Understanding School Middle-Leading Practices: Developing a Middle-Leading Practice Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article mainly directed to those that are into quantitative studies, factor analysis and the development of models to explore areas of study. Should provide an opportunity for those who like stats to relate to the findings and the observations made.

You have raised a number of interesting points whilst acknowledging that this is work in progress as you develop and refine the model. I wish you well in your work. It will be interesting to see how this work explores aspects related to age, experience and gender as your work unfolds.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing this paper, as you noted this is the first stage in the development of Middle Leading Practice Model (MLPM), and has provided some interesting  insights as we further develop MLPM.

With thanks,

Sharon 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this important paper and the care and quality of presentation.

The article is a fine development of this research group’s middle leadership research. The model developed from the practice focussed research is worthwhile and if, as the authors suggest, AITSL is using this for its own conceptualisation of the work of middle leaders in developing their middle leader standards, this make this survey more compelling. If surveys are important, then this seems to be a good addition to the educational leadership field. 

The researchers could acknowledge more the contradiction inherent in their current research – the strength of their research to date has been a focus on getting middle leaders to articulate what they do through interviews and sometimes observing their work, and now to move to a survey may assume that (1) all that is needed to be known is now known, and (2) that there is a common understanding amongst teachers about this work.

There are some issues in the construction of this survey validation. The final N is at the lower end of expectations, and so in terms of psychometric development this paper is reporting on the beginnings of a proper development of the instrument. In terms of sample, it really was a convenience sample, that ended up with a couple of hundred people responding. At best the characteristics of those people can be described and the reader can judge the worth of the survey, but many with a statistical bent may be critical – I am fine with what has been done and I am also confident as more data comes in the survey will develop well psychometrically (as the authors note). A strength, as noted by the authors, is the richness of experience in the sample (across of year levels, school types and jurisdictions – well done!). The authors are correct in their conclusion in terms of the scope and importance of the study: 

‘Although the scale of the study was substantial, we have been somewhat cautious in our claims given that the findings, while robust, are based on an instrument that requires further refinement and application… It is perhaps a bit strong to call it a model per se, but the substance and the structure of the SMLPM provides preliminary insights on the focus for MLs professional learning noted above. Importantly, it provides a foundation and insights that are grounded in empirical research, which means that it should more accurately and effectively reflect the actual leading practices of MLs, and the conditions and arrangements that shape their work.'

Whilst there has to be an end-point regarding the literature reviewed in an article, development of a competing Australian survey that will also likely have world significance has just been formally published and the authors will need to at least mention it, or, preferably, engage with it in the discussion:  De Nobile, J., Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S. & Grice, C. (2024 )Investigating the roles of middle leaders in New South Wales public schools: Factor analyses of the Middle Leadership Roles Questionnaire, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, early cite, 25p.

The analysis seems to be very good. The debate about which model to use - three or four factors - highlights the care of the authors, and personally, the simple scree plot for me confirms the correct choice of a four-factor solution – there are enough statistics used to justify this, and conceptually it makes sense. The authors are exactly right in the importance of this observation from their work: ‘An important feature of the findings related to the 4-factor solution was the way it suggested ML practices are oriented to their school site, and specifically their teacher colleagues and/or the principal.’ How MLs preference describing who they work with and how they work with them is an important observation – and finally, the political nature of the work of MLs is being revisited (e.g. managing up).

Congratulations on some fine research, the development of a very useful survey and the quality of the article. I look forward to seeing this survey develop over time.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time, and expertise in reviewing the feedback, to address the three points from your review:

1] In reference to why quantitative study rather  than previous qualitative studies, line 74 -76 we believe addresses this point. We posit  that there has been many small scale studies - some of which have informed the MLPSS but there is an acknowledgment that alternative methods  are needed to  further understand ML practices. It is an evolving field of research and this quantitative study may contribute in a unique way to the current knowledge base.

2] It is correct to state the N is lower than what we would have envisaged as the survey was implemented during COVID 19 lock downs this may have impacted the final survey number, additionally over 60 surveys were not fully completed and could not included. As you correctly stated it was purpose sampling  (noted line 194), and there is a need for further refining of the model with greater participant numbers (noted in the discussion),  the small sample size is acknowledges line 489.

3] Thank you for highlighting the reference  by De Nobile - this  paper proposes a model of middle leader roles and responsibilities rather than focusing on middle leader practices the focus of this current paper. For this reason, and also the De Nobile paper was co-authored by one of the authors of this current paper,  noting the high number of self citations,  for this reason we chose to exclude this reference.

Again thank you for your constructive feedback, it is very much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Sharon 

Reviewer 3 Report

 Congratulation on a well written and structured paper. The literature review of Australian research provided important background for the study. The methodology was well designed and appropriate. I considered your addition to the three domains of advocating and communicating with the principal. Overall, this makes an excellent contribution to research on middle leadership. 

Technical aspect. 199 completed the survey. I wondered at the total number of participants who were invited to complete the survey. What percentage responded?

 Check reference for definition of MLs, line 100-102. The quotation cites page 14. The reference (16) Lipscombe et al. notes pages 270-288.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and expertise in reviewing the paper on developing a middle leader practice model, it is very much appreciated. Responding to your two queries:

1] In regard to the number of middle leaders who completed the MLDP  survey this is not known as the survey was emailed via professional organisations and we were not privy to their data base of middle leaders.

 2] The reference page number has been corrected on line  100-102 to p283 

Again thank you for your time and feedback

Regards,

Sharon