal theory (Hause 1971), which puts
an emphasis on the leader’s motivational roles; situational
leadership theory (Hersey and Blanchard 1972), which
associates the emergence of leaders to the situation rather
than the person; and normative leadership theory (Vroom
and Yetton 1973), which considers decision making the
most important task performed by leaders.
After the 1990s, research based on new theories that were
discovered included shared leadership (Gronn 2006), dis-
tributed leadership (Elmore 2000; Gronn 2000, 2002; Spil-
lane 2005), servant leadership (Greenleaf 2002), ethical
leadership (Brown and Trevino 2006), spiritual leadership
(Fry 2003), and authentic leadership (Gardner et al. 2011).
As stated above, the discussion of the theory and classifica-
tion regarding the concept of leadership has continued until
today, and it seems that it will persist for years to come.
Educational leadership: a conception framework
There are a variety of perspectives concerning leadership in
terms of institutions and organizations, and it is a very
popular research subject in the field of education (Kru
¨
ger
and Scheerens 2012). Leadership is associated with schools
and administrators in education studies. School adminis-
trators are expected to guide all employees and students,
support them, undertake all responsibility, and inspire them
to meet the objectives of the school. Furthermore, school
administrators pave the way for curriculum reform and the
development of a positive learning environment (Cotton
2003; Hallinger 2005; Huber 2004; Nichols 2011).
Studies about school leaders accelerated with effective
school research in the 1970s. Research conducted in
England and North America found student achievement in
certain schools to be greater than in other schools. The
researchers argued that this situation could not be ex-
plained just by the unique individual and social charac-
teristics of the students but that the real difference between
the schools was to the leadership behaviors of the school
administrators. Hence, educational leadership began to be
discussed more frequently in education studies because of
this finding (Bamburg and Andrews 1991; Kru
¨
ger and
Scheerens 2012
; Ross and Gray 2006).
The school leader is the person who plans and maintains
program development, allocates resources, improves the
performance of employees and students by encouraging
them, and guides them to meet the objectives of the school.
Upon determining the objectives of the school, school
leaders ensure that these objectives are stated and agreed
upon with the students and teachers. Furthermore, these
leaders manage the out-of-school activities. They direct the
employee and student activities in other areas of the school,
encourage local organizations to work with the school, and
collaborate with families and business organizations
(Busher et al. 2000). In conclusion, school leaders under-
take the main responsibility of ensuring that student
achievement is at its maximum potential.
The studies conducted on student achievement assume that
there is a direct relationship between educational leadership
and student learning. Additionally, it is thought that educa-
tional leadership has an indirect effect on student’s learning
(Balcı 2007; Bulris 2009). Despite the high number of studies
that show that educational leadership does not have a direct
effect on student’s achievement, school leaders are generally
held responsible for the achievement of students (Ross and
Gray 2006). As reflected in the literature, the importance and
size of this effect are multi-dimensional and open to discus-
sion. Within this scope, school leaders focus on a common
goal and learning objectives to create and maintain effective
and successful schools (Leithwood and Riehl 2003).
Many researchers agree that school leaders have an
important effect on all individuals who comprise the school
community, particularly on teachers and students. How-
ever, the importance and extent of this influence is open to
discussion has multi-dimensional characteristics. Further-
more, the effect of school leaders on students’ learning and
achievement levels, which are among the outputs—or re-
sults—of the school, is a complex issue. The outputs and
student levels in question are affected by various in-school
and out-of-school environmental factors. It is difficult to
determine experimentally to what extent leadership affects
in-school and out-of-school activities.
The fact that students do not interact only with teachers
in their school suggests that many variables have an in-
fluence on the behaviors that students are supposed to
display. The fact that the behaviors of school leaders, as
one of the aforementioned variables, are the focus of a
number of studies underlines the importance of this issue.
Studies that aim to reveal the relationship between school
leaders’ various behaviors and student achievement asso-
ciate the behaviors of school administrators with exams
whose validity and reliability values were widely agreed
upon. School leaders can achieve sustainable developments
as a consequence of determining, measuring, and control-
ling factors regarding expectations and standards of school
life, except for the tests on which students are expected to
be successful (Schlechty 2005; Mullis et al. 2012).
Research hypothesis
Today, many studies that investigate the effects of educa-
tional leadership on various organizational outputs are
80 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
available. More specifically, the number of studies in this
scope that investigate the effect of educational leadership
on students and student achievement, which are the basic
requirements of the school, is rapidly increasing. Many
studies conducted within this scope have found a positive
relationship between educational leadership and student
achievement (Boyer 2012; Harris 2012a, b; Nelson 2012;
Noe 2012; Raines 2012; Tindle 2012; Troutman 2012).
Furthermore (1), leadership style is the manner and ap-
proach of providing direction, implementing plans, and
motivating people. As observed by the employees, it in-
cludes the total pattern of explicit and implicit actions
performed by their leader (Newstrom and Davis 1993), (2)
the courses studied to determine academic achievement
through the research, and (3) the level of education at the
school where the research was conducted and that could
affect the average influence obtained in this study was
determined as the moderator. Various studies found effects
of leadership styles that were derived from theories of
educational organization (such as instructional leadership)
and theories of service and production-oriented organiza-
tions (such as transformational leadership) on student
achievement for the moderator of leadership styles
(Schrum and Levin 2013; Shatzer et al. 2013; Shin et al.
2013). In this context, the most substantial moderator
variables were leadership styles. Additionally, results of
the studies were used to define the other moderators. For
example, the findings of the researches examining the ef-
fect of leadership on the academic achievement in various
lessons differ: Gulbin (2008) and Maeyer et al. (2007)
found that the leadership does not have an effect on
mathematics achievement, while Braun (2008) and Estapa
(2009) found that it has an effect on language achievement.
The similar differences occur for the level of education at
the schools: On one hand, Gulbin (2008) and Odegaard
(2008) found that the leadership does not have an effect on
the student achievement in secondary level. On the other
hand, Davis (2010) and May (2010) explored that it has a
considerably high effect on student achievement in ele-
mentary level. As can be seen in these researches, the effect
of leadership on student achievement varies with both the
courses of studies and the level of education at the schools.
With all these variables, in light of previous studies’ re-
sults, the following hypotheses were tested in this study:
H1 Educational leadership has a positive effect on stu-
dents’ academic achievement.
H2 Leadership style is a moderating variable for the
positive effect of educational leadership on students’ aca-
demic achievement.
H3 The courses studied to determine academic achieve-
ment within the studies are the moderating variables for the
positive effect of educational leadership on students’ aca-
demic achievement.
H4 The level of education at the school within the studies
is a moderating variable for the positive effect of educa-
tional leadership on students’ academic achievement.
Methods
Study design
In this study, the effect of educational leadership on stu-
dents’ achievement was tested with a meta-analysis design.
Meta-analysis is a design used to gather the results of
several independent research studies on certain subjects
and to apply a statistical analysis on the findings acquired
(Littel et al. 2008; Petitti 2000
; Wampold et al. 2000).
Scanning strategy and inclusion
First, a literature review was performed in ProQuest and
EBSCO academic databases to determine the studies to be
included in the meta-analysis. At this phase, the leadership
term was taken as a base, and the terms achievement, academic
achievement, student achievement were used in the title, key-
words, and abstract fields. The publication deadline to be in-
cluded was September 2013. Additionally, doctoral theses and
research that was published in peer-reviewed journals were
included in the analysis. The reason for the inclusion of dis-
sertations was to remove the possible publication bias.
Several strategies were used to determine the appropriate
research to include in the meta-analysis. First, the research
process was reduced to certain keywords, titles, and ab-
stracts, and 172 research articles/dissertations were selected
upon reviewing all research conducted on leadership and
student achievement. Then, the research abstracts were re-
viewed. Among these, 51 research articles/dissertations were
not related to educational leadership, 40 research articles/
dissertations did not specify r/R
2
values, and 11 research
articles/dissertations were qualitative studies. Thus, 102 re-
search articles/dissertations were excluded from the analy-
sis. In the second phase, the remaining 70 research articles/
dissertations were analyzed in detail; 57 of these articles/
dissertations were found to be appropriate, and the other 13
were deemed inappropriate. Descriptive statistics on those
57 studies are given in Table 1.
Inclusion criteria defined for this study are as follows:
• The studies were conducted between 2008 and 2013.
• The studies include statistical information required for
correlational meta-analysis.
• The studies measure educational leadership.
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 81
123
Coding and operational definitions
Coding is a data extracting process during which clear
data and data appropriate for research are extracted from
the compiled information in the studies. A coding form
was created before the analysis, and the coding was
performed in accordance with this form. The main ob-
jective of this procedure was to develop a special coding
system that was both general and unique enough not to
miss the characteristics of any type of research. The
coding form created for the study included the following
components:
• References of the research
• Information on sampling
• Data collection tool(s)
• Information on methodology
• Quantitative values
The operational definition is to make the concepts of
research testable and to explain the variables, standard
observations, and measurement processes according to the
purpose. In this context, the definitions of the variables in
the study are as follows:
• Moderator variable: The variables that are thought to
cause the effect size distribution to become heteroge-
neous are leadership style, the level of education at the
school, and the courses studied to determine academic
achievement within the studies.
• Student achievement: the amount of knowledge and
skills students obtain from a particular curriculum. The
scores that students receive on examinations conducted
by central or local authorities were used as the student
achievement (math and reading skills) variable.
• Distributive leadership: Distributive leadership is more
than the distribution of different leadership roles to
teachers in schools; it draws a frame of how leadership
practices are implemented (Bennett et al. 2003; Gronn
2003; Spillane et al. 2001, 2003).
• Transformational leadership: Transformational Lead-
ership was mentioned by Burns (1978) at first and then
developed as a leadership theory by Bass et al. The
main purpose of transformational leadership is to
conduct an organizational transformation by adapting
to a rapidly changing environment.
• Instructional leadership: Instructional leaders are
strong, guiding, and target-oriented culture architects.
Instructional leaders focus primarily on improving
students’ academic output by making the strategies
and activities of the school compatible with the
academic mission of the school (Hallinger 2005).
• Leadership practices: are based on the Leadership
Practices Inventory developed by Kouzes and Posner
(2010). Leadership practices are examined under five
main topics: modeling the way, inspiring a shared
vision, challenging the process (taking risks to take the
organization/institution a step further, seeking new
ways, searching for opportunities), enabling others to
act, and encouraging the heart.
• Other leadership: are the studies in which there is no
theoretical style.
Table 1 Features of the studies included in the meta-analysis
Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Publication year of research 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 –
n 510121210857
% 8.7 17.5 21.0 21.0 17.5 14.0 100
Type of research Dissertations Article –
n 50 7 57
% 87.7 12.3 100
Leadership styles of research Leadership practices Transformational Instructional Distributed Others
n 24 15 8 2 8 57
% 42.1 26.3 14.0 3.5 14.0 100
Courses of research Mixed Math Reading Language
n 34 12 8 3 57
% 59.6 21.0 14.0 5.2 100
The level of education at the school Elementary High Middle Mixed Secondary
n 24 13 9 7 3 56
% 42.1 22.8 15.7 12.2 5.2 100
82 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
Data analysis
The effect size acquired in the meta-analysis is a standard
measure value used to determine the strength and direction
of the relationship in the study (Borenstein et al. 2009).
Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was determined to be
the effect size in this study. The correlation coefficient is
between ?1 and -1, and this r value is converted into the
value stated in table z (Hedges and Olkin 1985). Provided
that more than one correlation value is given between the
same structure categories in correlational meta-analysis
studies, two different approaches are used to determine
which to use in the meta-analysis (Borenstein et al. 2009;
Kulinskaya et al. 2008). In this study, (1) all concerned
correlations were included in the analysis and accepted as
independent studies if all correlations are independent (for
example, if the same people gave different samples in a
study), and (2) the average of the correlations is used when
dependent correlations are given (for example, if the values
that are between the sub-dimensions of transformational
leadership and student achievement or between the items
falling under the same category with the leadership were
given). There are a variety of methods to correct these
average correlations; however, most of these methods can
result in high-correlation estimations (Schyns and Schillng
2013). In this study, a conservative estimation was used as
the average correlation, which creates a conservative esti-
mation of the entire correlation.
There are two main models in meta-analysis: the fixed
effects model and the random effects model. To deter-
mine which model to use, whether the model’s prereq-
uisites were met by the characteristics of the research
studies included in the meta-analysis was considered
(Borenstein et al. 2009; Hedges and Olkin 1985;
Kulinskaya et al. 2008; Littel et al. 2008; Wampold
et al. 2000). The fixed effects model covers (1) the as-
sumption that the research is the same in terms of
functionality, and the objective is to estimate the effect
size for only one population defined. If it is believed that
the research is not equal in terms of functionality and if
generalizations through the estimated effect size are to
be made for greater populations, then the model that
should be used is the random effects model. When all
conditions were taken into consideration, the random
effects model was applied in the meta-analysis processes
in this study. A comprehensive meta-analysis program
was used in the meta-analysis processes.
Moderator analysis
Moderator analysis is an analysis method to test the
direction of the differences between subgroups and be-
tween the average effect sizes of the variables.
Moderator analysis in a meta-analysis study is planned in
accordance with the objective of the study, and the
procedures are applied in accordance with this plan
(Littel et al. 2008). The statistical significance of the
difference between moderator variables is tested using
the Q statistic method developed by Hedges and Olkin
(1985). In this method, Q is divided into two variables,
Q-between (
Q
b
) and Q-within (Q
w
), and the analyses are
conducted using these two separate Q
s
. Q
w
tests the in-
ternal homogeneity of the moderator variable, and Q
b
tests the homogeneity between the groups (Borenstein
et al. 2009; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Kulinskaya et al.
2008).
In this study, only the Q
b
values were given because
only the statistical significance of the differences between
moderators was required. In this study, three moderator
variables were determined, which were thought to play a
role in the average affect size. The first variable was the
leadership styles; a different style was approached in each
research study, each style was measured, and the rela-
tionship between this type of leadership style and the
achievement level was reviewed. This moderating variable
was the leadership criteria used.
In the study, the moderators of leadership styles include:
(1) distributive leadership, (2) transformational leadership,
(3) instructional leadership, (4) leadership behaviors, and
(5) others. Distributive leadership is the process of dis-
tributing tasks between the leader and followers at first and
then integrating the tasks completed by group members.
Therefore, the function of distributive leadership is a pro-
cess that involves apportioning tasks between group
members and completing tasks based upon more than one
leader (Spillane 2006). In this context, distributive leader-
ship involves more than distributing different leadership
roles to teachers in schools; it draws a frame of how
leadership practices are implemented (Bennett et al. 2003;
Gronn 2003; Spillane et al. 2004). Transformational
leadership was first mentioned by Burns (1978) and then
developed as a leadership theory by Bass et al. The main
purpose of transformational leadership is to facilitate an
organizational transformation by adapting to a rapidly
changing environment. Instructional leadership is one of
the most important concepts related to learning and
education within school processes. Hallinger (2005) de-
scribes instructional leaders as strong, guiding, and target-
oriented culture architects. Instructional leaders focus pri-
marily on improving students’ academic output by making
the strategies and activities of the school compatible with
the academic mission of the school. Leadership practices
are based on the Leadership Practices Inventory developed
by Kouzes and Posner (2010). Leadership practices are
examined under five main topics: modeling the way, in-
spiring a shared vision, challenging the process (taking
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 83
123
risks to take the organization/institution a step further,
seeking new ways, searching for opportunities), enabling
others to act, and encouraging the heart. Studies under the
title of others are the studies in which there is no theore-
tical style.
Second, the level of education at the schools in which
the research studies were conducted was determined as a
moderating variable because it was thought to affect the
average effect size. Additionally, the courses, which are the
subject matter of exams that measure student achievement,
were evaluated in terms of whether they qualified as a
moderator by considering the relationship with which les-
son is examined into. In addition, the relevant sampling
group was found to be a suitable moderating variable.
Reliability and validity of the study
The credibility of the results is considered to be one of the
most important criteria in a meta-analysis. Reliability and
validity are criteria that are commonly used in studies.
Particularly in qualitative research, these concepts are the
most important elements in determining scientificity. In
this context, the things made for reliability and validity are
as below:
The studies included in meta-analysis could not be
inevitably identical. One of the most critical issues is to
determine how many of these studies are similar. It cannot
be assumed that there is an objective methodology, and it
varies from study to study. In this context, the criteria for
inclusion determined by the researchers are presented in
the section of methodology in detail.
• Apples and pears can be considered a symbol of the
limitations and the power of meta-analysis simultane-
ously. In this study, while determining the criteria for
inclusion and exclusion, the field of study (leadership
and student achievement) was evaluated by considering
all the features together. The objective determined for
student achievement was to evaluate overall achieve-
ment but not to evaluate special achievements (skill).
• The moderator analyses in the study allowed for some
comparisons and for seeing the effect according to the
moderators.
• The random effects model was used because the studies
included in the meta-analysis could not be functionally
equivalent.
• Sensitivity was shown for publication bias in this study.
Publication bias was prevented by conducting the study
on both published and unpublished studies. In addition,
no evidence was observed of publication bias by a
funnel plot or tests, and it was determined that effect
size is not influenced by publication bias (see the
Results section for publication bias findings).
• To determine the reliability of the coding system, two
researchers performed the coding process, and Cohen’s
Kappa reliability coefficient between the coders was
determined to be .93.
• The effect size calculations for each study included in
the meta-analysis were presented in the ‘‘Appendix.’’
The basic condition for a study that uses sampling to
reveal facts is that samples represent the population in the
best way. However, regardless of the strength of the sam-
ple, it will never be the same as the universe because of
sampling errors, which are the total errors that occur in-
cidentally due to the units included or excluded from the
sample. If the study had an infinite sample, the sampling
error would be zero. In contrast, the samples of the studies
included in the meta-analysis were not infinite. Therefore,
it was inevitable that a sampling error occurred in the
studies. In this context, a random effects model was used
instead of a fixed effects model with the assumption that
the real effect size was the same in all studies. Addition-
ally, publication bias and the normality of the effect size of
the studies were included in meta-analysis (see Borenstein
et al. 2009).
Findings
Findings related to the publication bias
Publication bias is based on the assumption that research
on a definite subject is not published completely. Because
research with no statistically significant relationships or
with low relationships is not considered valuable enough to
be published, the total effect size is affected in a negative
way, and the average effect size increases non-objectivity
(Borenstein et al. 2009; Hanrahan et al. 2013; Kulinskaya
et al. 2008). The effect of such publication bias, which can
also be called lost data, affects the overall research inves-
tigation of meta-analysis studies in a negative way. In this
sense, publication bias was considered in meta-analysis
studies. For this study, the following questions were asked
to analyze publication bias:
• Is there any evidence of publication bias?
• Is it possible that the general effect size is the result of
any publication bias?
• How much of the total effect size is affiliated with the
publication bias?
In meta-analyses, several calculation methods are used
to give statistical answers to the questions covering the
84 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
possibilities stated above. The most common method is the
funnel plot. Answers given by this method may not be
accurately objective; however, they offer the opportunity
for us to see whether the studies are written with a publi-
cation bias. The funnel plots of the research included in the
meta-analysis of this study are shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1,
no evidence of the possibility of any effect of publication
bias was observed. A funnel plot is expected to be asym-
metric at a significant level in the case of any publication
bias. In particular, intensification (particularly on the right)
of the line exhibiting the average effect size of the research,
which is to be intensified at the bottom of the funnel, is an
indicator of the possibility of publication bias. In this study,
no evidence of publication bias was observed in any of the
57 studies subjected to meta-analysis.
Although no publication bias was observed in funnel
plot, the results of Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill test,
which is applied to determine the effect size related to the
publication bias acquired with the meta-analysis using the
random effect model, are given in Table 2. As shown in
Table 2, there is no difference between the effect observed
and the artificial effect size created to fix the effect of the
publication bias. The research on each side of the center
line is symmetrical, which is the indicator of non-differ-
ence. Because there is no evidence indicating lost data at
on either side of the centerline, the difference between the
fixed effect size and the observed effect size is zero.
Findings related to the effect sizes
In Table 3, the meta-analysis of educational leadership and
student achievement is shown. The findings supported H1,
which asserted that there was a positive relationship be-
tween educational leadership and achievement. Educa-
tional leaderships’ value regarding the effect on student
achievement was calculated as .34. This value reveals that
educational leadership has a medium-level effect on student
achievement (see Cohen 1988).
In the moderator analysis performed, it was found that
H2, based on the perspective that leadership style func-
tioned as a moderator, was not supported. However, it was
found that all leadership styles had significant and positive
effects on student achievement. From the leadership styles
obtained from the studies included in the meta-analysis, it
was found that distributive [r = .42] and transformational
[r = .40] leadership had a comprehensive effect on student
achievement, leadership practices [r = .35] and other
[r = .33] leadership styles had medium effect on student
achievement, and educational leadership [r = .24] had low
effect on student achievement. The strongest effect
Fig. 1 Effect size funnel on
publication bias
Table 2 Results of Duval and
Tweedie’s trim and fill test
Excluding study Point estimate CI (confidence interval) Q
Lower limit Upper limit
Observed values .34 .27 .41 1954.0
Adjustment values 0 .34 .27 .41 1954.0
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 85
123
identified was distributive leadership. Notwithstanding the
fact that the value of effect between leadership styles and
students’ achievement differs, in the moderator analysis
performed according to the random effects model, the
difference between the effect sizes of the leadership styles
was not statistically significant (Q
b
= 1.78, p [.05).
The findings did not support H3, which asserted that the
courses studied to determine students’ academic achieve-
ment were mediating variables for the effect of educational
leadership on students’ academic achievement. In the
moderator analysis performed, the effect size difference
between the courses was not found to be statistically sig-
nificant (Q
b
= 2.09, p [.05). However, it was identified
that educational leadership had a positive and significant
effect on all courses. Within this scope, educational lead-
ership had a medium effect on math [r = .25], mixed
[r = .36] and language [r = .37] courses and had a com-
prehensive effect on reading [r = .43] courses.
H4, which asserted that the level of education at the
school was the moderating variable regarding the effect of
educational leadership on students’ academic achievement,
was not supported. In the moderator analysis performed,
the effect sizes between the level of education at the
schools were not statistically significant (Q
b
= 4.55,
p [ .05). Within this scope, from the level of education at
the school discussed in the studies included in the meta-
analysis, it was found that educational leadership had a
comprehensive effect on students’ achievement in the
elementary [r = .45] grades and that educational leader-
ship had a medium effect on student achievement in the
middle [r = .30] grades. In secondary [r = .16, p [.05]
and mixed [r = .26, p [ .05] grades, the effect of educa-
tional leadership on students’ achievement was not found
to be statistically significant.
Additionally, it was concluded that the confidence in-
tervals calculated for all moderators included in the meta-
analysis were broad (leadership style, the level of education
at the school, the lesson searched for the academic
achievement within the studies). This finding illustrated
that the studies included in the study had homogenous
characteristics.
Discussion
The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the overall
results acquired from studies that examined the relationship
between educational leadership and student achievement.
The narrow confidence intervals in the meta-analysis
indicate that the results of the research included in this
study are reliable. This finding can be viewed as significant
in terms of making more reliable decisions regarding the
tendency and strength of the relationship-related results
acquired by meta-analysis.
The meta-analysis results revealed that educational
leadership had a medium-level positive effect on student
Table 3 Correlations between
educational leadership and
student achievement: the results
of meta-analysis
Concepts k N r CI QQ
b
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Leadership 57 28,964 .34* .27 .41 1954.01*
Moderator (leadership
styles)
1.78
Others 8 11,647 .33* .13 .51
Distributed 2 309 .42** .03 .70
Transformational 15 2,169 .40* .25 .53
Leadership practices 24 9,900 .35* .23 .45
Instructional 8 4,939 .24** .03 .43
Moderator (courses) 2.09
Mixed 34 16,809 .36* .25 .45
Math 12 11,148 .25* .07 .41
Reading 8 635 .43* .22 .61
Language 3 372 .37** .03 .64
Moderator (the level of
education at the school)
4.55
Elementary 24 6,843 .45* .31 .57
High 13 2,908 .28* .07 .47
Mixed 7 9,475 .26 -.03 .50
Middle 9 6,864 .30** .05 .51
Secondary 3 2,823 .16 -.27 .54
86 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
achievement. When educational leadership studies were
examined, it was found that leadership is associated with
student achievement (Brewer 1993; Griffin 2008; Heck
et al. 1990; Kythreotis et al. 2010; Leithwood and Mascall
2008). However, there are ongoing discussions as to whe-
ther this effect on student achievement is direct or indirect
(Alig-Mielcarek and Hoy 2005; Hallinger et al. 1996a, b;
Louis et al. 2010; Witziers et al. 2003). Although some
studies support that educational leadership directly affects
student achievement (Fuller et al. 2011; Leithwood et al.
2008; Leithwood and Jantzi 2006), there are also some
studies that conclude that it has an indirect effect on stu-
dent achievement (Hallinger et al. 1996a, b; Mark and
Printy 2003). In both cases, the medium and positive effect
obtained in this meta-analysis study supported the lit-
erature. Furthermore, the results of the study are parallel
with the literature on leadership and student achievement
conducted by Chin (2007, r = .48), Hattie (2009, r = .18),
Marzano et al. (2005, r = 25), Robinsin et al. (2009,
r = 43), and Robinson et al. (2008, r = .21).
In the study, it was identified that leadership styles, the
courses that are used in the measurement of students’
achievement, and the level of education at the school and
the sampling group are not moderators in the relationship
between educational leadership and student achievement.
On the contrary, when the effect sizes of leadership styles
on student achievement are examined, the literature sup-
ports that distributive (Heck and Hallinger 2009; Leith-
wood et al. 2009; Louis et al. 2010) and transformational
(Chin 2007; Hardman 2011; Kantabutra 2005; Koh et al.
1995; Lea 2011a, b; Leithwood and Jantzi 2000; Nash
2011
; Sun and Leithwood 2012; Valentine and Prater 2011)
leadership has a comprehensive effect. Education leaders
who care about and heed the words of employees, taking
personal requirements and interests into account and in
short displaying supportive behaviors in the organization,
are the representatives of change in schools (Burns 1978;
Bass 1999; Bass and Riggio 2006; Leithwood 1992; Yukl
1999). Education leaders contribute to the further im-
provement of student outputs through the transformation of
school culture in addition to performing the duties re-
garding the coordination and assessment of the education
system. Similarly, distributive leadership practices, as an
important component of the achievement in the school, are
in close relation to student achievement and school per-
formance (Harris 2012a, b). When it is considered that
human behaviors occur not as a result of individual
knowledge and skills but as a function distributed over
individuals and situations, it is also inevitable that there
will be distribution of these roles to the individuals and
situations. In this case, leadership duties in the school are
distributed to various leaders such as school principals,
vice principals, curriculum experts, class masters, and
branch teachers (Spillane et al. 2001). It was also an ex-
pected result that instructional leadership had a more sig-
nificant effect on student achievement than did leadership
styles. This is because instructional leadership is one of the
most important concepts related to learning and education
within school processes. Hallinger (2005) describes in-
structional leaders as strong, guiding, and target-oriented
culture architects. Instructional leaders focus primarily on
improving students’ academic output by making the
strategies and activities of the school compatible with the
academic mission of the school. The positive effect of in-
structional leadership on student achievement is supported
by the literature (Eberts et al. 2002; Hallinger et al. 1996a,
b; Lee et al. 2012; O’Donnell and White 2005; Valentine
and Prater 2011). When the findings of leadership style
moderator are examined as a whole, it is observed that
instructional leadership has a weaker effect. It is thought
that the most important reasons for this result are leader-
ship scales. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(Bass and Avolio 1997) was used nearly in all transfor-
mational studies included in meta-analysis, and the Lead-
ership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes and Posner 2010)
was used in the studies based on leadership practices.
However, the scales used for instructional leadership are
various.
When educational leadership’s effect on student
achievement in terms of the courses used in the measure-
ment of students’ achievement was examined, it was found
that all courses had significant and positive effects. In
terms of the level of education at the school, it was detected
that educational leadership had an intermediate and com-
prehensive effect at the elementary, high school, and
middle school levels. It was identified that educational
leadership in elementary school had a comprehensive ef-
fect on student achievement and in middle school and high
grades had a medium effect on student achievement. When
considering the administrative and executive features that
the level of education at the school had, such as students’
ages, the mission assumed for the education grade, and
similar variables, it was an anticipated result that educa-
tional leadership’s effect on student achievement varied in
favor of the lower grades. The studies conducted supported
the finding that the effect of leadership on student
achievement in primary school was higher than for sec-
ondary and high schools (Louis et al. 2010; Witziers et al.
2003).
Limitations and directions for future research
This research was conducted using data obtained from
primary resources. The most significant disadvantage of the
present research was likely the correlational nature of the
studies from which the data were obtained. It is not
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 87
123
objective to claim that the results obtained can exactly
explain the causal effects when considering that the
qualitative studies are more effective to explain the nature
of educational leadership. Furthermore, the fact that the
majority of the studies regarding educational leadership
and students’ academic achievement were correlational
indicates the existence of a potential method bias.
It was not possible to reach all studies despite the
strategies developed to access the studies to be included in
the present meta-analysis. This was due to two reasons.
First, the full texts of some studies were not accessible
through the databases searched. Hence, presumably, some
studies thought to include the data suitable for the present
research were not accessed. Second, because the publica-
tion language of the studies included in the present research
was limited to English, studies published in other lan-
guages were not accessed. Thus, the majority of the studies
included were conducted in various states of the USA.
Accordingly, this limitation should be taken into consid-
eration when generalizing the results obtained. Although
there was not a statistical result indicating a publication
bias, the absence of publication bias was not ensured be-
cause it was not possible to access the unpublished studies.
The fact that the sample of the present research consisted of
studies published from 2008–2013 was another limitation
of the research.
Through the findings obtained as a result of the analyses,
suggestions can be listed as follows:
• With reference to the positive effect of educational
leadership on students’ academic achievement, the
necessary precautions should be taken into consid-
eration to make the stakeholders adopt the educational
leadership behaviors with the aim of accomplishing the
instructional aims of the school.
• It has been found that most of the studies included this
research did not report the correlation coefficient (r).
For this reason, researchers should report findings
giving way to meta-analysis instead of just providing a
single finding.
• Further meta-analysis studies should take into consid-
eration studies published in different languages to
reveal cultural differences.
Appendix
Summary of study characteristics in the analysis results.
88 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
References
Note: References marked with an asterisk indicate
studies included in the meta-analysis
Alig-Mielcarek, J. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Instructional leadership:
Its nature, meaning, and influence. In C. G. Miskel & W. K. Hoy
(Eds.), Educational leadership and reform (pp. 29–54). Green-
wich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
*Anderson-Davis, D. M. (2012). A correlational study: Determining
the relationship between superintendents’ leadership behaviors
and student achievement in Indiana (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3535969).
*Babb, C. A. (2012). An analysis of the relationship between
organizational servant leadership and student achievement in
middle level schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3515476).
Balcı, A. (2007). Etkili okul gelis¸tirme kuram, uygulama ve aras¸tırma
[Effective school development; Theory, practice and research].
Ankara: Pegema.
Bamburg, J. D., & Andrews, R. L. (1991). School goals, principals
and achievement. School Effectiveness & School Improvement,
2(3), 175–191.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership
development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire (pp. 43–44). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Bell, J. S. (2012). The relationship between teachers’ and princi-
pals’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness as they relate to
student achievement in Alabama (Doctoral dissertation). Avail-
able from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3528746).
Bennett, N., Harvey, J.A.,Wise, C. & Woods, P. A. (2003).
Distributed leadership: A desk study. http://www.ncsl.org.uk/
literature
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. UK: Wiley.
Boyer, D. P. (2012). A study of the relationship between the servant
leader principal on school culture and student achievement in
the lower Kuskokwim school district. Arizona: Grand Canyon
University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Bozman, C. E. (2011). The effects of principals’ leadership styles,
teacher efficacy,and teachers’ trust in their principals on student
achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3468683).
*Braun, D. (2008). The relationship among essential school leader-
ship preparation practices, principal leader behavior, school
learning environment, and student achievement in elementary
and middle schools in Rhode Island (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3321561).
Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from
U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12(4),
281–292.
*Brown, S. (2010). An exploration of the relationship between
principal leadership efficacy, principal computer self-efficacy,
and student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3417737).
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review
and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Bulris, M. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of research on the mediated
effects of principal leadership on student achievement: Exam-
ining the effect size of school culture on student achievement as
an indicator of teacher effectiveness. North Carolina: East
Carolina University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Busher, H., Harris, A., & Wise, C. (2000). Subject leadership and
school improvement. USA: Paul Chapman.
*Calvert, M. K. H. (2013). Administrator leadership and content
knowledge: Effects on literacy achievement on male students
grades four through eight (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3587606).
Chin, J. M. C. (2007). Meta-analysis of transformational school
leadership effects on school outcomes in Taiwan and the USA.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 166–177.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Constantino, M. E. (2011). The relationship between special
education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership behav-
iors and the achievement of students with disabilities (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3491805).
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the
research says?. USA: ASCD.
*Crain, F.S. (2010). The effect of leadership styles on student
achievement in title elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3411203).
*Davis, B. W. (2010). The relationship of principal leadership style
as it affects school climate and student achievement. (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3425719).
Eberts, R. W., Hollenbeck, K., & Stone, J. A. (2002). Teacher
performance incentives and student outcomes. The Journal of
Human Resources, 37(4), 913–927.
*Edwards, J. M. (2010). Dimensions of literacy leadership: An
analysis of middle-level principals’ literacy leadership profi-
ciencies and student reading achievement. (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3397792).
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.
New Jersey: The Albert Shanker Institute.
*Estapa, A. L. (2009). The relationship between the transformational
leadership characteristics of principals, as perceived by teach-
ers, and student achievement on standardized tests (Doctoral
dissertations). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI NO: 3378413).
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727.
Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, B. D. (2011). Do principal
preparation programs ınfluence student achievement through
the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An
exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly,
47(1), 173–216.
*Gamble, P. C. (2009). The relationship between principals’ leadership
styles and student achievement that meet adequately yearly
progress goals (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3370939).
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P.
(2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and
research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145.
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 89
123
*Greb, W. (2011). Principal leadership and student achievement:
What is the effect of transformational leadership in conjunction
with instructional leadership on student achievement? (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3468985).
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Essentials of servant leadership in focus on
leadership. New York: Wiley.
Griffin, S. E. (2008). Relationship of principal leadership and school
and teacher effects on student performance within a principal
accountability system. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for
leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3),
338–371.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distrubuted leadership as a unit of analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing
leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Paul
Chapman.
Gronn, P. (2006). The significance of distributed leadership. Educa-
tional Leadership Research, 7, 160–172.
*Gulbin, K. M. (2008). Transformational leadership: Is it a factor for
improving student achievement in high poverty secondary
schools in Pennsylvania? (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3303551).
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal:
A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996a). School context,
principal leadership, and student reading achievement. Elemen-
tary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996b). School context,
principal leadership and student reading achievement. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549.
Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study of the leader
behavior descriptions. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.),
Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp.
399–451). Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio
State University.
Hanrahan, F., Field, A. P., Jones, F. W., & Davey, G. C. L. (2013). A
meta-analysis of cognitive therapy for worry in generalized
anxiety disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 120–132.
Hardman, B. K. (2011). Teacher’s perception of their principal’s
leadership style and the effects on student achievement in
improving and non-improving schools. Florida: University of
South Florida. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Harnish, D. A. (2012). Principals’ leadership styles and student
achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3510284).
Harris, A. (2012a). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of
the principal. Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 7–17.
Harris, C. E. S. (2012b). A study of the effect of secondary school
leadership styles on student achievement in selected secondary
schools in Louisiana. Louisiana: University of Louisiana.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Hastings, C.S. (2011). The impact of leadership work practices on
student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3486990).
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-
analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hause, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16, 321–328.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of
distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in
math achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
46(3), 659–689.
Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional
leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal
model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(2), 94–125.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical method for meta-
analysis. London: Academic Press.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, H. K. (1972). Management of organization
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice-Hall.
*Hough, D. L., & Schmitt, V. L. (2011). An ex post facto examination
of relationships among the developmental designs professional
development model/classroom management approach, school
leadership, climate, student achievement, attendance, and be-
havior in high poverty middle grades schools. Middle Grades
Research Journal, 6(3), 163–175.
Huber, S. G. (2004). School leadership and leadership development.
Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 669–684.
*John, S. S. S. (2009). Leadership styles and student achievement
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3355059).
*Jones, M. J. (2013). The effect of school principals’ leadership styles
on elementary school students’ reading achievement scores
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3589244).
Kantabutra, S. (2005). Improving public school performance through
vision-based leadership. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(2),
124–136.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1952). Some recent findings in human
relations research. In E. Swanson, T. Newcombe, & E. Hartley
(Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 650–665). New York,
NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
*Knoeppel, R. C., & Rinehart, J. S. (2008). Student achievement and
principal quality: Explaining the relationship. Journal of School
Leadership, 18(5), 501–527.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of
transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student
performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
16(4), 319–333.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The truth about leadership:
The no-fads, heart-of-the matter facts you need to know. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kru
¨
ger, M., & Scheerens, J. (2012). Conceptual perspectives on
school leadership. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), School leadership
effects revisited: A review and meta-analysis of empirical
studies. Berlin: Acid-Free Paper.
Kulinskaya, E., Morgenthaler, S., & Staudte, R. G. (2008). Meta
analysis: A guide to calibrating and combining statistical
evidence. London: Wiley.
Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence
of school leadership styles and culture on students’ achievement
in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administra-
tion, 48(2), 218–240.
*Lambert-Knowles, P. (2013). Impact of instructional leaders’ dis-
tributed leadership practices on student achievement in charter
high schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3587820).
*Lea, P. G. (2011a). High school principal leadership and student
achievement: The effects of transformational leadership on the
Illinois prairie state achievement examination (Doctoral disser-
tation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3457284).
Lea, P. G. (2011b). High school principal leadership and student
achievement: The effects of transformational leadership on the
illinois prairie state achievement examination. (Doctoral disser-
tation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI NO: 3454284).
90 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
Lea, P. G. (2011c). High school prıncıpal leadershıp and student
achıevement: The effects of transformatıonal leadershıp on the
ıllınoıs praırıe state achıevement examınatıon. Minneapolis:
Capella University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Lee, M., Walker, A., & Chui, Y. K. (2012). Contrasting effects of
instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high
accountability context. Journal of Educational Administration,
50(5), 586–611.
Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership.
Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 28(1), 27–42.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational
leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement
with school. Journal ofEducational Administration, 38(2),112–129.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school
leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers,
and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.
*Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects
on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(4), 529–561.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed
leadership according to the evidence. London: Routledge.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know
about succesful school leadership?. Washington, DC: AERA
Division A Task Force on Developing Research in Educational
Leadership.
*Lipkind, E. R. (2009). Teacher, leadership, and curriculum factors
predictive of student achievement in Indian educational for all
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3359359).
Littel, H. J., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and
meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
*Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does
leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national
US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3),
315–336.
*Maeyer, S. D., Rymenans, R., Petegem, P. V., Bergh, H. V. D., &
Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). Educational Leadership and Pupil
Achievement: The choice of a valid conceptual model to test
effects in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 18(2), 125–145.
*Malloy, J. P. (2012). Effects of distributed leadership on teachers’
academic optimism and student achievement. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation).
Mark, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school
performance: An integration of transformational and instruc-
tional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3),
370–397.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005).
School leadership
that works: From research to results. Aurora, CO: ASCD and
McREL.
*May, N. K. (2010). The relationship between principal leadership
styles and student achievement in elementary schools (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3404635).
*Mcguire, R. (2011). The impact of school leadership on student
achievement in Detroit charter schools. (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3538869).
*Mees, G. W. (2008). The relationship among principal leadership,
school culture, and student achievement in Missouri middle
schools (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-
sertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3371083).
*Merturi, E. G. (2010). The perceptions of principal-based leadership
practices on student reading achievement. (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3438405).
*Miller, R. V. (2011). Leadership qualities that impact student
achievement and gains in the elementary urban school. (Doc-
toral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. (UMI No. 3544987).
*Minus, E.L.(2010). Leading in the middle: Leadership behaviors of
middle level principals that promote student achievement.
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3397616).
*Mitchell, S. P. (2011). The frequency of superintendents’ instruc-
tional leadership behaviors and student achievement. (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3459457).
*Mora-Whitehurst, R. (2013). The relationship between elementary
principals’ visionary leadership and students’ reading perfor-
mance. The Educational Forum, 77, 315–328.
*Morrow, C. A.(2010). An analysis of high school principals’
technology use pertaining to instructional leadership impacting
student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3411289).
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS
2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA:
TIMSS & PIRSLS International Study Center.
*Murphy, M. F. (2012). The self-perception of leadership efficacy of
alternative school principals and its relationship to student
achievement in the era of reform and accountability (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3548208).
Nash, W. (2011). Transformational school leadership and student
achievement: A case study. National Teacher Education Jour-
nal, 4(3), 9–18.
*Nelson, A. L. (2012). The relationship between middle school
teachers’ perceptions of principals’ transformational leadership
practices, teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3530736).
Nelson, A. L. (2012b). The relationship between middle school
teachers’ perceptions of principals’ transformational leadership
practices, teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement.
Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation).
Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (1993). Behavior in organizations.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nichols, J. D. (2011). Teachers as servant leaders. United Kingdom:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Noe, J. (2012). The relationshıp between principal’s emotional
intelligence quotient, school culture and student achievement.
Virginia: Liberty University. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation).
*Odegaard, L. C. (2008). The relationship between teacher-
identified
principal leadership behavior and effectiveness and student
achievement in South Dakota secondary schools (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3318826).
O’Donnell, R. J., & White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability
era: Principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and student
achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56–71.
*Oduro, K. L. (2012). High school principals’ self-perception of
leadership, self-efficacy and the academic achievement of
African American students (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3523599).
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 91
123
Petitti, D. B. (2000). Meta-analysis, decision analysis and cost
effectiveness analysis: Methods for quantitative syndissertation
in medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.
*Quinn, R. R. (2011). The effect of elementary principals’ self-
perceived instructional leadership behaviors on reading and
math student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3483953).
Raines, P. L. (2012). The role of the high school principal in
improving student learning and achievement. Virginia: Regent
University.
*Reardon, R. M. (2011). Elementary school principals’ learning-
centered leadership and educational outcomes: Implications for
principals’ professional development. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 10, 63–83.
Reddin, W. J. (1970). Effective management by objectives the 3D
method of MBO. USA: McGraw-Hill.
*Revis, K. G. (2010). Superintendents’ instructional leadership
practices and the achievement of students with disabilities and
students with limited English proficiency. (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3412179).
*Rhoden, V. (2012). The examination of the relationships among
secondary principals’ leadership behaviors, school climate, and
student achievement in an urban context (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3517035).
*Rivers, S. D. (2010). Leadership as a distributed phenomenon: A
study of shared roles and 3rd grade student achievement.
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3412486).
Robinsin, V., Hohepa, M., & Lyoyd, C. (2009). School leadership and
student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Wellington,
New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of
leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential
effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 44(5), 635–674.
*Rodriguez, S. (2008). A study of relationships among leadership,
culture, and student achievement in Catholic schools (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3319730).
*Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student
achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian
Journal of Education, 29(3), 798–822.
*Ryan, A. R. (2013). An examination of the relation between self-
perceived leadership practices of high school principals and
student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3589558).
*Sandfort. G. R. (2009). Principal leadership and student achieve-
ment: An examination of connections between structural, human
resource, political, and symbolic leadership on performance
outcomes on the California high school exit exam (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3379507).
Schlechty, P. C. (2005). Okulu yeniden kurmak (C¸ev Y O
¨
zden).
Ankara: Nobel.
Schrum, L., & Levin, B. B. (2013). Leadership for twenty-first-
century schools and student achievement: Lessons learned from
three exemplary cases. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 16(4), 379–398.
Schyns, B., & Schillng, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad
leaders? A meta analysis of distructive leadership and its
outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.
*Shatzer, R. H. (2009). A comparison study between instructional and
transformational leadership theories: Effects on student achieve-
ment and teacher job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3399100).
Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013).
Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational
leadership on student achievement Implications for practice.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 29,
1–15. doi:10.1177/1741143213502192.
*Sheldon, G. H. (2009). The relationship between the leadership
responsibilities of titles school principals and student achieve-
ment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Disserta-
tions and Theses database. (UMI No. 3399891).
Shin, S. H., Slater, C. L., & Backhoff, E. (2013). Principal
Perceptions and Student Achievement in Reading in Korea,
Mexico, and the United States Educational Leadership, School
Autonomy, and Use of Test Results. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 49(3), 489–527.
*Shumate, R. L. (2011). Transformational versus transactional
leadership: Which perceived leadership style has the stronger
relationship between teacher efficicacy and student achievement
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3460560).
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum,
69, 143–150.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating
school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educa-
tional Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a
theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A
survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership, and organization.
Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1–14.
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational school leadership
effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 11(4), 418–451.
*Terrell, H. P. (2010). The relationship of the dimensions of distributed
leadership in elementary schools of urban districts and student
achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3397678).
Tindle, J. A. (2012). Dimensions of principal support behaviors and
their relationship to organizational citizenship behaviors and
student achievement in high schools. Virgina: The College of
William and Mary. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Troutman, L. D. (2012). The impact of principal leadership on
school culture and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3545656).
Troutman, L. D. (2012b). The impact of principal leadership on
school culture and student achievement. North Carolina: Win-
gate University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2011). Instructional, transformational,
and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school
principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5–30.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision
making. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh.
Wampold, B. E., Ahn, H., & Kim, D. (2000). Meta-analysis in the
social sciences: A useful way to make sense of a series of
findings from a large number of studies. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 1(1), 67–74.
92 E. Karadag
˘
et al.
123
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.
*Williams, R. L. (2008). The relationship between principals’
leadership self-efficacy, student achievement and school perfor-
mance (Doctoral dissertations). Available from ProQuest Dis-
sertations and Theses database. (UMI NO: 3346561).
*Williams, E. (2009a). Evaluation of a school systems plan to utilize
teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership to improve student
achievement. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African
American Men, 15(1), 15–32.
*Williams, M. D. (2009). The relationship of principal leadership
behaviors with school climate, teacher job satisfaction, and
student achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3367212).
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kru
¨
ger, M. L. (2003). Educational
leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an
association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3),
398–425.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership
Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.
The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement 93
123
