Okul Yöneticilerinin Eğitimde Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Kullanımına Yönelik Öz-Yeterlik Formunun Geliştirilmesi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı eğitimde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri öz yeterliklerini belirlemeye yönelik güncel, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Öncelikle, ISTE’nin 2018 yılında belirlemiş olduğu standartlarda yer alan başlıklar baz alınarak madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. Maddeler alan uzmanlarının görüşlerine sunulmuş ve uzmanların dönütleri doğrultusunda bazı maddeler revize edilmiş ve madde havuzuna yeni maddeler eklenmiştir. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi için 162 , Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve güvenilirlik analizleri için 167 katılımcıdan veri toplanmıştır. Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizleri sonunda “Equity and Citizenship Advocate (7 items”, “Visionary Planner (4 items) ”, “Empowering Leader (5 items)”, “Systems Designer (5 items)” and “Connected Learner (8 items)” ölçeklerinden oluşan Eğitimde Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Kullanımı Öz Yeterlik Formu’nun son haline ulaşıldı. Formda yer alan ölçeklerin güvenilirlik düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla Cronbach's Alpha iç tutarlılık katsayısı, alt ve üst gruplardaki madde ayırt edicilik indeksleri ve madde toplam korelasyonu analizleri gerçekleştirildi. Analizlerden elde edilen bulgular formda yer alan ölçeklerin geçerli ve güvenilir olduklarını gösterdi.

Keywords

• Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri
• öz yeterlik
• eğitimde teknoloji

The Development of the Self-Efficacy Form for School Administrators' Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Education

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop an up-to-date, valid and reliable instrument to measure self-efficacy for the use of information and communication technologies in education. To achieve this, we formed a pool of items based on the technology standarts issued by ISTE in 2018. The items in the pool were ecamined by field experts and then some items were revised. Further, we have added some new items. We recruited a total of 162 participants for exploratory factor analysis, whereas a total of 167 participants took part in the confirmatory factor analysis. Based on the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we have developed the The Self-Efficacy Form for the Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Education, which includes such scales as “Equity and Citizenship Advocate (7 items”, “Visionary Planner (4 items) ”, “Empowering Leader (5 items)”, “Systems Designer (5 items)” and “Connected Learner (8 items)”. We performed the Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficients, item discrimination indexes in the lower and upper groups and the item total correlations to reliability levels of the scales. We have concluded that the instruments are valid and reliable data collections tools.

Keywords

• Information and communication technologies
• self-efficacy
• technology in education

References

1. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communication technology. Online Submission, 2(1), 77-104. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524156.pdf
2. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational administration quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517
3. Balcı, A. (2004). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research in the social sciences: Methods, techniques and principles]. Pegem Publishing.
4. Banoğlu, K. (2012). Technology Leadership Competencies Scale for Educational Administrators: Development, Validity and Reliability Study. Inonu University Journal Of The Faculty Of Education, 13(3), 43-65. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/inuefd/issue/8695/108614
5. Beytekin, O. F. (2014). High school administrators perceptions of their technology leadership preparedness. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(14), 441-446. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2014.1858
6. Bilgiç, H. G., Duman, D., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Dijital yerlilerin özellikleri ve çevrim içi ortamların tasarlanmasındaki etkileri [The Characteristics of Digital Natives’ and Their Effects of on the Design of Online Environments]. Akademik Bilişim, 2(4), 1-7. https://ab.org.tr/ab11/kitap/bilgic_duman_AB11.pdf
7. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2002). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows: A guide for social scientists. East Sussex: Routledge.
8. Bülbül, T., & Çuhadar, C. (2012). Analysis of the relationship between school administrators’ perceptions of technology leadership self-efficacy and their acceptance of ICT. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(23), 474-499. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/181392

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Anket geliştirme [Survey Development]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(2), 133-151. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tebd/issue/26124/275190
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis Handbook for social Sciences]. Pegem Publishing
11. Cantürk, G. (2016). Okul yöneticilerinin teknolojik liderlik davranışları ve bilişim teknolojilerinin yönetim süreçlerinde kullanımı arasındaki ilişki [School administrators' technological leadership behaviours and the relationship among usage of information and communication technology at management processes] (Publication No. 436734) [Doctoral dissertation, Akdeniz University]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
12. Çalık, T., Çoban, Ö., & Özdemir, N. (2019). Examination of the Relationship between School Administrators’ Technological Leadership Self-efficacy and Their Personality Treats . Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 52(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.457346
13. Çelik, V. (2000). Eğitimsel liderlik (2. Baskı) [Educational leadership (2nd Edition)]. Pegem Publishing
14. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). London: SAGE.
15. Doğan, İ. (2018). Examination of the technology leadership self-efficacy perceptions of educational managers in terms of the self-efficacy perceptions of information technologies (Malatya province case). Participatory Educational Research, 5(2), 51-66.
16. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: SAGE.
17. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty‐first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310464648
18. Görgülü, D., & Küçükali, R. (2018). The Research of the Technologic Leadership Self-Effıcacy of Teachers. International Journal of Leadership Studies: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 1-12. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijls/issue/38881/421909
19. Günther, J. (2007). Digital natives & digital immigrants. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag.
20. Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Dalgıç, G. (2011). Validity and reliability study of technological leadership self-efficacy scale for school administrators. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 145-166. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108201
21. Hamzah, M. I. M., Juraime, F., & Mansor, A. N. (2016). Malaysian principals’ technology leadership practices and curriculum management. Creative Education, 7(07), 922. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.77096.
22. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence?. British educational research journal, 36(3), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227
23. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
24. ISTE (2002). Nets for administrators: Transforming education. Retrieved from https://www.pobschools.org/cms/lib/NY01001456/Centricity/Domain/45/Ed%20Tech%20Resources/ISTENETS.pdf
25. ISTE (2009). ISTE standarts for administrators. Retrieved from https://cdn.iste.org/www/root/Libraries/Images/Standards/Download/ISTE%20Standards%20for%20Administrators%2C%202009%20(Permitted%20Educational%20Use).pdf
26. ISTE (2018). ISTE standarts for education leaders. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-education-leaders
27. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques]. Asil Publishing
28. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri, kavramlar, ilkeler ve teknikler [Scientific research methods, concepts, principles and techniques]. Nobel Publishing
29. Kearsley, G. & Lynch, W. (1994). Educational technology: Leadership perspectives. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
30. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods (pp. 562-589). London: SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268261.n31
31. Kör, H., Erbay, H., & Engin, M. (2016). Technology leadership of education administrators and innovative technologies in education: A case study of Çorum city. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(n12A), 140-150. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.041318
32. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed?. Journal of Computing in teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2009.10784615
33. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247
34. Muchsini, B., & Siswandari, S. (2018). Digital natives’ behaviours and preferences: pre-service teachers studying accounting. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 2(2), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v%vi%i.24088
35. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843
36. Prensky, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it. https://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Emerging_Online_Life_of_the_Digital_Native-03.pdf
37. Şişman-Eren, E. & Kurt, A. A. (2011). Technological leadership behavior of elementary school principals in the process of supply and use of educational technologies. Education, 131(3), 625-636. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996380
38. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Nobel Publishing
39. Turan, S. (2002). Teknolojinin okul yönetiminde etkin kullanımında eğitim yöneticisinin rolü [The role of the education manager in the effective use of technology in school management]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(30), 271-281. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108473
40. Ünal, E., Uzun, A. M., & Karataş, S. (2015). An examination of school administrators’ technology leadership self-efficacy. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(1), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v17i1.968
41. Yorulmaz, A., & Can, S. (2016). The technology leadership competencies of elementary and secondary school directors. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 11(1), 47-61. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127620.pdf