Türkiye'de ortaöğretim okul öğretmenlerinin etkili liderlik belirleyicileri

Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, 300 secondary school teachers were asked to complete Integrated Competing Values Framework (ICVF) questionnaire in order for us to explain leadership behaviour in this context.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, according to the results there was no gender differences found in the roles displayed.

🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find out leadership behaviours of secondary school teachers in the classroom. For this purpose, 300 secondary school teachers were asked to complete Integrated Competing Values Framework (ICVF) questionnaire in order for us to explain leadership behaviour in this context. Repeated measures ANOVA and multiple regression analysis techniques were used in analysing the data. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Deliverer, Developer and Broker were the strongest predictors of effectiveness. Furthermore, according to the results there was no gender differences found in the roles displayed. All six operational roles of the ICVF – Deliverer, Developer, Innovator, Broker, Monitor and Integrator– were displayed, with the Deliverer displayed significantly more than the Monitor.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı sınıf içinde ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin liderlik davranışlarını incelemektir. Bu amaçla, Bütünleştirilmiş Rekabet Değerleri Çerçevesi (Integrated Competing Values Framework) ölçme aracı 300 ortaöğretim öğretmenine uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde tekrarlı ölçümler için ANOVA ve çoklu regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Çoklu regresyon analizinin sonucunda; Kurtarıcı, Geliştirici ve Girişimci boyutları en güçlü etkili liderlik belirleyicileri olarak bulunmuştur. Bu araştırmanın bulgularına göre cinsiyete göre liderlik rollerinde anlamlı farklılık bulunmamaktadır. Araştırmada Bütünleştirilmiş Rekabet Değerleri Çerçevesi‟nin altı işlevsel rolü olan Kurtarıcı, Geliştirici, Yenilikçi, Girişimci, Gözlemci ve Bütünleştirici boyutları gösterilmiş, Kurtarıcı ile Gözlemci boyutları arasında anlamlı farklılık tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

VILKINAS, T., CARTAN, G., APAYDIN, Ç. (2022). Türkiye'de ortaöğretim okul öğretmenlerinin etkili liderlik belirleyicileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 1, 107–129. https://ajindex.com/articles/442668

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

Argyris, C & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational life 11: Theory, Methods and Practice. Addison – Wesley, Reading Mass. Ash, S. & Clayton, P (2004). The articulate and learning: an approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 137 – 154. Begley, P. (2007). Editorial introduction: cross – cultural perspectives on authentic school leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35 (2), 163- 164. Booth, S. & Anderberg, E. (2005). Academic development for knowledge capabilities: learning, reflecting and developing. Higher Education Research and Development, 24, 373- 386. Branson, C. (2007). Effect of structured self- reflection on the development of authentic leadership pratcies among Queensland primary school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2),225- 246. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysisi of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Ed.), Handbook of cross – cultural psychology, methodology (p.2). Boston: Allen and Becon. Çağlar, A., Yakut, O. & Karadağ, E. (2005). An assessment on relationship between personality traits and leadership behaviours of elementart school principals as perceived by teachers [In Turkish]. The Ege Journal of Education, 6(1), 61- 80. Can, N. (2006). The roles and the strategies of the principal in improving teacher leadership. The Journal of Social Science Institute, 2, 349- 363. Can, N. (2007). Teacher leadership skills and its level of realization. The Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 22(1), 263- 288. Cheng, Y. (1994). Teacher leadership style: a classroom – level study. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(3), 54- 71. Davies, P. & Coates, G. (2005). Competing conceptions and values in school strategy‟. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 109- 124. Denison, D., Hoojberg, R. & Quinn, R. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a theory of behavioural complexity in managerial leadership. Organizational Science, 6, 524- 540. Fisher, K. (2003). The mystifying critical reflection: defining criteria for assessment. Higher Education Research and Development, 22, 313- 325. Fraser, R. & Mathews, A. (1999). An evaluation of the desirable characteristics of a supervisor. Australian Universities Review, 42(1), 5- 7. Grant, C. (2006). Emerging voices on teacher leadership: some South African views. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34(4), 511- 532. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E.,