SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 35

A META-SYNTHESIS STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR IN TURKISH SCHOOL MANAGEMENT

Ebru ARAÇ ILGAR
Pages
98–118
DOI
—
🏛️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)

It is envisioned that the findings of this paper will guide future studies and help create awareness about leadership behavior in school management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this paper is to present the studies on leadership in Turkish school management by applying analysis and synthesis processes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study, a total of 29 papers, which were conducted the years between 2001 and 2018, were examined and the findings were presented in certain themes, which are the result of meta-synthesis research method’s stages.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is envisioned that the findings of this paper will guide future studies and help create awareness about leadership behavior in school management.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The aim of this paper is to present the studies on leadership in Turkish school management by applying analysis and synthesis processes. In the study, a total of 29 papers, which were conducted the years between 2001 and 2018, were examined and the findings were presented in certain themes, which are the result of meta-synthesis research method’s stages. In order to determine which studies to include, Educational Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Google Scholar search engine, YÖK (The Council of Higher Education) National Thesis Centre, Dergipark and TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Council) Ulakbim databases were employed. Studies were thoroughly examined regarding their research methods, data collection methods, sample groups and results of conducted analyses. In the examined studies, it was observed that they had similar aims and they usually were conducted using qualitative data collection tools on different sample groups. As a result of the study, it was seen that leadership style was affected by age, seniority, tenure and gender variables in different ways. It is envisioned that the findings of this paper will guide future studies and help create awareness about leadership behavior in school management.

🔖

Cite This Article

ILGAR, E. A. (2019). A META-SYNTHESIS STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR IN TURKISH SCHOOL MANAGEMENT. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 35, 98–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/339192

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Ağaoğlu, E., Altınkurt, Y., Yılmaz, K. & Karaköse, T. (2012). Okul Yöneticilerinin Yeterliklerine İlişkin Okul Yöneticilerinin ve Öğretmenlerin Görüşleri. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi. 37(164), 159-175.
  2. Akgün, N. (2001). İlköğretim Okulu Müdürlerinin Öğretimsel Liderliği. Doktora Tezi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi.
  3. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu. Aktepe, V. & Buluç, B. (2014). Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Algılarına Göre Okul Yöneticilerinin Öğretim Liderliği Özelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 34(2), 227-247.
  4. Arslan, M. M. (2009). Teknik ve Endüstri Meslek Lisesi Öğretmenlerinin Örgütsel Güven Algıları. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama Dergisi, 5(2), 274-288.
  5. Arslantaş, C. & Dursun, M. (2008). Etik Liderlik Davranışının Yöneticiye Duyulan Güven Ve Psikolojik Güçlendirme Üzerindeki Etkisinde Etkileşim Adaletinin Dolaylı Rolü, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 8 (1) 111–128.
  6. Avcı, A. (2015). Öğretmen Algılarına Göre Okul Müdürlerinin Liderlik Stilleri. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(24), 161-189.
  7. Badii, M. (2006). Ethical Leadership Based on Zoroastrian Values. International Journal of Good Conscience, 1(1), 9–20.
  8. Baltacı, A. & Balcı, A. (2017). Complexity Leadership: A Theorical Perspective. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 5(1), 30-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2017.243
  9. Bass, B. (1981). Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. NewYork: Free Press.
  10. Buluç, B. (2009). İlköğretim Okullarında Bürokratik Okul Yapısı ile Okul Müdürlerinin Liderlik Stilleri Arasındaki İlişki. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi. 34(152), 71-87.
  11. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2010). Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış. Ankara:
  12. Pegem A Yayıncılık. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2013). Okul Yönetiminde Yeni Yapı ve Davranış (18. Baskı). Ankara:
  13. Pegem Akademi. Bush, T. (2007). Educational Leadership and Management: Theory, Policy and Practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391-406.
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara:
  15. Pegem Akademi. Caza, A., Bagozzi, R. P., Woolley, L., Levy, L. & Caza, B. B. (2010). Psychological Capital and Authentic Leadership. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 53-70.
  16. Cemaloğlu, N. & Kılınç, A. Ç. (2012). İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Etik Liderlik Davranışları ile Öğretmenlerin Algıladıkları Örgütsel Güven ve Yıldırma Arasındaki İlişki. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi. 37(165), 137-152.
  17. Çağlar, A., Yak