Development of School Administrators’ Sensemaking Competencies Scale (SASCS): Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2023, , 811 - 838, 15.06.2023

Okan Diş , Nihan Demirkasımoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023..-1183067

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to measure teacher perceptions of school administrators' competencies in sensemaking. Within the scope of the research, an item pool was created by making use of the literature and interviews with teachers, and expert opinion was sought for content validity. The data of the study were collected from two different study groups consisting of 626 teachers working in public primary, secondary and high schools in the 2021-2022 academic year. In the analysis of the data, item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and first and second-level confirmatory factor analysis were performed and reliability coefficients were calculated. As a result of item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, a scale consisting of a total of 26 items and four sub-dimensions was obtained. The resulting sub-dimensions were named as cognitive processes, effective communication, adaptation to change, and crisis management. The findings obtained as a result of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale had an acceptable fit. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient, which was calculated as .86 for the reliability of the scale, revealed that the scale was quite reliable. According to these findings, it was determined that the School Administrators' Sensemaking Competencies Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Keywords

sensemaking, sensemaking competencies of school administrators, sensemaking in schools

Okul Yöneticilerinin Anlam Yaratma Yeterlikleri Ölçeği’nin (OYAYYÖ) Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, okul yöneticilerinin anlam yaratma yeterliklerine ilişkin öğretmen algılarını ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Araştırma kapsamında alanyazından ve öğretmenlerle yapılan görüşmelerden faydalanılarak madde havuzu oluşturulmuş ve kapsam geçerliği için uzman görüşüne başvurulmuştur. Araştırmanın verileri 2021-2022 eğitim öğretim yılında Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı kamu ilkokul, ortaokul ve liselerde görev yapan 626 öğretmenden oluşan iki farklı çalışma grubundan toplanmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde madde analizi, açımlayıcı faktör analizi, birinci ve ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve güvenirlik katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Madde analizi ve açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda toplam 26 madde ve dört alt boyuttan oluşan bir ölçek elde edilmiştir. Ortaya çıkan alt boyutlar bilişsel süreçler, etkili iletişim, değişime uyum ve kriz yönetimi olarak adlandırılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda elde edilen bulgular ölçeğin kabul edilebilir bir uyuma sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliği için .86 olarak hesaplanan Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı ölçeğin oldukça güvenilir olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgulara göre, Okul Yöneticilerinin Anlam Yaratma Yeterlikleri Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

anlam yaratma, okul yöneticilerinin anlam yaratma yeterlikleri, okullarda anlam yaratma

References

• Aksoy, B. (2014). Örgütsel analizde alternatif bir bakış açısı: Karl Weick ve anlam yaratma. Akdeniz İ. İ. B. F. Dergisi, (29), 42-63.
• Albolino, S., Cook, R., & O’Connor, M. (2007). Sensemaking, safety, and cooperative work in the intensive care unit. Cogn Tech Work, 9(3), 131-137.
• Allbright, D. E. (2000). Shared sensemaking disconnects within one marketing research firm’s strategic dialogues (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Athens: The University of Georgia.
• Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and acting in the unknown. In S. A. Snook, N. N. Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.), The handbook for teaching leadership (pp. 3-19).
• Azah, V. N. (2014). District influence on principals’ efficacy and sensemaking in their school improvement efforts (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Toronto, USA.
• Balcı, A. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma (7. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Bansler, J. R. P., & Havn, E. (2006). Sensemaking in technology-use mediation: Adapting groupware technology in organizations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 15(1), 55-91.
• Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: AMOS uygulamaları. İstanbul: Ezgi Kitabevi.
• Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 5-13.
• Brezicha, K. Bergmark, U., & Mitra D. L. (2015). One size does not fit all: differentiating leadership to supportteachers in school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 51(1), 96-132.
• Brown, M. Rutherford, D., & Boyle, B. (2000). Leadership for school improvement: the role of the head ofdepartment in UK secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 11(2), 237-258.
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY: Guilford Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, Ç. E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. (2. Basım). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Can, A. (2013). Nicel veri analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
• Coburn, C. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122, 465-475.
• Comfrey, A., & Lee, H. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. In Comfrey, A., & Lee, H. (Eds.), A first course in factor analysis (pp. 240-262). New York: Psychology Press.
• Cornelissen, J. P. (2012). Sensemaking under pressure: The influence of professional roles and social accountability on the creation of sense. Organization Science, 23(1), 118-137.
• Coutu, D. (2003). Sense and reliability: A conversation with celebrated psychologist Karl E Weick. Harvard Business Review, 81(4), 84-90.
• Craig-Lees, M. (2001). Sense making: Trojan horse? Pandora’s box? Psychology and Marketing, 18(5), 513-526.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem.
• Daft, R. L., & Weick K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.
• Doğan, D. (2010). Ürün geliştirme takımlarında anlamlandırma yetenekleri ve proje başarısı ilişkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Gebze İleri teknoloji Enstitüsü, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Gebze.
• Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal components analysis. Sage publications.
• Eisenberg, E. M. (2006). Karl Weick and the aesthetics of contingency. Organization Studies; 27(11), 1693-1707. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
• Fullan, M. (2013). Motion leadership in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Furnas, G., & Russell, D. M. (2005). Making sense of sensemaking. Conference: Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI, Portland, Oregon, USA, April 2-7.
• Ganon-Shilon, S., & Schechter, C. (2019). School principals’ sense making of their leadership role during reform implementation. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(3), 279-300.
• Ganon-Shilon, S., Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2020). Principals’ voices pertaining to shared sense-making processes within a generally-outlined pedagogical reform implementation. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-25.
• Gephart, R. P., Topal, C., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Future-oriented sensemaking: Temporalities and institutional legitimation. T. H. (Edt.) Process, sensemaking, and organizing içinde, (ss. 275-312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433-448.
• Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 267-280.
• Gözde, M. (2019). Üst düzey yöneticilerin stratejik anlamlandırmasına yönelik nitel bir araştırma (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
• Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle. R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and applications, (pp.76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage publications.
• Jakobsen, M., Worm, V., & Li, X. (2018). Making sense of context in ınternational business: Some methodological reflections. Asia Pacific Management Review, 23(4), 251-257.
• Jensen, E. (2009). Sensemaking in military planning: A methodological study of command teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 11(2), 103-118.
• Jeong H. S., & Brower, R. S. (2008). Extending the present understanding of organizational sensemaking three stages and three contexts. Administration and Society, 40(3), 223-252.
• Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 295-328.
• Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73.
• Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
• Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
• Leithwood, K., Louis, K., & Anderson, S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 629-665.
• Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal,48(1), 21-49.
• Meydan, H. C., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi amos uygulaması. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Minarik, M. M. (2008). Building knowledge through sensemaking: Connecting the dot with the new information. Reno: University of Nevada.
• Neuman, W. L. (2017). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nicel ve nitel taklaşımlar-II. (Çev. S. Özge). Ankara: Yayınodası Kitapçılık.
• Qu, Y., & Furnas, G. W. (2008). Model-driven formative evaluation of exploratory search: A study under a sensemaking framework. Information Processing and Management, 44, 534-555.
• Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd Edition). Berkshire: Open University Press.
• Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391.
• Petko, D., Egger, N., Cantieni, A., & Wespi, B. (2015). Digital media adoption in schools: Bottom-up, top-down, complementary or optional?. Computers & Education, 84, 49-61.
• Reid, D. B. (2020). US principals’ sensemaking of the future roles and responsibilities of school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 251-267.
• Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ sensemaking and enactment of teacher evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration 53(3), 374-392.
• Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94-104.
• Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the anlamlandırma perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 6-32.
• Sarmiento, J. W., & Stahl, G. (2006). Sustaining and bridging sense‐making across multiple interaction spaces. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-6.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research-Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Seçer, İ. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi ve raporlaştırma. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 95-122.
• Spillane, J. P., & Anderson, L. (2014). The architecture of anticipation and novices’ emerging understandings of the principal position: Occupational sense making at the intersection of individual, organization, and institution. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1-42.
• Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusingimplementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Şimsek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş¸ temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayıncılık.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
• Tezbaşaran, A. A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
• Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239-270.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
• Tillmann, K., & Goddard, A. (2008). Strategic management accounting and sense-making in a multinational company. Management Accounting Research,19(1), 80-102.
• Weck, K. R. (2019). Principal sensemaking of policy reform in illinois: Focused supervision and evaluation of teachers (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA.
• Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Management, 18(2), 189-193.
• Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Weick, K. E. (2001) Making sense of the organization. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
• Weick, K. E. (2009). Making sense of organization: Vol. 2. The impermanent organization. Chichester: Wiley.
• Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 14(4), 409-421.
• Weinberg, A., Wiesner, E., & Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2014). Students’ sense-making frames in mathematics lectures. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 168-179.