The Effect of School Transparency on Attitude Towards Supervision

Year 2020, , 114 - 126, 15.06.2020

Hüsnü Ergün

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.652497

Abstract

The research was planned to measure the impact of transparency of schools on attitude towards supervision. The research was conducted in state schools in Pamukkale and Merkezefendi district in Denizli. In the study, School Transparency Scale and the Attitude Scale towards Supervision in Education were used. “School transparency scale” was developed by Bozbayındır (2016). "Attitude Scale towards Supervision in Education” was developed by Uğurlu and Usta (2016). The questions in the scales were transferred to the forms prepared e-form and the data were collected with the help of these online forms. In this study, the analyses were made with multiple regression analysis. Only the courtesy dimension was predicted by the transparency dimension in practice. Implications for Research and Practice: Information transparency, evaluation transparency and the transparency in practice variables do not predict the willingness and knowledge dimensions significantly. The courtesy dimension is predicted by the transparency in practice. As the implementation transparency increases, it can be said that the inspectors are seen more kindly. School administrators should demonstrate transparency in particular.

Keywords

School, Supervision, Transparency, Attitudes towards supervision, School transparancy

References

• Akan, D. & Zengin, M. (2015). İlkokul yöneticilerinin öğretmen denetim uygulamalarinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of teacher supervision practices of primary school administrators]. Eğitime Bakış, 33, 89 - 95.
• Aseltine, J. M.,Faryniarz, J. O., & Rigazio-DiGilio, A. J. (2006). Supervision for learning. Virginia: ASCD Publications.
• Aydın, M. (2000). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi [Modern educational supervision]. Ankara: Hatipoğlu Yayınları.
• Bakan, İ., Güler, B. & Kara, E. (2017). Örgütsel demokrasinin örgütsel adalet ve örgütsel destek algıları üzerine etkileri: Otel çalışanlarına yönelik bir araştırma [The effects of organizational democracy on organızational justice and support perceptions: A research devoted to hotel staff]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22 (4), 1031-1048.
• Bandsuch, M., Pate, L., & Thies, J. (2008). Rebuilding stakeholder trust in business: An examination of principle-centered leadership and organizational transparency in corporate governance. Business & Society Review, 113, 99-127.
• Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19 (1), 43-50.
• Başar, H. (2000). Eğitim denetçisi [Education Inspector]. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Baykul, Y. (1992). Eğitim sisteminde değerlendirme [Evaluation in education system], Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 85-94.
• Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş Amos uygulamaları [Introduction to structural equation modeling AMOS applications]. Bursa: Ezgi Kitapevi.
• Beganu, C. N. & Niţan, M. M. (--).The Johari Window: A Model of Feedback and Selfdisclosure in Training. (Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2019). https://studylib.net/doc/8072222/the-johari-window--a-model-of-feedback-and-selfdisclosure-in.
• Berggren, E. &Bernshteyn, R. (2007). Organizational transparency drives company performance. Journal of Management Development, 26(5), 411-417.doi:10.1108/02621710710748248.
• Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 181-216.
• Bijalwan, J. G. & Madan, (2013). Corporate Governance Practices, Transparency and Performance of Indian Companies. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 12, 45-79.
• Bozbayındır, F. (2016). Developing of a school transparency scale: A study on validity and reliability. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8 (4), 46-58.
• Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2002). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış [New structure and behavior in school management]. Ankara: PegemA.
• Cassano, R. (2017). Transparency and Social Accountability in School Management. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management, 2, 19-30.
• Crowley, P. J. (2012). The rise of transparency and the decline of secrecy in the age of global and social media. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, 1, 241-255.
• Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2011). Türk eğitim sisteminde bir alt sistem olan denetim sisteminin seçilmiş bazi ülkelerin denetim sistemleri ile karşılaştırılması [The comparison between Turkish Supervision System as a sub-system of educational system with some selected countries]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2 (23), 23-48.
• Erdağ, C. & Karadağ, E. (2018). Okullarda Hissedilen Hesap Verebilirlik Baskıları ve Öğretmen Tepkileri Üzerindeki Muhtemel Bireysel ve Kurumsal Etkiler [Exploration of Possible Individual and Institutional Effects on School Accountability Pressures and Teacher Responses]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24 (1), 93-142.
• Erdem, A. R. (2006). Öğretimin Denetiminde Yeni Bakış Açısı Sürekli Geliştirme Temeline Dayalı Öğretimin Denetimi [New Perspectives in Control of Instruction, Control of Instruction Based on Continuous Improvement]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16, 275-294.
• Ergün, H., & Çelik, K.(2018). Maarif müfettişlerinin füzyon ve fisyon sürecinde yaşadıklarına ilişkin nitel bir araştırma [A Qualitative Research on the Experience of Education Inspectors in the Process of Fusion and Fission]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(3), 410-426. DOI:10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.6c3s19m.
• Geçkil, T. & Tikici, M. (2015). Örgütsel demokrasi ölçeği geliştirme çalişmasi [A Study on developing the organizational democracy scale], Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 48 (4), 41-78
• Gökçe, F.(1994). Eğitimde denetimin amaç ve ilkeleri [Objectives and principles of supervision in education]. Hacettepe University journal of Education, 10, 73-78.
• Gönülaçar, Ş. (2018). Eğitim denetiminde dönüşüm sancısı [Transformation pains in educational supervision]. Eğitime Bakış, 43, 88 - 97.
• Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic econometrics (Fifth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Gündüz, Y. (2012). Eğitim örgütlerinde denetimin gerekliliği: Kuramsal bir Çalışma [Inspection requirement in educational organizations: A theoretical study]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 34, 1-6.
• Gürbüz, S. & Dikmenli, O. (2009). Örgütsel açıdan yolsuzluk: kavramsal yönü, özelliği, işletme çevresi, örgütsel davranış ve örgüt mimarisi bağlamında bir inceleme [Organizational perspective of corruption: an exploratory study in the context of its concept, its nature, organizational environment, organizational behavior and organizational architecture]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22, 119- 237.
• Himmetoğlu, B., Ayduğ, D. & Bayrak, C. (2017). Eğitim örgütlerinde hesap verebilirliğe ilişkin okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri [Opinions of school administrators about accountability in educational organizations]. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 39-68.
• Kalman, M. & Gedikoğlu, T. (2014). Okul yöneticilerinin hesap verebilirliği ile örgütsel adalet arasindaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [An investigation of the relationship between school administrators’ accountability and organizational justice]. Hacettepe University journal of Education, 29(2), 115-128.
• Kapusuzoğlu, Ş. (2008). Okula Dayalı Yönetimde Denetim Sisteminin İşlevselliği ve Katkısının Değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of functional and contribution of inspection system in school based management]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1 (16), 143- 155.
• Karaevli, Ö. & Levent, F. (2014). Okul yönetiminde şeffaflığın farklı kariyer evrelerinde bulunan öğretmenler üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigation of effect of transparency in school administration on teachers who are in different career phases]. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 40, 89-108.
• Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler [SPSS and AMOS 23 applied statistical analysis]. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Kayıkçı, K., & Uygur, Ö. (2012). İlköğretim okullarının denetiminde mesleki etik (Bir durum çalışması) [The Professional Ethics of Primary School Supervision (A Case Study)]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi [Educational Administration: Theory and Practice], 18(1), 65-94.
• Kesen, M. (2015). Örgütsel Demokrasinin Çalışan Performansı Üzerine Etkileri: Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Aracılık Rolü [The effects of organizational democracy on employee performance: The mediating role of organizational identification]. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2): 535-562
• Kılıç, E. D. & Önen, Ö. (2011). Öğrenen örgütlerde Johari Penceresi Burdur örneklemi [Johari window in learning organizations the case of Burdur]. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2 (5), 1-13.
• Knoll, M. K. (1987). Supervision for better instruction. USA. Prentice Hall.
• Köse, A. (2017). Problematic Course Supervision within Turkish Education System. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 46(2), 298-367.
• Köybaşı, F., Uğurlu, C. T. & Demir, D. (2017). Çağdaş Eğitim Denetimi Modeli Olarak Okullarda Farklılaştırılmış Denetim Uygulamalarına İlişkin Bir Araştırma [A study on the differentiated supervision practices in schools as Contemporary Education Supervision Model]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15 (1), 43- 57.
• Kunnan, A.J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling for language assessment, research. Language Testing, 15 (3), 295–332.
• Kurum, G. & Çınkır Ş. (2017). Cehennemde evlilik: Türkiye’de eğitim denetiminin birleştirilmesi üzerine maarif müfettişlerinin görüşleri [Marriage made in Hell: Views of education supervisors on the unification of education supervision in Turkey]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 192, 35-57.
• Luft, J. (1982). The Johari Window, a graphic model of awareness in interpersonal relations. NTL, Reading book for Human Relations Training, NTL Institute, (Erişim tarihi: 06.05.2019),https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/fridayfellowship.siteym.com/resource/collection/D1FD72B3-693E-4EE5-AB18-B1233BBE9C51/JohariWindow_JLuft.pdf
• Memduhoğlu, H. B. & Zengin, M. (2012). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi modeli olarak öğretimsel denetimin Türk Eğitim Sisteminde uygulanabilirliği [Implementability of instructional supervision as a contemporary educational supervision model in Turkish Education System]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(1), 131-142.
• Memişoğlu, S. P. & Ekinci, Z. (2013). General problems encountered in general inspections of primary schools according to the views of inspectors and principals. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4 (3). 139- 147.
• Nadrifar, A., Bandani, E. & Shahryari, H. (2015). An overview of classical management theories: A review article. International Journal of Science and Research, 5 (9), 83-86. Nofriza, F. (2017), Development of training guide johari windows in improving student self-disclosure. Indonesian Journal of School Counseling, 2 (1), 41-47.
• Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 21 (3), 350-364.
• Nwaokugha, D. O. & Danladi, S. A. (2016). Language and communication: Effective tools for educational supervision and inspection in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7 (3), 420- 428.
• Osterlund, C. L. & Mack, M. (2014). Graduate counseling student’s personal relationships need intentional consideration for success. Vistas Online, 1-12.
• Özan, M. B. & Şener, G. (2015). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin denetim sürecine ilişkin algı ve beklentilerinin metaforlar aracılığı ile belirlenmesi [Examination of supervision-related perceptions and expectations of classroom teachers through metaphors]. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 41, 19-33.
• Özen, F. & Hendekçi, E., A. (2016). Türkiye’de Eğitim Denetimi Alanında 2005–2015 Yılları Arasında Yayımlanan Makale ve Tezlerin Betimsel Analizi [The descriptive analysis of academic studies published in Turkey about education supervision between the years of 2005-2015]. OPUS – Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(11), 619-650.
• Ryan, T. G. & Gottfrıed, J. (2012). Elementary supervision and the supervisor: Teacher attitudes and inclusive education. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 563-571.
• Saxena, P. (2015). Johari Window: An effective model for improving interpersonal communication and managerial effectiveness. SIT Journal of Management. 5 (2). 134-146. Schnackenberg, A. (2010). The constitutive role of transparency in organizations. Case Western Reserve University Working Paper No. 09, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. Scholtens.
• Serhan, K. (2016). Administrative Transparency in Public Secondary Schools in Jordan. European Scientific Journal, 12 (13), 157-167.
• Stine, R. A. (1995). Graphical interpretation of variance inflation factors, The American Statistician, 49 (1), 53-56.
• Suharyono, S.. (2019). The Effect Of Accountability, Transparency, And Supervision On Budget Performance By Using The Concept Of Value For Money In Regional Business Enterprises (Bumd) Of Riau Province. International Journal of Public Finance, 4, 236-249.
• Şisman, F. A., Yozgat, U., Abunaz, E. & Özarslan, T. (2015). Importance of Transparency on Sustaınable Success Orıentatıon. Research Journal of Business & Management, 2 (3), 366-379.
• Tengblad, S. (2006). Is there a ‘New Managerial Work’? A comparison with Henry Mintzberg’s classic study 30 Years Later. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (7). 1437- 1461.
• Tonbul, Y. & Baysülen, E. (2017). Ders Denetimi ile İlgili Yönetmelik Değişikliğinin Maarif Müfettişlerinin, Okul Yöneticilerinin ve Öğretmenlerin Görüşleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi [An Evaluation of the course inspection regulation according to the views of supervisors, teachers and principals]. İlköğretim Online, 16(1), 299-311.
• Uğurlu, C. T. (2015). Farklılaştırılmış Denetim ve Mentörlük [Differentiated supervision and mentoring]. Eğitime Bakış, 33, 11 - 16.
• Uğurlu, C. T. & Usta, G. (2016). Eğitimde Denetim Tutum Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması [A study of supervision attitude scale’s validity and reliability]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1), 137-159.
• Uysal, G. (2003). Rol Farklılaşmasının İletişime Etkisi ve Johari Modeli [Effects of Role Differences in Communication and Johari Awareness Model]. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 4 (1). 137-148.
• Yeşil, D. & Kış, A. (2015). Okul Müdürlerinin Ders Denetimine İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi [Examining the views of teachers on school principals’ classroom supervision]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2 (3), 27-45.
• Yıldırım, N. (2012). Eğitim denetmeni ve bakanlik denetmeni imajlari üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir Çalışma [A comparative study of education supervisor and ministry supervisor images]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18 (1). 143-166.
• Yıldız, F. F. (2014). Johari Penceresi ve otantik liderlik: Geri bildirim ve kişisel açilim ile kişisel farkindalik ve ilişkilerde şeffaflik [In feedback and personal initiative, personal awareness and relationships transparency]. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi, Melikşah Üniversitesi, 6-8 Kasım 2014, Kayseri (s.313-322).