


































 Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) 
Volume.15, Number 11; November-2024; 

ISSN: 2837-3707 | Impact Factor: 7.80 

https://zapjournals.com/Journals/index.php/gjear  

Published By: Zendo Academic Publishing 

 

 

pg. 12 

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP IN MUSIC EDUCATION AND 

ACADEMIC OUTCOMES AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN CHINA 

 
1Zhou Dong and 1Mantuhac Pamela B. 

 

Article Info  Abstract 

Keywords: instructional 

leadership, music education, 

academic outcome 

DOI 

10.5281/zenodo.14142825 

 

 This study explored the impact of instructional leadership on student 

outcomes in music education, with a focus on goal-setting, resource 

management, development skills, and leadership quality. The study 

also examined the relationship between leadership practices and 

academic outcomes such as classroom performance, subject 

motivation, and resource availability. A descriptive-comparative 

research design was employed, using a total enumeration sampling 

technique involving 400 student respondents from Taishan University.  

The findings revealed that students positively assessed their teachers’ 

leadership across all areas, with no significant differences in 

perceptions based on demographic factors such as age, sex, grade level, 

or specialization. Moreover, a significant positive relationship was 

found between instructional leadership and academic outcomes, 

indicating that strong leadership practices contribute to improved 

student performance, motivation, and resource access.  

Based on these findings, a comprehensive program is proposed to 

enhance instructional leadership, optimize resource management, and 

promote student engagement in music education. The program focuses 

on professional educator development and continuous monitoring of 

leadership’s impact on academic success. This study highlights the 

importance of effective leadership in fostering a conducive learning 

environment and improving educational outcomes in university music 

programs. 
 

 

1.  Introduction 

Leadership plays a crucial role in contemporary education, particularly in university music programs. This study 

sought to explore the definition of educational leadership, the unique characteristics and challenges faced in music 

education, and the critical importance of effective leadership in enhancing music education programs. Music 

education is essential for developing various student abilities, including creativity, expression, social skills, and 

cognitive functions (Huang & Zhang, 2020). Through structured music programs, students’ intellectual growth, 

emotional development, and artistic appreciation can be significantly advanced (Li et al., 2018). 

Educational leadership is instrumental in creating and maintaining a robust music education framework. Leaders 

in education are responsible for setting and communicating clear objectives, motivating and guiding teaching 

                                                 

1 Graduate School, Emilio Aguinaldo College 

https://zapjournals.com/Journals/index.php/gjear


Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 13 

teams and ensuring that the necessary resources are available (Wu & Liu, 2016). They play a key role in providing 

support, establishing partnerships, and fostering a positive learning environment that enhances the effectiveness 

of music education (Yang & Li, 2017). Furthermore, educational leaders must continuously monitor and evaluate 

teaching quality to ensure ongoing improvements in music education (Guo & Xu, 2017). The ongoing evaluation 

and adaptation are vital for maintaining high standards and achieving educational goals. 

Comprehensive student development relies heavily on music education and effective educational leadership. 

Leaders in education not only set goals and provide resources but also actively support and enhance the 

implementation of music education programs (Tang & He, 2021). Their efforts in shaping the music education 

framework ensure that programs are effective and responsive to students’ needs, ultimately fostering a more 

enriching and successful educational experience. 

In university music education, effective leadership is pivotal in the comprehensive planning and execution of 

music teaching and the creation of an enriching learning environment (Chen & Wang, 2019). Leadership in this 

field involves the careful selection of teaching methods and content, setting clear educational goals, developing 

strategic plans, managing resources, and engaging with external stakeholders (Huang & Zhang, 2020). Educators’ 

leadership is crucial in guiding and organizing music instruction, requiring a forward-thinking approach to 

adapting and refining educational practices based on societal and student needs (Tang & He, 2021).  

The quality of music education is closely linked to the professional competence of educators. Effective 

educational leadership prioritizes the ongoing professional development of teachers by offering diverse training 

and growth opportunities (Guo & Xu, 2017). By advancing teachers’ skills and fostering innovation, leadership 

not only improves teaching quality and supports the sustainable development of music education programs (Wu 

& Liu, 2016). 

Educational leadership is crucial for advancing music education. This involves transforming educational 

administration and teaching policies to reflect current student needs and global standards (Yang & Li, 2017). 

Effective leadership in music education supports teachers’ development and improves overall educational 

outcomes by fostering efficiency and benefiting educators and students (Huang & Zhang, 2020). Research on 

music teachers’ educational leadership can reveal how leadership qualities and practices contribute to the growth 

of music education programs. 

This study underscores the vital role of educational leadership in enhancing music education at the university 

level. In focusing on the development of leadership skills and practices, this study aimed to improve the quality 

of music education and support the ongoing professional growth of educators (Li et al., 2018). Understanding and 

cultivating the traits of successful leaders can provide valuable insights into effectively advancing music 

education and its impact on student development (Guo & Xu, 2017). 

1.1. Background of the study 

Educational leadership refers to the ability of leaders in the field of education to guide organizations to achieve 

predetermined goals through a series of behaviors and decisions. It encompasses multiple aspects such as forward 

thinking, effective communication, teamwork, and innovative thinking (Yin et al., 2022). It is also a new 

requirement for educational development in today’s era and an essential comprehensive ability for educators 

(Chen & Zhang, 2021). It was founded on several core principles, including the establishment of a clear vision 

and mission, innovative thinking (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2019), and interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary 

collaboration (Huang & Zhang, 2020). 

In the specific context of music education, educational leadership involves fostering an environment that nurtures 

creativity and artistic growth. Robinson and Wager (2020) highlighted that leaders in music education must 

support educators, develop curricula that reflect both classical and contemporary musical traditions, and create 

opportunities for student performance and engagement. This role requires a deep understanding of music 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 14 

educators’ and students’ unique needs, as well as the ability to advocate for the importance of arts education 

within the broader educational landscape. 

Students are the primary beneficiaries of music education, and their comprehensive development is the core goal 

of all educational programs. Educational leaders must pay attention to students’ needs and growth by providing 

diverse learning resources and a conducive learning environment. Hence, the development of music education in 

universities is also heavily reliant on external support and resource integration. Educational leaders must actively 

coordinate relationships with external entities to secure additional resources and support. 

Educational leadership in general higher education and music education shares some commonalities but also 

exhibits distinct differences. In general, in higher education, leadership focuses broadly on academic and 

operational management, strategic planning, and fostering an inclusive academic culture. Leaders in this context 

must navigate complex governance structures, promote interdisciplinary collaboration, and address diverse 

challenges such as technology integration, diversity, and equity (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Zhang & Huang, 

2016). 

Despite progress, further research is needed on the influence of cultural contexts, particularly in non-Western 

settings like China, and the role of technology in transforming music education leadership (Wang, 2017; Zhao & 

Li, 2019; Smith, 2020). Interdisciplinary approaches, evaluation systems, and professional development for 

educators are areas that require more practical studies to improve teaching quality (Wu & Xu, 2021; Chen & Li, 

2020; Liu, 2021). Additionally, the impact of globalization on music education leadership, including international 

partnerships, needs further exploration to enhance global perspectives (Chen & Zhang, 2018). 

More empirical research is necessary to bridge the gap between leadership theory and practice in music education, 

which may lead to better student outcomes, faculty performance, and program success (Smith, 2020). By 

addressing these areas, educational leadership can continue to evolve, benefiting students, educators, and 

institutions alike. 

Current research often focuses on general educational settings or other disciplines, overlooking the unique aspects 

of music education. This omission indicates that there is a lack of specific insights into how instructional 

leadership can be optimized for music programs. Addressing this gap provides evidence-based recommendations 

for improving leadership practices and enhancing educational experiences in music education. 

1.2. Statement of the problem 

This study explored how leadership factors can help improve leadership practices and enhance the overall 

educational experience for all music educators. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions: 

Is there a significant difference in the assessment of teachers’ instructional leadership when respondents’ profiles 

are considered? 

Is there a significant difference in the assessment of academic outcomes when respondent profiles are considered? 

Is there a significant relationship between the assessment of teacher instructional leadership in music education 

and academic outcomes? 

Based on the research results, what intervention programs can be developed? 

1.3. The significance of the study 

This study examined the impact of music education on students. This study focused on students’ perceptions 

within an academic institution regarding their respective leaders’ transformational leadership styles. The study is 

significant as it enriches the understanding of the relationship between the transformational leadership of deans 

and the job satisfaction of teachers in the field of pedagogy. Specifically, it is beneficial to 

Students. The study enhances students’ educational experiences and outcomes through the development of the 

systems that govern their teachers, as well as the resources they use, hence, optimizing the learning opportunities 

offered to them. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 15 

School administrators. School administrators can use the study's findings to refine their approaches to supporting 

music education programs. By understanding the specific impacts of leadership practices on educational outcomes 

and institutional culture, administrators can implement targeted strategies to strengthen leadership competencies 

and optimize resources for music education. 

Policymakers. Policymakers can benefit from empirical evidence on how educational leadership influences music 

education in universities. This knowledge can guide the formulation of policies that promote effective leadership 

development initiatives, enhance educational standards, and support the integration of innovative practices into 

music departments. 

Education sector. Within the broader education sector, the study provides critical insights into the transformative 

power of educational leadership in music education. These insights can inform sector-wide efforts to nurture 

leadership talent, improve teaching and learning experiences, and elevate the overall quality of music education. 

Music sector. Stakeholders in the music sector, including educators, performers, and industry professionals, can 

leverage the findings of this study to understand how leadership practices shape the development of musical talent 

and the advancement of music education. This understanding can support initiatives that enhance artistic growth, 

promote interdisciplinary collaborations, and prepare students for diverse careers in music. 

Future researchers. This study provides a foundational understanding of how educational leadership practices 

influence music education. Future researchers can build upon these findings to explore specific aspects such as 

leadership styles, teaching methodologies, and student outcomes in greater depth.  

1.4. Scope and delimitation 

This study explored the impact of instructional leadership on music education learning among students at Taishan 

University (Tai'an City, Shandong Province, China. The research focused on 400 students, including those 

majoring in music studies and others enrolled in music-related courses across various disciplines. This study 

assessed how instructional leadership elements such as goal-setting, resource management, development skills, 

and leadership quality influence students’ academic performance, motivation, and classroom participation in the 

context of music education. 

Geographically, the study was confined to Taishan University, a prominent educational institution known for its 

strong emphasis on teacher education and comprehensive academic programs. The findings from this specific 

setting may not be directly applicable to other universities or regions, which could limit the study’s broad 

applicability. Additionally, the research exclusively targeted students involved in music-related courses, 

intentionally excluding faculty, administrators, and students from other departments, thus narrowing the scope to 

those directly engaged in music education. 

The study was conducted within a defined academic period and focused on current practices and outcomes, which 

may not reflect long-term trends or future changes in instructional leadership. This time-bound approach restricts 

analysis to this context and does not account for evolving educational dynamics. Moreover, the research primarily 

examined the role of instructional leadership, without delving into other factors such as curriculum design, 

teaching methodologies, or external socioeconomic conditions that might also influence student learning 

outcomes.   

1.5. Theoretical framework 

The study used the Transformational Leadership Theory, which offers a robust framework to examine how 

leadership influences various facets of music education. Transformational leadership, rooted in the work of James 

MacGregor Burns and further developed by Bernard Bass, emphasizes leaders’ ability to inspire and motivate 

followers toward higher performance through a shared vision and values (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2018).  

This theory posits that effective leaders transform individuals’ and organizations’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, 

which are particularly relevant in the dynamic and creative environment of music education. In educational 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 16 

contexts, transformational leaders are associated with higher levels of teacher motivation, student engagement, 

academic achievement, and organizational commitment (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2004).  

Research applying the Transformational Leadership Theory to music education can explore how the components 

of transformational leadership contribute to student engagement and learning outcomes. Studies can investigate 

how inspirational motivation enhances students’ commitment to music studies, how intellectual stimulation 

fosters creativity and innovation in musical performances, how individualized consideration supports student 

well-being and academic success, and how idealized influence shapes the ethical and professional standards of 

future musicians and educators. Moreover, the application of Transformational Leadership Theory in music 

education research can examine its impact on faculty performance and professional development.  

2. Methodology 

The techniques and steps used to gather data required to complete this study are addressed in this chapter. The 

research design, sample and sampling strategy, research instrument, data collection process, and statistical data 

treatment are among the elements covered in this chapter. These elements all help this study achieve its objective. 

2.1. Research locale 

For the purposes of this study, Taishan University was selected as the research site. The university is a full-time 

undergraduate university approved by the Ministry of Education and offers a comprehensive range of academic 

courses. Taishan University is recognized as one of the 19 provincial teacher education bases in Shandong 

Province and is among the first universities in the province to admit state-funded normal students. The university 

employs 1,500 faculty members, of whom 1,100 are full-time faculty members, including 450 senior educators.  

2.2. Sample and sampling technique 

This study targeted students majoring in music at the university’s music colleges as well as students from other 

colleges taking music courses. The distinction between these groups lies in their objectives: students in music 

colleges pursue professional development for future careers, while those taking music courses aim to enhance 

their comprehensive artistic literacy. 

A total enumeration sampling technique was applied, involving the selection of 400 student respondents to 

participate in the survey. This method was chosen to ensure comprehensive data collection from the entire study 

population. The total enumeration guarantees that the participants represent the entire group of interest. 

Participants were selected based on their enrollment status at Taishan University, ensuring that the data collected 

was both detailed and inclusive for thorough analysis.  

2.3. Data gathering procedure 

The data gathering procedure for this study on the impact of educational leadership on music education in 

universities involved several systematic steps to ensure accuracy and reliability. 

First, the researcher identified the specific population and developed a sampling frame. The selection criteria 

ensured a representative sample that could provide comprehensive insights into the research questions. 

Next, a structured questionnaire was designed based on the study objectives. The questionnaire consisted of items 

related to the respondents’ demographic profiles, assessments of educational leadership practices, and perceptions 

of their impact on music education. A four-point Likert scale was used to measure the degree of agreement or 

disagreement with various statements. 

BePrior tohe full deployment of the questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted with a small group of respondents 

from the specific population. This preliminary test helped identify any ambiguities or issues with the 

questionnaire, which was then subsequently revised to improve its clarity and reliability. 

With the refined questionnaire ready, the researcher sought and obtained permission from university 

administrators to conduct the research. Then, the main data collection phase began. Participants were contacted 

via email or in-person meetings, and the purpose of the study was explained. Informed consent was obtained from 

all participants, ensuring that they were fully aware of the study’s aims, their role and their right to withdraw at 

any time. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 17 

The questionnaire was distributed to the selected respondents. Participants were given a specified time frame to 

complete and return the questionnaires. Follow-up reminders were sent to maximize the response rate and ensure 

comprehensive data collection. Upon receiving the completed questionnaires, the researcher meticulously 

checked for completeness and consistency. Incomplete or inconsistent responses were excluded from the analysis 

to maintain data integrity. 

The collected data were then systematically entered into a statistical software for analysis. Descriptive statistics, 

comparative analysis, and correlation studies were conducted to address the research questions and test the 

hypotheses. The results were interpreted and discussed in the context of the existing literature on educational 

leadership and music education, providing insights and recommendations based on the findings. The data 

gathering procedure was conducted with strict adherence to ethical standards, ensuring the confidentiality and 

privacy of all participants throughout the study. 

2.4. Statistical analysis 

The data were statistically analyzed so that the researcher could rapidly study and comprehend the findings. Data 

had to be statistically processed in order to be used for the intended purposes. For accurate conclusions to be 

drawn, data layout is crucial. As a result, statistical analysis was performed using appropriate statistical techniques 

to assess the given data.  

A statistical data description’s primary objective is to caution researchers against making assumptions about the 

results that the data do not support. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to 

conduct the study objectives and subsequent statistical methods. 

3. Results and analysis 

The following section presents the findings of the study, analyzing the data collected from the respondents. The 

results are discussed in relation to the research objectives, focusing on the impact of instructional leadership on 

student outcomes in music education. 

Table 1  

Summary of Instructional Leadership in Music Education 

Domain Mean SD Rank Interpretation 

Goal Setting 3.74 0.60 1 Highly Manifested 

Resource Management 3.67 0.68 4 Highly Manifested 

Development Skills 3.69 0.64 3 Highly Manifested 

Leadership Quality 3.72 0.61 2 Highly Manifested 

Instructional Leadership  

in Music Education 
3.70 0.63 - Highly Manifested 

Scale: 3.51–4.00 Highly Manifested; 2.51–3.50 Manifested; 1.51–2.50 Slightly Manifested; 1.00–1.50 Not 

Manifested 

Table 1 presents a summary of the assessed level of instructional leadership in music education, with each domain 

evaluated by its mean, standard deviation (SD), rank, and interpretation. All domains were interpreted as "Highly 

Manifested," indicating a strong perception of instructional leadership across different areas of music education. 

The highest-ranked domain is "Goal Setting," with a mean of 3.74 and an SD of 0.60. This suggests that setting 

clear, achievable goals is the most prominent aspect of instructional leadership among the teachers evaluated, 

with a focus on aligning these goals with both course objectives and students’ needs. 

Overall, the mean for instructional leadership in music education was 3.70, with an SD of 0.63, indicating that, 

across all domains, instructional leadership was consistently perceived as strong and highly manifested. The top 

three domains, in order, are goal setting, leadership quality, and development skills, with resource management 

ranking the lowest among the four domains, although it still receives high ratings from respondents.  

The overall high mean score (M = 3.70) across leadership domains underscores the strong positive impact of 

leadership on music education’s educational outcomes. Effective leadership, as noted in resource management 

(M = 3.67) and leadership quality (M = 3.72), aligns with the literature that stresses the importance of visionary 

and collaborative leadership in fostering an enriching learning environment (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017).  



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 18 

Table 2: Differences in Instructional Leadership based on Age 

Domain Categories Mean F-Value Sig. 
Interpretation/ 

Decision 

Goal Setting 

Less than 18 years old 3.72 

0.95 0.73 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

18-21 years old 3.69 

22-25 years old 3.71 

More than 25 years old 3.72 

Resource 

Management 

Less than 18 years old 3.70 

0.97 0.50 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

18-21 years old 3.71 

22-25 years old 3.72 

More than 25 years old 3.71 

Development 

Skills 

Less than 18 years old 3.69 

1.16 0.41 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

18-21 years old 3.71 

22-25 years old 3.69 

More than 25 years old 3.70 

Leadership Quality 

Less than 18 years old 3.69 

1.01 0.26 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

18-21 years old 3.71 

22-25 years old 3.69 

More than 25 years old 3.71 

Instructional 

Leadership 

Less than 18 years old 3.72 

1.19 0.24 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

18-21 years old 3.71 

22-25 years old 3.69 

More than 25 years old 3.70 

*Level of significance = 0.05. 

Table 2 outlines the differences in instructional leadership based on the age of respondents across four domains: Goal 

Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, and Leadership Quality. The mean values for each age category, F-

value, significance level (Sig.), and the corresponding interpretation/decision are presented for each domain. Across all 

domains, the findings indicate no significant differences in instructional leadership based on age, as all significance values 

(Sig.) are greater than 0.05, leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis (H0). 

In summary, across all domains—Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, Leadership Quality, and 

overall Instructional Leadership—there was no significant difference in the assessment of instructional leadership based on 

the age of the respondents. This suggests that instructional leadership is perceived uniformly across age groups. No 

significant differences were observed in instructional leadership based on age (Sig. > 0.05) suggest that leadership 

approaches in music education are effective across various age groups. This reflects the inclusivity of modern leadership 

strategies that accommodate diverse student needs and backgrounds (Yin et al., 2022). 

Table 3:  Differences in Instructional Leadership based on Sex 
Domain Categories Mean t-value Sig Interpretation/Decision 

Goal Setting 
Male 3.69 

–0.50 0.66 
Not significant/  

Accept H0 Female 3.70 

Resource 

Management 

Male 3.71 
–0.72 0.73 

Not significant/  

Accept H0 Female 3.72 

Development Skills 
Male 3.71 

0.85 0.57 
Not significant/  

Accept H0 Female 3.69 

Leadership Quality 
Male 3.70 

-0.51 0.77 
Not significant/  

Accept H0 Female 3.71 

Instructional 

Leadership 

Male 3.72 
0.40 0.51 

Not significant/  

Accept H0 Female 3.71 

*Level of significance = 0.05. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 19 

Table 3 presents the differences in instructional leadership based on the sex of the respondents across four 

domains: Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, and Leadership Quality. The table provides 

the mean scores for both male and female respondents, the t-value, significance level (Sig.), and the corresponding 

interpretation or decision. Across all domains, the results indicate no significant differences in instructional 

leadership based on sex, as all significance values are greater than 0.05, leading to the acceptance of the null 

hypothesis (H0). 

In summary, across all domains—Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, Leadership Quality, 

and overall Instructional Leadership—there were no significant differences between male and female respondents 

in their assessment of instructional leadership. This suggests that instructional leadership is perceived similarly 

by both sexes. Similar findings with no significant differences in leadership based on sex (Sig. > 0.05) highlight 

the gender-neutral impact of leadership in music education. Educational leadership should embrace gender equity, 

ensuring that both male and female students benefit equally from leadership efforts (Yang & Li, 2022). 

Table 4: Differences in Instructional Leadership based on Grade Level 

Domain Categories Mean F-Value Sig. 
Interpretation/ 

Decision 

Goal Setting 

1st year 3.70 

0.53 0.66 

Not 

significant/accept 

H0 

2nd year 3.70 

3rd year 3.72 

4th year 3.72 

Resource 

Management 

1st year 3.70 

1.21 0.19 

Not 

significant/accept 

H0 

2nd year 3.70 

3rd year 3.72 

4th year 3.72 

Development 

Skills 

1st year 3.72 

0.57 0.87 

Not 

significant/accept 

H0 

2nd year 3.71 

3rd year 3.69 

4th year 3.70 

Leadership 

Quality 

1st year 3.72 

1.38 0.17 

Not 

significant/accept 

H0 

2nd year 3.71 

3rd year 3.69 

4th year 3.72 

Instructional 

Leadership 

1st year 3.71 

0.73 0.53 

Not 

significant/accept 

H0 

2nd year 3.72 

3rd year 3.71 

4th year 3.70 

*Level of significance = 0.05. 

Table 4 examines the differences in instructional leadership based on the grade level of the respondents across 

four domains: Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, and Leadership Quality. The mean 

scores for each grade level (1st to 4th year), F-value, significance level (Sig.), and the corresponding interpretation 

or decision are presented. Across all domains, no significant differences were found based on grade level, as all 

significance values were greater than 0.05, leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis (H0). 

In summary, no significant differences in instructional leadership were observed across all domains—Goal 

Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, Leadership Quality, and overall Instructional Leadership—

based on the grade level of the respondents. This indicates that students consistently perceive instructional 

leadership. Non-significant differences in leadership based on grade level (Sig. > 0.05) indicate that leadership 

strategies are perceived consistently across different student cohorts. Leaders must adapt to the developmental 

needs of all students, regardless of their year-level (Chen & Zhang, 2019). 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 20 

Table 5: Differences in Instructional Leadership based on Specialization 

Domain Categories Mean F-Value Sig. 
Interpretation/ 

Decision 

Goal Setting 

Percussion 3.72 

0.95 0.81 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

Woodwind 3.72 

Brass 3.71 

Strings 3.71 

Resource 

Management 

Percussion 3.71 

0.64 0.65 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

Woodwind 3.71 

Brass 3.72 

Strings 3.69 

Development 

Skills 

Percussion 3.70 

1.11 0.10 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

Woodwind 3.69 

Brass 3.70 

Strings 3.70 

Leadership 

Quality 

Percussion 3.70 

0.91 0.55 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

Woodwind 3.70 

Brass 3.71 

Strings 3.71 

Instructional 

Leadership 

Percussion 3.71 

0.48 0.66 
Not significant/accept 

H0 

Woodwind 3.70 

Brass 3.71 

Strings 3.71 

*Level of significance = 0.05. 

Table 5 examines the differences in instructional leadership based on the specialization of the respondents across 

four domains: Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, and Leadership Quality. The table 

provides the mean scores for each specialization (Percussion, Woodwind, Brass, and Strings), F-value, 

significance level (Sig.), and the corresponding interpretation or decision. Across all domains, no significant 

differences were found based on specialization because all significance values were greater than 0.05, leading to 

the acceptance of the null hypothesis (H0). 

In summary, across all domains—Goal Setting, Resource Management, Development Skills, Leadership Quality, 

and overall Instructional Leadership—no significant differences were observed based on the specialization of the 

respondents. This indicates that instructional leadership is consistently perceived across different specializations 

in music education. The absence of significant differences across specializations (Sig. > 0.05) suggests that 

instructional leadership is equally effective across different music disciplines. This aligns with the notion that 

leadership must accommodate interdisciplinary collaboration in education (Sousa & Tomlinson, 2019). 

Table 6: Summary of Academic Outcomes 

Domain Mean SD Rank Interpretation 

Classroom Performance 3.72 0.61 1 Highly Evident 

Subject Motivation 3.71 0.61 3 Highly Evident 

Resource Availability 3.70 0.63 4 Highly Evident 

Academic Outcomes 3.71 0.62 - Highly Evident 

Scale: 3.51–4.00, highly evident; 2.51–3.50, evident; 1.51–2.50, slightly evident; 1.00–1.50, not evident 

 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 21 

Table 6 provides a summary of academic outcomes across three domains: Classroom Performance, Subject 

Motivation, and Resource Availability. Each domain was evaluated based on its mean, standard deviation (SD), 

and rank, with the overall interpretation being "Highly Evident" for all domains. The summary also includes the 

overall academic outcomes derived from the three domains. 

Overall, the mean for academic outcomes was 3.71, with an SD of 0.62, indicating a high level of consistency in 

students’ perceptions of the positive impact of instructional leadership on their academic performance, 

motivation, and access to resources. The top-ranked domain highlights the critical role of instructional leadership 

in classroom performance, whereas resource availability, though essential, ranks slightly lower in contributing to 

academic outcomes.  

The overall academic outcomes (M = 3.71) were highly influenced by leadership in music education, as 

demonstrated by the high scores in classroom performance, motivation, and resource availability. Effective 

leadership drives student success through strategic resource management, goal setting, and student engagement 

(Chen & Zhang, 2019). 

Table 7 

Relationship between Instructional Leadership and Academic Outcomes 

Variables Goal-Setting 
Resource 

Management 

Development 

Skills 

Leadership 

Quality 

Instructional 

Leadership 

Classroom 

Performance 

Pearson r 0.81 0.80 0.83 0.79 0.85 

p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Subject 

Motivation 

Pearson r 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.83 0.79 

p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Resource 

Availability 

Pearson r 0.84 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.81 

p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Academic 

Outcomes 

Pearson r 0.79 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.80 

p-value 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

*Level of significance = 0.05. 

Table 7 presents the significant relationships between instructional leadership dimensions—goal-setting, resource 

management, development skills, and leadership quality—and various academic outcomes, including classroom 

performance, subject motivation, resource availability, and overall academic outcomes. 

In summary, Table 7 highlights the critical role of instructional leadership in influencing academic outcomes, 

confirming that strong leadership practices in goal setting, resource management, and development skills 

significantly improve student performance, motivation, and resource availability. All relationships were 

statistically significant, emphasizing the importance of effective leadership in fostering a positive educational 

environment. 

Based on the data, all academic outcomes—Classroom Performance, Subject Motivation, Resource Availability, 

and overall Academic Outcomes—are significantly and positively correlated with instructional leadership. This 

highlights the critical role that instructional leadership plays in fostering better academic results. The strongest 

relationship was found between instructional leadership and classroom performance (r = 0.85, p = 0.00), 

supporting the idea that effective leadership significantly enhances students’ academic achievements in music 

education (Chen & Zhang, 2019).  

The strong positive correlation with subject motivation (r = 0.79, p = 0.00) reflects how leaders who set clear 

goals and foster engagement can drive student interest and enthusiasm (Guo & Xu, 2020). The significant 

relationship between leadership and resource availability (r = 0.81, p = 0.00) further emphasizes the leader’s role 

in ensuring that adequate resources are provided, enhancing the overall learning environment (Bryson, 2018). the 

significant, strong, positive correlation between instructional leadership and academic outcomes (r = 0.80, p = 

0.00) underscores the central role of leadership in shaping educational success, which aligns with the broader 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 22 

literature emphasizing strategic planning, resource management, and effective communication as essential 

components of educational leadership (Zhang et al., 2022; Sousa & Tomlinson, 2019).  

REFERENCES 

Adams, M. C., & Miskell, R. C. (2016). Teacher trust in district administration: A promising line of inquiry. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 675–706. 

Asmus, E. P. (1999). Music assessment concepts. Music Educators Journal, 86(2), 19–24. 

Atlas, A. W. (1998). Renaissance Music: Music in Western Europe, 1400–1600. W.W. Norton and Company. 

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications 

(3rd Ed.). The Free Press. 

Bastian, C. K., & Henry, T. G. (2015). The apprentice: Pathways to principalship and student achievement. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 600–639. 

Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and 

sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons. 

Burnard, P., and Haddon, E. (2015). Activating diverse musical creativities: Teaching and learning in higher 

music education. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Campbell, P. S., & Scott-Kassner, C. (2013). Music in Childhood: From Preschool through the Elementary 

Grades. Schirmer. 

Cannata, M., Rubin, M., Goldring, E., et al. (2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information-rich hiring. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2), 180–222. 

Cell, C. P. (1974). Charismatic heads of state: The social context. Behavior Science Research, 9(2), 255–305. 

Chen, J., & Li, H. (2020). Evaluation mechanisms in music education: Strategies and impacts. Journal of Music 

Education. 

Chen, M., & Zhang, L. (2021). Innovative approaches to educational leadership: Theory and practice. Educational 

Leadership Journal, 30(2), 78–92. doi: 10.1016/j.edu.2021.05.004. 

Chen, M., Xu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2020). Innovative teaching methods in music education: addressing global trends. 

Journal of Music Education Research, 12(3), 45–59. doi:10.1080/00207454.2020.1764237 

Chen, X., & Wang, Y. (2020). Leadership in music education: insights and innovations. Journal of Music 

Education, 45(3), 214–226. 

Chen, X., & Zhang, L. (2018). Global perspectives in music education: Challenges and opportunities. 

International Journal of Music Education. 

Chen, Y., & Zhang, L. (2019). Resource management in music education. International Journal of Music 

Education, 37(4), 379–395. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 23 

Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2). 

Davis, J. H. (2020). Fundamentals of higher education leadership. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school 

leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration 

Quarterly, 52(2), 22–46. 

De Groot, K., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to 

charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356–371. 

Ellis, C., Skidmore, T. S., & Combs, P. J. (2017). The hiring process matters the role of person-job and person-

organization fit in teacher satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 448–474. 

Fautley, M., & Murphy, R. (2015). Assessment in music education. Oxford University Press. 

Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, D. B. (2011). Do principal preparation programs influence student achievement 

through mediating of teacher-team qualifications by the principal? An exploratory analysis. Educational 

Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173–216. 

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why is can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books. 

Guo, X. (2017). Analysis of the reform of physical education teaching in colleges and universities under the idea 

of lifelong physical education. Journal of Chifeng College (Natural Science Edition), 08, 134–135. 

Guo, X., & Xu, Q. (2020). The role of leadership in enhancing music education quality: An empirical study. 

Journal of Music Education Research, 14(1), 33–47. doi:10.1080/00207454.2020.1756104. 

Hiley, D. (1993). Western Plainchant: A Handbook. Oxford University Press. 

Ho, W. C. (2014). Globalization, National Education Policies, and Reforms: Insights into China and Taiwan. 

Springer. 

Ho, W. C. (2017). Music education in China: Policy, administration, and delivery since 1949. Routledge. 

Huang, H., & Zhang, L. (2020). Transforming music education through leadership: An overview. International 

Journal of Music Education, 38(4), 560–572. doi:10.1177/0255761420924518. 

Huang, H., & Zhang, L. (2020). Transforming music education through effective leadership: insights and 

practices. International Journal of Music Education, 38(4), 560-572. doi:10.1177/0255761420924518. 

Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education in urban school reform. Educational 

Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51. 

Johnson, L., & Pak, Y. (2018). Leadership for democracy in challenging times: Historical case studies in the 

United States and Canada. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(3), 396–426. 

Jorgensen, E. R. (2008). The art of teaching music. Indiana University Press. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 24 

Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1992). Charisma: Exploring new dimensions of leadership behavior. Psychology 

and Developing Societies, 4(1), 21–38. 

Kennedy, M. M. (2019). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational 

Research, 89(4), 547–588. 

Kezar, A., & Holcombe, E. (2017). Shared leadership in higher education: Lessons learned from research and 

practice. American Council on Education. 

Klar, W. H., and Brewer, A. C. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination of core 

leadership practices in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 768–808. 

Kowalski, T. (2009). Evidence-based practices in educational administration. Educational Administration 

Quarterly, 45(3), 351–374. 

Koyama, J. (2014). Principals as Bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational 

Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. 

Lamont, A., & Maton, K. (2008). Exploring musical learning. Oxford University Press. 

Leong, S. (2012). Musicianship in the 21st century: Issues, trends & possibilities. Australian Music Center. 

Li, F., & Xu, Z. (2022). Innovations in music education leadership. Journal of Contemporary Education, 20(1), 

45–62. 

Li, J., & Wang, H. (2020). Educational leadership and its impact on music education: A comprehensive study. 

Music Education Research, 22(3), 299–313. doi:10.1080/14613808.2020.1802553. 

Li, J., Wang, H., & Zhou, M. (2018). The impact of leadership on music education: A comprehensive study. 

Music Education Research, 20(1), 25–39. doi:10.1080/14613808.2018.1489682. 

Liang, J. G., & Peters-Hawkins. (2017). “I am more than what I look alike”: Asian- American women in public 

school administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(1), 40–69. 

Liu, J., & Huo, Q. (2021). Strategic thinking in music education leadership. Educational Leadership Journal, 

30(2), 159–175. 

Liu, Y. (2009). The history of Chinese music education. Shanghai Music Publishing House. 

Liu, Y. (2021). Professional development for music educators: Best practices and strategies. Music Education 

Research. 

Mackey, J. H. (2017). ESSA in the Indian Country: Problematizing self-determination through the relationships 

between federal, state, and tribal governments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 782–808. 

Mark, M. L. (2002). History of American music education. Rowman and Littlefield. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 25 

Min Sun, Y., and Yongmei Ni. (2016). Work environments and labor markets: Explaining the principal turnover 

gap between charter and traditional public schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 144–

183. 

Mitani, H. (2018). Principals’ working conditions, job stress, and turnover behaviors under NCLB accountability 

pressure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(5), 822–862. 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications. 

O’Neill, S. A. (2017). Motivation in music: Theories and applications. Routledge. 

Parker, M. (2012). Understanding the context of music education. Oxford University Press. 

Pennington, P. (2005). The leadership pie: Grab your piece before it’s gone! Journal of Leadership Education, 

4(1), 75. 

Robinson, K., & Wager, E. (2020). The arts in schools: Principles, practices, and provision. Calouste Gulbenkian 

Foundation. 

Romero, S. L., and Mitchell, E. D. (2018). Toward understanding trust: A response to Adams and Miskell. 

Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 152-170. 

Schmidt, P. K. (2005). Reconceptualizing music education. Rowman and Littlefield Education. 

Science, technology, engineering, and math education for future leadership. (Gasworld: Incorporating CryoGas 

International). 

Scientometric Methods for Identifying Scientific Leaders: New Mathematical Models. (Automatic 

Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics). 

Shaw, R. D. (2018). Leadership in higher education: Practices that make a difference. Routledge. 

Smith, A. (2020). Educational informatisation in music education: Integrating technology for enhanced learning 

outcomes. Educational Leadership Journal. 

Sousa, D.A. and Tomlinson, C. A. (2019). Differentiation and the brain: how neuroscience supports the learner-

friendly classroom. ASCD. ISBN: 978-1416627223. 

Swanwick, K. (1999). Teaching music musically. Routledge. 

Tang, Y., & He, X. (2021). The effect of the sport education model in physical education on student learning 

attitude: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 21, 1061. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10748-6. 

Wang, C. (2013). A study of the problems and countermeasures of music education in Chinese colleges and 

universities. Journal of Music Education. 

Wang, Q. (2017). Leadership in higher education in China: Cultural contexts and practices. Asia Pacific 

Education Review. 



Global Journal of Education and Allied Research (GJEAR) Vol. 15 (11) 

 

pg. 26 

Watkins, C., & Goetz, M. (2021). Beyond the classroom: Engaging the community in music education. Oxford 

University Press. 

Webster, P. R., & Richardson, C. P. (2020). New directions in music education. Oxford University Press. 

Wu, J., & Xu, Z. (2021). Interdisciplinary collaborations in music education: Leadership strategies and benefits. 

Arts Education Policy Review. 

Yang, B. (2019). Music during the Age of Confucianism: The Chinese Song Dynasty (960–1279) and its Musical 

Legacy. University of Illinois Press. 

Yang, J. (2018). Modern developments in Chinese music education. Journal of Music and Arts, 56(1), 33-47. 

Yang, S., & Li, T. (2017). Educational leadership in music: Practices and outcomes. Journal of Music and 

Education, 29(2), 102–114. doi:10.1080/0141182X.2017.1315629. 

Yang, S., & Li, T. (2022). Innovative leadership in music education: Theoretical and practical perspectives. 

Journal of Educational Leadership, 18(2), 120–135. doi:10.1080/10408344.2022.2155548. 

Yang, Y., & Li, X. (2018). Student-centered approaches in music education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 

29(4), 221–238. 

Yin, Z., Zhang, X., & Liu, F. (2022). Leadership in music education: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of 

Music Education Research, 16(4), 50-65. doi:10.1080/00207454.2022.1959826. 

Yip, H. K. (2007). Reforming music education in China. Education Journal. 

Zhang, H., & Huang, Q. (2016). Comparative analysis of educational leadership. Educational Research Review, 

11(2), 123–145. 

Zhang, L. (2019). The evolution of music education in higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education 

Research, 15(2), 201–214. doi:10.1007/s10755-019-09423-2. 

Zhang, L., Li, M., & Zhou, W. (2022). The role of educational leadership in enhancing music education outcomes. 

Journal of Higher Education, 45(1), 78-92. doi:10.1007/s10755-022-09840-2. 

Zhang, Y. (2015). Music education during the Song dynasty. Chinese Culture Journal, 13(3), pp. 67–89. 

Zhao, Y., & Li, C. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in educational leadership in China. Chinese Education 

& Society. 

Zhou, M., and Tang, S. (2020). Teacher training and professional development in music education. Journal of 

Teacher Education, 31(3), pp. 201–217. 


