SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 49

School Leadership Profile Analysis According to TALIS Turkiye Data

TALIS Türkiye Verilerine Göre Okul Liderliği Profil İncelemesi

Ayşegül Altun(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-8046-2242
Şener Şentürk(Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0672-7820
Pages
161–179
Publication Date
2026-03-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analysis of the data, seven different leadership profiles were found.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study was to classify variables such as school administrators' management experience, level of education, leadership competencies, organizational innovation, job satisfaction, workload and stress, and stakeholder participation in terms of differences and similar characteristics and to create a profile of school administrators.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data obtained from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018, conducted at all ISCED levels (primary, secondary and high school) in Türkiye, were used in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis of the data, seven different leadership profiles were found.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Okul liderliği · profil analizi · TALIS

Abstract

The aim of the study was to classify variables such as school administrators' management experience, level of education, leadership competencies, organizational innovation, job satisfaction, workload and stress, and stakeholder participation in terms of differences and similar characteristics and to create a profile of school administrators. The document analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. Latent profile analysis, which focuses on determining latent subpopulations in a specific variable set, was used in the document analysis. Data obtained from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018, conducted at all ISCED levels (primary, secondary and high school) in Türkiye, were used in the study. In this direction, a total of 971 participant opinions were included in the analysis. In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics were first calculated, and then profile analysis was performed in the R program. The "mclust" approach was used to determine the model that provided the best fit to the data in the profile analysis. As a result of the analysis of the data, seven different leadership profiles were found.

Özet

Çalışmanın amacı, okul yöneticilerinin yönetim deneyimi, eğitim düzeyi, liderlik yetkinlikleri, örgütsel yenilikçilik, iş tatmini, iş yükü ve stresi, paydaş katılımı gibi değişkenleri farklılıklar ve benzer özellikler açısından sınıflandırmak ve okul yöneticilerinin profilini oluşturmaktır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Doküman analizinde, belirli bir değişken kümesindeki latent alt popülasyonları belirlemeye odaklanan latent profil analizi kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada, Türkiye'deki tüm ISCED seviyelerinde (ilkokul, ortaokul ve lise) uygulanan Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018'den elde edilen veriler kullanılmıştır. Bu doğrultuda toplam 971 katılımcı görüşü analize dahil edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde önce betimsel istatistikler hesaplanmış, ardından R programında profil analizi yapılmıştır. Profil analizinde verilere en iyi uyumu sağlayan modeli belirlemek için "mclust" yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi sonucunda yedi farklı liderlik profili bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Altun, A., Şentürk, Ş. (2026). School Leadership Profile Analysis According to TALIS Turkiye Data. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 49, 161–179. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.1682077

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359 Balyer, A., & Gündüz, Y. (2017). The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ commitment in Turkish primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 617-638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215617949
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
  3. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
  4. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
  5. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.
  6. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2019). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış. Pegem Akademi.
  7. Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). Sage. Canpolat, S. (2011). Eğitim yönetimi ve denetimi. Pegem Akademi.
  8. Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification, 13(2), 195-212. https://-doi.org/10.1007/BF01246098
  9. Çelik, K., & Akyüz, G. (2021). The relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 21(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.12738/jestp.2021.1.001 Darmody, M., & Smyth, E. (2021). Job satisfaction and occupational stress among primary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103284. https://-doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103284
  10. Dziak, J. J., Coffman, D. L., Lanza, S. T., & Li, R. (2014). Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 15(4), 553-559. https://-doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbt016
  11. Fraley, C., Raftery, A. E., Murphy, T. B., & Scrucca, L. (2024). mclust: Gaussian mixture modelling for model-based clustering, classification, and density estimation. (R package version 6.0.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mclust
  12. Fullan, M. (2019). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  13. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
  14. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
  15. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253
  16. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice-Hall.
  17. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Southern Illinois University Press.
  18. Korkmaz, M., & Eğmir, E. (2018). The relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles and teachers’ organizational stress. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2018.3003
  19. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
  20. Leithwood, K., & Beatty, B. (2008). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. Corwin Press.
  21. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22. https://-doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299. https://-doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366
  22. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 191-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751010
  23. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://-doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
  24. Rosenberg, J. M., Beymer, P. N., Anderson, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (2018). tidyLPA: An R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 978. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00978
  25. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461-464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
  26. Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 52(3), 333-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294360
  27. Şişman, M., & Turan, S. (2015). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama. Pegem Akademi.
  28. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2020). Teacher burnout: Relations between dimensions of burnout, perceived school context, job satisfaction and motivation for teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 96, 103172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103172
  29. Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.
  30. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  31. van Buuren, S., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K., Robitzsch, A., Vink, G., Doove, L., & Jolani, S. (2023). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations (R package version 3.16.0). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mice Wardenaar, K. J. (2021). Latent class analysis in R: A guide to best practices. https://-doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v3q8r
  32. Weber, M. (2013). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press. (Original work published 1922).