{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01694915254237288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014738393515106854, 'mean_word_length': 5.79, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Methodological, Measurement, and Conceptual Problems in the Study of Instructional Leadership

During the past 10 years a good deal of attention has been devoted to examining the role that school administrators play in improving learning outcomes for students. One theme that has received considerable emphasis is the instructional leadership dimension of administrative activity. In this article a comprehensive review of the research in the area of instructional leadership is provided. I report on progress that has been made in overcoming first generation research difficulties in this area, describe some of the more deep-rooted conceptual difficulties that have been less amenable to resolution, and analyze problem areas in the study of instructional leadership that have heretofore received little scrutiny. For purposes of organizational clarity, weaknesses in the studies of instructional leadership are grouped under the three headings of methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems. Within these three areas, particular attention is devoted to analyzing problems that emerge from (a) relying on a job analysis approach to defining instructional leadership, (b) failing to adequately consider both the micro and macro level contextual aspects of leadership, and (c) attributing causality to persons rather than organizational conditions.