Leading Learning in Content Areas: A Systematic Review of Leadership Practices Used in Mathematics and Science Instruction

• Published in: International journal of educational management 2019-09, Vol.33 (6), p.1219-1234
• Main Authors: Lochmiller, Chad R, Cunningham, Kathleen M. W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Achievement tests; Classrooms; Education; Educational administration; Educational leadership; Faculty Development; Instructional Improvement; Instructional Leadership; Leadership Role; Learning; Literature reviews; Mathematics; Mathematics education; Mathematics Instruction; Professional development; Qualitative research; Research methodology; School principals; Science; Science education; Science Instruction; Science Teachers; Search strategies; Students; Teacher Leadership; Teachers; Teaching; Teaching Methods
• ISSN: 0951-354X; 1758-6518
• DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-03-2018-0094

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to report findings from a systematic literature review that explore how recent research on instructional leadership has addressed the role of mathematics and science instruction. Design/methodology/approach: Using Hallinger's (2014) approach to conducting systematic reviews, the review included 109 peer-reviewed articles published since 2008 in leading mathematics and science education journals. An a priori coding scheme based upon key leadership behaviors articulated in Hitt and Tucker's (2016) unified leadership framework informed the analysis presented. Findings: Results indicate that leaders support content area instruction by facilitating high-quality instructional experiences through curricular and assessment leadership. Leadership frequently involves establishing organizational conditions that support teachers' efforts to improve their own practice instead of direct leadership action on the part of instructional leaders. This support takes different forms and can include distributing leadership to teacher leaders with content area experience as well as using resources strategically to provide professional development or instructional coaching. Originality/value: The review strengthens the connections between the instructional leadership, mathematics and science literatures, and identifies some of the leadership practices that these literatures deem important for instructional improvement. The review also reveals the potential for future research exploring the influence of a particular content area on supervisory practice and leadership discourse.