NEED A PERFECT PAPER? PLACE YOUR FIRST ORDER AND SAVE 15% USING COUPON:

Rough Draft Literature Review Please use the attached rubric to guide your writing. In addition, please review the example Literature Review for guidance. 

Rough Draft Literature Review Please use the attached rubric to guide your writing. In addition, please review the example Literature Review for guidance. 

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Rough Draft Literature Review Please use the attached rubric to guide your writing. In addition, please review the example Literature Review for guidance. 

Requirements:

Times New Roman font, 12 points, double spaced (If you use another font, points will be deducted) 

7-10 pages

12-15 sources (Peer-reviewed articles )

Correct APA 7th edition citations 

Do not use any of the following: numbered lists, bullet points, images, or charts. 1

7.1 Rough Draft Literature Review

Raymond Blevins

Department of Leadership Studies, University of the Cumberlands

DSRT 837: Professional Writing and Proposal Development

Dr. Whitney Taylor

June 20, 2021

whitney.taylor
Pencil

2

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

Since 1992, the data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)

indicates only “modest gains” were made nationwide in student achievement (Granger, 2008, p.

208; McCarley et al., 2014, p. 322). This trend is consistent with Ohio’s most recent scores. A

comparison of the 2019 scores provided no significant differences in the tested subjects for Grade

4 and Grade 8. Examples of Ohio’s results include the average Grade 4 Reading score of 222 in

2019, which was the same in 2002. This score represented 36% of Ohio fourth-graders in 2019

who were reading at or above proficient compared to 34% of the same grade students in 2002.

However, the same time comparison provides that 68% of Ohio’s fourth-grade students were

reading at or above basic in 2002 and 2019. Additional examples for reading, mathematics, and

science for Grade 4 and Grade 8 provide similar results with little significant change in values

when comparing data from 2002 and 2019 for reading, from 2000 and 2019 for mathematics, and

2009 and 2015 for science (NAEP State Profiles, n.d.).

The 2019 Ohio NAEP results underscore the need for improvement in educational systems

and services to meet the needs of Ohio students. A review of scholarship concerning the

improvement of educational organizations and student achievement suggests that the leadership

style of the school principal can strongly influence these elements (Bogler, 2005; Shatzer et al.,

2013; Waters et al., 2003). The scholarship further suggests that two primary leadership models

as measured by the number of empirical studies are transformational leadership and instructional

leadership (Hallinger, 2003; Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Though the scholarship on the correlation

between these two leadership theories and student achievement is vast, the scholarship offers little

3

clarity and exploration of the relationship between transformational leadership practices and

academic progress instead of academic achievement. Additionally, few studies have focused on

Ohio schools. (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood &

Jantzi, 2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Shatzer et al., 2014; Southworth, 2002).

This study will expand upon the current scholarship about transformational leadership

practices to inform Ohio educational systems. The study will determine what is the relationship

between a principal’s transformational leadership practice of inspirational motivation (IM),

individualized consideration (IC), idealized influence (II), intellection stimulation (IS), contingent

reward (CR), management by exception-active (MBE-A), management by exception-passive

(MBE-P), and laissez-fair leadership (LF) and the corresponding school’s academic progress

(Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Shatzer et al., 2013). The study uses the

foundation of Ohio’s plan for improving student achievement to connect the scholarship involving

transformational and instructional leadership practices to develop a framework for determining the

relationship between the transformational leadership practices and academic progress within Ohio

schools (Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; DuBrin, 2006; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi,

2000; Leithwood et al., 1999; Ohio Department of Education, 2016; Shatzer et al., 2014;

Southworth, 2002).

Accountability

National Accountability

The concept of modern accountability in the United States education system has existed

since the 1957 launch of Sputnik by the USSR. Then, accountability became part of public law in

1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included

expectations of accountability and high standards (Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). Since the initial

4

authorization of ESEA, the US Congress has reauthorized the law multiple times. These

reauthorizations included the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 and the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2016 (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011).

Notably, NCLB required a transition of focus from the equity of access and funding to a

focus on adequacy. This transition “created a more stressful, test-driven environment for school

principals as there was dire consequences for low student performance” (Styron, Jr. & Styron,

2011, p. 2). Though ESSA replaced NCLB, ESSA continues to maintain critical elements of

NCLB, and for the first time, requires that all students be taught to high academic standards.

Further, ESSA requires accountability and action to positively change the lowest-performing

schools or where groups of students are not making progress (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015).

However, school systems and principals continue to struggle with increasing student achievement

standards set by state and federal authorities (Quin et al., 2015; Styron & Styron, 2011).

Ohio Accountability

Following the requirements of ESSA (2015), Ohio developed an accountability system the

meets the requirements of ESSA. Ohio’s Accountability System is comprised of six components,

each of which contains one or more measures. The accountability system is defined in Appendix B

of Ohio’s Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan. The system addresses the ESSA

indicator requirement for academic achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics and the

requirement for the other academic indicator through an achievement component and a progress

component (Ohio Department of Education, 2016).

Achievement Component. The achievement component is a representation of a specific

point in time. The representation is the weighted sum of two measures. The first measure is the

Indicators Met and represents the number of students who scored at or above a proficient level on

5

any Ohio standardized state tests. The second measure is the Performance Index, representing how

well each child scored on each standardized state test. The Achievement component utilizes

weighted scores of 25% for the Indicators Met and 75% for the Performance Index (Office of

Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016).

Progress Component. The progress component represents student growth over multiple

years. Progress is a sequence of calculations that result in a value-added score. A value-added

score is calculated for the groups of all students, gifted students, students with disabilities, and

students whose performance was in the lowest 20% of students statewide. The progress

component is a sum of the weighted scores of the four groups. These weighted scores include 55%

for all students, 15% for gifted students, 15% for students with disabilities, and 15% for the lowest

20% of students statewide (Office of Accountability, 2020; Ohio Department of Education, 2016).

Summary of accountability

Public law established accountability expectations for education systems in the 1960s.

These national expectations have changed over the past 50 years to focus more on the adequacy of

education and the instruction of high academic standards to all children (Every Student Succeeds

Act, 2015; Styron, Jr. & Styron, 2011). To meet the expectations of ESSA, Ohio developed an

improvement plan and accountability system that is described in Ohio’s Revised State Template for

the Consolidated State Plan. A significant part of Ohio’s accountability system is based upon

determining an Achievement component and Progress component for each public school. These

components are used to determine what supports and consequences are issued to school systems

and leaders (Ohio Department of Education, 2016).

Leadership Practices

Transformational Leadership

6

Transformational leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses several

leadership practices. The model was first introduced in the late 1970s (Burns, 1978). Since the

1970s, the scholarship concerning transformational leadership has expanded considerably (Avolio

et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014;

Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood

& Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Although the scholarship has

primarily focused on business settings, transformational leadership incorporates many

organizations, including education systems and schools (Bass, 1998; Shatzer et al., 2013).

The transformational leadership model has evolved in the past decades. However, the

scholarship consistently holds that the model includes the practices of individual consideration,

intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass,

1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Burns, 1978; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014;

Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius &

Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013). Modern scholarship of transformational leadership practices

includes elements of transactional leadership and practice elements of non-leadership or the

absence of leadership. These practices included contingent reward, management by exception-

active, management by exception-passive, and laissez-faire leadership. Bass and Avolio (1994)

express that that the addition of the transactional leadership practices of contingent reward and

management by exception-active were necessary for organizational maintenance, but the practices

do not stimulate change (Leithwood, 1993). The authors also explain that the strong

transformational leaders would not demonstrate the practices of management by exception-passive

and laissez-faire leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Shatzer et al., 2013).

7

Transformational leadership is about “how” the leader influences followers (Bush, 2014, p.

443). Transformational leadership is associated with building an organization’s capacity while

providing reform and clarity during organizational change (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014;

Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999;

Shatzer et al., 2013).

Transformational leadership correlation to achievement. The scholarship on

transformational leadership suggests that transformational leadership practices result in positive

outcomes on school climate, staff morale, school outcomes, teacher outcomes, and student

outcomes through direct or indirect influence (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio,

1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger,

2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al.,

2014; Shatzer et al., 2013). Further, “numerous researchers have studied the effects of

transformational leadership on school restructuring, and their findings support the belief that

transformational leadership strongly contributes to overall school improvement” (McCarley et al.,

2014). Within the minimal scholarship pertaining to Ohio, Dowling (2007) suggests that an

Assistant Principal’s transformational practices are a predictor of student achievement measured by

Annual Yearly Progress (AYP).

Although numerous studies have suggested a positive correlation between transformational

leadership and student achievement, the scholarship is not consistent regarding the significance of

the positive correlations. Notably, Leithwood et al. (2006), Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), and Ross

and Gay (2006) found that weaker relationships between transformational leadership practices and

student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement existed compared to other

8

relationships. These studies were conducted in schools representing urban, suburban, and rural

areas of the United Kingdom and Canada. The number of schools represented within the studies

ranged from ten to 100 and included schools representing urban, suburban, and rural areas. The

most extensive study included an equal representation of public and private Catholic schools over

ten years (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross & Gay; 2006).

Context. The leadership scholarship includes indications and references to the limitation of

context. The scholarship suggests that leadership must adapt to cultural context and policy context.

Specifically, this adaptation is required because educational, cultural context differs from nation to

nation, and educational policy context continues to evolve (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock & Walker,

2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003). Studies like Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) acknowledged the

importance of context and attempted to compensate for context. However, these studies did not

include evidence that removed context as a contributing factor resulting in the varying results in

transformational correlation to student achievement.

Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership is a theoretical leadership model that encompasses strong directive

leadership practices focused on curriculum and instruction (Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011;

Robinson et al., 2008). These practices are categorized into three main goals of (1) defining the

school’s mission, (2) managing the instructional program, and (3) promoting a positive school

learning environment (Hallinger, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2013). Additionally, “instructional

leadership focuses predominantly on the role of the school principal coordinating, controlling,

supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction in the school” (Bamburg & Andrews,

1990; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985 as cited in Hallinger, 2003, p. 331). By the same token,

instructional leadership is about the “direction” of the leader’s influence on followers due to the

9

emphasis on improving teaching and learning and takes precedence over the improvement process

(Bush, 2014, p. 443).

Ohio’s Leadership Practices

The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) defined the accountability expectations and

strategies to improve educational outcomes for children in Ohio’s Revised State Template for the

Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). A foundational element of Ohio’s

strategy to improve educational outcomes is to build the capacity of education leaders in

instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities,

n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). However, Ohio’s plan does not explicitly address the

leadership practices to accomplish large-scale reform and innovation. In addition, the plan does not

link transformational leadership practices and instructional leadership practices of leaders when a

school’s goals are focused on learning (Bush, 2014; Hallinger, 2003).

Summary of leadership

Since the 1970s, the scholarship on conceptual leadership models has grown vastly. The

two foremost models are instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Hallinger, 2003;

Heck & Hallinger, 1999). Unlike the emphasis on the “direction” of the leader’s influence in

instructional leadership, transformational leadership emphasizes “how” leaders exert their

influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443). The scholarship on transformational leadership suggests that a

positive correlation to exists between transformational leadership practices and multiple aspects of

organizational improvement (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al.,

2007; Bush, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al.,

1999; Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; McCarley et al., 2014; Shatzer et al.,

2013).

10

However, the scholarship includes indications of the varying significance of

transformational leadership. These studies suggest weaker relationships between transformational

leadership practices and student achievement or an inability to explain variances in achievement

existed compared to other relationships (Leithwood et al.; 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi; 2006; Ross

& Gay; 2006). Although varying indications of the significance of transformational leadership

practices on student achievement exist, the identified studies do not fully address the implications

of context and portability limitation from one nation to another (Bottery, 2001; Dimmock &

Walker, 2000 as cited in Hallinger, 2003).

Summary

Expectations of educational accountability were incorporated into public law for the US in

1965 with the enactment of the ESEA. However, principal leaders continue to struggle with

meeting the national and state academic standards established in accountability models (Quin et al.,

2015; Styron & Styron, 2011). The 2019 Ohio NAEP results serve as an example of the struggle

by Ohio’s principals. These results suggest that Ohio has made no significant progress in

improved student achievement since 2002 and support the need for improvement to Ohio’s schools

(NAEP State Profiles, n.d.).

Ohio developed a plan for continuous improvement and an accountability system for public

schools. Ohio’s improvement plan and accountability system are detailed in Ohio’s Revised State

Template for the Consolidated State Plan (Ohio Department of Education, 2016). The

fundamental strategy of Ohio’s improvement plan is to build the capacity of education leaders in

instructional leadership as a part of Ohio’s Inclusive Leadership Practices (Purpose & Priorities,

n.d.; State Development Team, 2019). Though the scholarship on instructional leadership suggests

a positive correlation to improved student achievement, this leadership model focuses on the

11

“direction” of a leader’s influence (Bush, 2014, p. 443; Hallinger, 2003; Robinson, 2011; Robinson

et al., 2008). Ohio’s approach does not explicitly focus on the elements of a school’s reform

capacity and clarity during change. These elements are associated with transformational leadership

practices. (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1998; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Boerner et al., 2007; Bush, 2014;

Bush & Glover, 2014; Bush & Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 1999; Leithwood

& Sun, 2012; Lucius & Kuhnert, 1999; Shatzer et al., 2013).

If a school’s improvement goals focus on learning, a link between instructional leadership

and transformational leadership approaches is possible (Bush, 2014). However, the scholarship

associated with the relationship between transformational leadership practices and Ohio student

achievement is limited and suggests a relationship. In addition, the scholarship does not address the

growth components of student achievement for Ohio. This study will add to the scholarship on

transformational leadership practices and inform Ohio education leaders and stakeholders

regarding principal transformational leadership practices that may positively increase student

progress.

12

References

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of

transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599110143366

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational

performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030201

Bogler, R. (2005). Satisfaction of Jewish and Arab teachers in Israel. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 145(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.145.1.19-34

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row.

Bush, T. (2014). Instructional and transformational leadership: alternative and complementary

models? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 443–444.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214526830

Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership &

Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, D. J. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

13

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 USC § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-

congress/senate-bill/1177

Granger, D. A. (2008). No child left behind and the spectacle of failing schools: The mythology of

contemporary school reform. Educational Studies, 43(3), 206–228.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131940802117654

Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction,

staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3),

333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667

Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and

transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005

Harb, B., & Sidani, D. (2019). Transformational leadership for organizational change in the

Lebanese public sector. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(2), 205–216.

https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.15

Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods for studying

school leadership. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore-Loouis (Eds.), The 2nd handbook of

research in educational administration (pp. 141–162). McCutchan.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational

conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration,

38(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829

14

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & McElheron-Hopkins, C. (2006). The development and testing of a

school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 441–

464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600743533

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Open

University Press.

Lucius, R. H., & Kuhnert, K. (1999). Adult development and transformational leader. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 6(1–2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900600105

McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2014). Transformational leadership related to

school climate. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322–342.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214549966

NAEP State Profiles. (n.d.). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 16, 2021,

from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/OH?

cti=PgTab_Findings&chort=2&sub=MAT&sj=OH&fs=Grade&st=MN&year=2019R3&sg

=Gender%3A+Male+vs.+Female&sgv=Difference&ts=Single+Year&tss=2019R3-

2019R3&sfj=NP

Office of Accountability. (2020, January). Update to 2019–2020 Report Card Information. Ohio

Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Report-

Card-Resources/Sections/Report-Card-Components/The-New-A-F-Report-Card-

Clean.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US

Ohio Department of Education. (2016, January). Ohio’s Revised State Template for the

Consolidated State Plan. http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Every-Student-

Succeeds-Act-ESSA/OH_ESSA_SUBMISSION.pdf.aspx

15

Purpose & Priorities. (n.d.). Ohio Leadership for Inclusion, Implementation, & Instructional

Improvement (OLI4). Retrieved June 6, 2021, from

https://www.oli-4.org/about-oli4/purpose-priorities#oli4-overview

Quin, J., Deris, A., Bischoff, G., & Johnson, J. (2015). Comparison of transformational leadership

practices: Implications for school districts and principal preparation. Journal of Leadership

Education, 14(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.12806/v14/i3/r5

Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership. Wiley.

Robinson, V. M. J., 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 Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×08321509

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.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20054196

Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2013). Comparing the effects of

instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement. Educational

Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445–459.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502192

Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence.

School Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042

State Development Team. (2019, August). Foundation’s document 2.0: Resetting the foundation of

Ohio’s statewide system of support (SSoS). Ohio Department of Education.

16

https://citoolkit.ohioleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SDT_Foundations-Doc-

2.0_FINAL.pdf

Styron, Jr., R. A., & Styron, J. L. (2011). Critical issues facing school principals. Journal of

College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 8(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i5.8158

Waters, T., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research

tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent Research for

Education and Learning (McREL).

https://www.mcrel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Balanced-Leadership%C2%AE-What-

30-Years-of-Research-Tells-Us-about-the-Effect-of-Leadership-on-Student-

Achievement.pdf

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality