Leadership for learning among learners in a home-school centre in Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: Conceptualising a processual framework from pilot study
List of Authors
  • Kenny S. L. Cheah , Priscilla Balakrishnan

Keyword
  • Leadership for Learning, Home-School Centre, Processual Framework

Abstract
  • Collaboration classes in the context of home-schools are unique in Malaysia and are rarely studied in the aspect of leadership for learning. This is a concept paper that discusses the preparation before the actual study, especially in the implication of the pilot study. While exploring the concept of leadership for learning, three theories in education were referenced from theoretical triangulation: (a) Social Learning Theory; (b) Social Development Theory, and (c) Symbolic Interactionism Theory. As findings from the pilot study, a processual framework is conceptualized. Besides, the Lincoln and Guba's Evaluative Criteria on the trustworthiness in terms of member checking and field journaling must be incorporated in the actual setting (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), other than the planned improvements concerning the area of face-to-face, interviews, field-observations and documentation (Merriam, 2002). Other results from the pilot study have also indicated preliminary codes that confirm elements of leadership for learning in the home-school. This was achieved through a checklist (Swaffield & MacBeath, 2009; MacBeath & Dempster, 2008) to identify the presence of leadership for learning in the home school.

Reference
  • 1. Alias, N., Siraj, S., Rahman, M. N. A., & Dewitt, D. (2017). Homeschooling in Malaysia: The implications for teacher services. MOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 1(2), 10-18. 2. Bandura, A. (1985). Model of causality in social learning theory. In Cognition and psychotherapy (pp. 81-99). Springer, Boston, MA. 3. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall. 4. Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for Interview Research: The Interview Protocol Refinement Framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5). 5. Cox, D. D. (2005). Evidence-based interventions using home-school collaboration. School a. Psychology Quarterly, 20(4), 473–497. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.20.4.473. 6. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130. 7. Denzin, N. (1978) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. NY: McGraw!Hill. 8. Eich, D. (2008). A Grounded Theory of High-Quality Leadership Programs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 176–187. 9. Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J., & McKibbon, K. A. (2015). Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature. The qualitative report, 20(11), 1772-1789. 10. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of educational administration. 11. Hallinger, P. (2003), “Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 329-51. 12. Heck, R.H. and Hallinger, P. (2009), “Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 626-58. 13. Kline, W. B. (2008). Developing and submitting credible qualitative manuscripts. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47(4), 210-217. 14. Kozulin, A., & Presseisen, B. Z. (1995). Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 67–75. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3002_3. 15. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091. 16. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 17. MacBeath, J. and Dempster, N. (eds) (2008) Connecting Leadership for Learning: Principles for Practice. Routledge: London. 18. Merriam, S. B. (1989). Contributions of qualitative research to adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(3), 161-168. 19. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1-17. 20. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104. 21. Savaya, R., & Gardner, F. (2012). Critical reflection to identify gaps between espoused theory and theory-in-use. Social work, 57(2), 145-154. 22. Swaffield, S. and MacBeath, J. (2009) Researching Leadership for Learning across International and Methodological Boundaries. AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. 23. Turner, J. H. (2001). Handbook of sociological theory. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 24. van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review. 25. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. 26. Yin, R. K. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study. Method in evaluation research. Evaluation practice, 15(3), 283-290. 27. Zeegers, M., & Barron, D. (2015). Milestone Moments in Getting Your PhD in Qualitative Research. Chandos Publishing.