Sri Tularsih
Universitas PGRI Semarang

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

Principal Instructional Leadership and the Development of a Positive Learning Ecosystem: A Qualitative Case Study in an Indonesian Primary School Sri Tularsih; Nurkolis Nurkolis; Nur Khoiri
QALAMUNA: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sosial, dan Agama Vol. 18 No. 2 (2026)
Publisher : Lembaga Penerbitan dan Publikasi Ilmiah Program Pascasarjana IAI Sunan Giri Ponorogo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37680/qalamuna.v18i2.10644

Abstract

This study explains how principal instructional leadership contributes to the development of a positive learning ecosystem at SD Negeri Jamasih 01, Brebes, Indonesia. A qualitative single-case design involved three participants: the principal and the Grade V and Grade VI teachers. Data were collected through three semi-structured interviews, two non-participant observations, and analysis of eight categories of school documents, then examined through condensation, display, and conclusion drawing. The findings reveal a recursive mechanism: participatively formulated direction guided curriculum planning; supervision and progress monitoring generated evidence; professional learning and teacher collaboration supported instructional adjustment; and classroom evidence informed subsequent decisions. A positive climate enabled feedback and shared responsibility, but did not automatically ensure equitable student participation. Program, training, and budget documents demonstrated organizational provision rather than learning outcomes in themselves. The study concludes that instructional leadership contributed to ecosystem development when strategic direction, evidence-based review, professional learning, collaborative climate, and classroom follow-up formed a recurring cycle. Its contribution lies in explaining the mechanism connecting established leadership dimensions and identifying two interruption points: uneven participation and insufficient documentation of reflective follow-up.