studies as the other studies did not report the data that was required in calculating the effects of the components of their leadership variables and used unitary leadership. Thus, studies available were too small and there was generalization of results. The second limitation is that the study did not conduct the leadership impact on both the academic and non-academic outcomes due to the limited number of studies that were available to make it practical (Robinson 2008, 58).
Critiquing student 2, first post- The posting brings a very clear introduction on the different leadership styles and the impact they have on the student outcome outlining the purpose of the study very clearly. From the finding, educational leaders who continue being involved in learning and teaching have a positive impact on the student’s outcome that is very practical and essential in enhancing learning (Jogulu 2010, 711). The type of leadership will also differ among different schools according to the students’ needs thus, it is important for the schools to determine the appropriate type of leadership that is outlined clearly in the posting.
For the second posting student 2, it site lack of evidence from other studies as a great limitation of the study. It questions the motivation behind continuing with the study due to non-availability of other studies. This is not a major study limitation. The unlimited unavailability of other studies should act as a great motivation of carrying out the research (Kythreotis et al. 2010, 221). The available studies are enough and relevant of conducting the study as it is only an expansion of more researches and studies, that more available evidence and correlations will be found. However, it is true that a definite bias occurs due to the skewness of the available evidence.
There is coherence and logic as presented by the writer in his arguments on the influence of the leadership styles on the student’s outcome. The writer starts by outlining the ...Show more