KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitim Yönetimi ve Politikaları Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2

OKULDA VERİ KÜLTÜRÜ: BİR ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI

DATA CULTURE AT SCHOOL: A SCALE DEVELOPMENT STUDY

Ayhan Duygulu(Kastamonu Şeyh Şabanı Veli Anadolu İmam Hatip Lisesi)0000-0002-6986-6799
Kübra Yenel(MANISA CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-4237-9763
Sayfa
65–79
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Elde edilen bulgular ölçeğin geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini doğrulamıştır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmanın amacı, okulda veri kültürünün farklı boyutlarını belirlemek, değerlendirmek ve mevcut durumu ortaya koymak için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Çalışmanın örneklemini Kastamonu’da 2023-2024 eğitim öğretim yılında aktif görevde olan, açımlayıcı faktör analizi için 274, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi için 308 öğretmen ve okul yöneticisi oluşturmuştur.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Elde edilen bulgular ölçeğin geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini doğrulamıştır.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2023-2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:veri kültürü · veri yönetimi · veriye dayalı karar verme

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, okulda veri kültürünün farklı boyutlarını belirlemek, değerlendirmek ve mevcut durumu ortaya koymak için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Çalışma nicel betimsel tarama modelindedir. Çalışmanın örneklemini Kastamonu’da 2023-2024 eğitim öğretim yılında aktif görevde olan, açımlayıcı faktör analizi için 274, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi için 308 öğretmen ve okul yöneticisi oluşturmuştur. Veriler beş maddeli Likert ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. AFA sonucunda dört boyutlu bir yapı oluşmuş ve bu yapı DFA ile doğrulanmıştır. Okulda veri kültürünün boyutları; "veriye dayalı yönetim", "veri yönetimi ve yönetişimi", "veriye dayalı karar verme" ve "veriye dayalı performans değerlendirme"dir. İç güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach's α=.780), split half yöntemi (r=.737), Spearman-Brown korelasyon katsayısı (R=.849) ve Guttman's lambda (λ=.846) ile doğrulanmıştır. Dış güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik test-tekrar test tekniği ile doğrulanmıştır (ilk uygulama n=42, ikinci uygulama n=34, r=.884, p≤.05, R=.624, p≤.05 ve Kendal's tau-b τb=.508, p≤.05). Elde edilen bulgular ölçeğin geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini doğrulamıştır.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to determine the different dimensions of and evaluate and the current situation of data culture at school. The study is a quantitative descriptive survey model. The sampling for exploratory factor analysis was formed of 274 and confirmatory factor analysis 308 teachers and school administrators who are on active duty in 2023-2024 educational year in Kastamonu. Data was collected through a five-item Likert scale. A four-dimension structure was formed as the result of the EFA and it was confirmed by CFA. The dimensions of data culture at school are; “data-based management”, “data management and governance”, “data-based decision making” and “data-based performance evaluation”. Internal reliability and validity was verified through Cronbach Alpha (Cronbach’s α=.780), split half method (r=.737), Spearman-Brown correlation coefficient (R=.849) and Guttman’s lambda (λ=.846). The external reliability and validity was verified by test-retest technique (first implementation n=42, second implementation n=34, r=.884, p≤.05, R=.624, p≤.05, and Kendal’s tau-b is τb=.508, p≤.05). The findings confirmed the validity and reliability of the scale.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Duygulu, A., Yenel, K. (2024). OKULDA VERİ KÜLTÜRÜ: BİR ÖLÇEK GELİŞTİRME ÇALIŞMASI. Eğitim Yönetimi ve Politikaları Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 65–79. https://ajindex.com/articles/1477578

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (54)

  1. Anderson, C. (2015). Creating a data driven organization: Practical advice from the trenches. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. https://l24.im/5awV8
  2. Andrade, C. (2021). Z scores, standard scores, and composite test scores explained. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 43(6), 555-557. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/02537176211046525
  3. Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2005). Tests for skewness, kurtosis, and normality for time series data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 23(1), 49-60. http://www.columbia.edu/~sn2294/pub/jbes-05.pdf
  4. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British journal of psychology, 5(2), 109-133. https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1952.tb00117.x
  5. Bates, J. (2017) Data Cultures, Power and the City. In: Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. and McArdle, G., (Eds.) Data and the City. Routledge, Oxon, pp. 189-200. https://l24.im/k5YIbN1
  6. Bevans, K., Bradshaw, C., Miech, R., & Leaf, P. (2007). Staff‐and school‐Level predictors of school organizational health: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Health, 77(6), 294-302. https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00210.x
  7. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. D. A. Kenny (Edt). Methodology in the social sciences (pp. 1-100). The Guilford Press. https://epdf.tips/confirmatory-factor-analysis-for-applied-research.html
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (13th ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (2. bs). Pegem Akademi.
  10. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication methods and measures, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  11. Cemaloğlu, N. & Duykuluoğlu, A. (2002). Eğitimde veriye dayalı yönetim. Pegem akademi.
  12. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
  13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (5. bs). Pegem Akademi.
  14. Cokluk, O., & Kayri, M. (2011). The Effects of Methods of Imputation for Missing Values on the Validity and Reliability of Scales. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 303-309. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ919903.pdf
  15. Coolican, H. (2013). Research methods and statistics in psychology (5th ed). Routledge. https://l24.im/NVBjw
  16. Díaz, A., Rowshankish, K., & Saleh, T. (2018). Why data culture matters. McKinsey Quarterly, 3(1), 36-53. https://l24.im/IhEzM7L
  17. Engmann, S., & Cousineau, D. (2011). Comparing distributions: The two-sample Anderson-Darling test as an alternative to the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. Journal of applied quantitative methods, 6(3), 1-38. https://l24.im/pXQcE8j
  18. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed). Sage Publications Ltd.
  19. French, B. F., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 378-402. https://sci-hub.se/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
  20. Gomez-Mejia, L. R. ve Balkin, D. B. (2012). Management: People, performance, change. Pearson Education, Inc. https://epdf.pub/managementa0db94685bc6e29af82e539abae08cd816325.html
  21. Gordon, K. (2007). Principles of data management: Facilitating information sharing. The British Computer Society Publishing and Information Products. https://l24.im/knhzAr
  22. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed). Pearson Education Limited.
  23. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. In T. Tripodi (Edt.). Pocket guides to social work reseacrh methods (pp. 3-121). Oxford University Press. https://l24.im/s4Y6den
  24. Hitt, M. A., Black, J. S., & Porter, L. W. (2012). Management (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. https://epdf.pub/management-3rd-edition-5ea6b18753bde.html
  25. Howitt, D. & Cramer, D. (2017). Research methods in psychology (5th ed). Pearson Education Limited. Keller, S., & Price, C. (2011). Organizational health: The ultimate competitive advantage. McKinsey Quarterly, 2(6), 94-107. https://l24.im/qBG
  26. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed). Guilford Press.
  27. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). Guilford Press. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/74702/1/35.pdf
  28. Knapp, M. S., Copland, M A., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 74-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00098.x
  29. Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational research quarterly, 30(3), 23-55. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ787712.pdf
  30. Kreitner, R. (2009). Management (11th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. https://l24.im/JH6
  31. Lasater, K., Albiladi, W. S., Davis, W. S., & Bengtson, E. (2020). The data culture continuum: An examination of school data cultures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 533-569. https://sci- hub.se/10.1177/0013161x19873034
  32. Leary, L. M. (2015). It is the data revolution and the year of evaluation, is your organization ready?: Assessing organizational data culture to create an ideal data ecosystem (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). SIT Graduate Institute, Washington, DC. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=3845&context=capstones
  33. Licata, J. W., & Harper, G. W. (2001). Organizational health and robust school vision. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 5-26. https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/00131610121969226
  34. Martin, W. E. & Bridgmon, K. D. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods: From hypothesis to results. Jossey-Bass.
  35. Maritz, S. G. (2003). Data management: Managing data as an organisational resource. Acta Commercii, 2003(3), 75-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v3i1.44
  36. Mehta, T. G., Atkins, M. S., & Frazier, S. L. (2013). The organizational health of urban elementary schools: School health and teacher functioning. School mental health, 5, 144-154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736843/
  37. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological methods 23(3), 412-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
  38. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 599-620. https://psychology.concordia.ca/fac/kline/sem/qicss2/muthen2002.pdf
  39. Obst, P. L., & White, K. M. (2004). Revisiting the sense of community index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of community psychology, 32(6), 691-705. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/604/2/604.pdf
  40. Olaleye, S.A. & Adusei, A.G. (2023). Exploring bibliometric perspectives on data culture in scholarly discourse. In Li, E.Y. et al. (Eds.) Proceedings of The International Conference on Electronic Business, Volume 23, 232-243. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/817273/Article.pdf?sequence=1
  41. Oliver, G., Cranefield, J., Lilley, S., & Lewellen, M. J. (2023). Understanding data culture/s: Influences, activities, and initiatives: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2023(1), 1-14. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/asi.24737
  42. Quick, J. C., Macik‐Frey, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2007). Managerial dimensions of organizational health: The healthy leader at work. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 189-205. https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00684.x
  43. Peiró, J. M., & Rodríguez, I. (2008). Work stress, leadership and organizational health. Papeles del Psicólogo, 29(1), 68-82. https://www2.papelesdelpsicologo.es/English/1540.pdf
  44. Prudon, P. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis as a tool in research using questionnaires: a critique. Comprehensive Psychology, 4(10), 1-17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/03.CP.4.10
  45. Robbins, S. P. ve Coulter, M. (2012). Management (11th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. https://l24.im/6GLe8SY
  46. Shek, D. T., & Yu, L. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: A demonstration. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 13(2), 191-204. https://www.academia.edu/download/54409775/cfa-amos.pdf
  47. Singh, K. (2007). Quantitative social research methods. Sage Publications Inc.
  48. Smith, P. A., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School leadership, 11(2), 135-151. https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/105268460101100204
  49. Stockemer, D. (2019). Quantitative methods for the social sciences: A practical introduction with examples in SPSS and stata. Springer International Publishing.
  50. Sutherland, S. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 277-293. https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/109821400402500302
  51. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed). Pearson Education, Inc.
  52. Thompson, B. L., Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2010). Assessment of the maximal split-half coefficient to estimate reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 232-251. https://l24.im/4BZF8
  53. Tofighi, S., Chaghary, M., Amerioun, A., & Karimi Zarchi, A. A. (2011). Effect of organizational changes on organizational health indicators and its relationship with organizational effectiveness. Journal of Military Medicine, 13(3), 173-179. https://l24.im/KRaykq
  54. Xenidis, Y., & Theocharous, K. (2014). Organizational health: Definition and assessment. Procedia Engineering, 85, 562-570. https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.584