The Effect of Leadership Practices on Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes in Turkish High Schools

Year 2006, Volume: 48 Issue: 48, 503 - 529, 01.09.2006

Mehmet Korkmaz

Abstract

This study attempts to find out if internal school variables and the nature of organizational learning have an effect on student outcome variables. In other words, on which level the leadership styles applied in the schools and if internal school variables have an effect on the nature of organizational learning. For this reason, a five-item Likert type scale was administered to 257 teachers and 322 students in different classes of 21 general high schools in the centre of the province of Ankara. In order to explain the direct and indirect relations among the variables a Path analysis was used. The findings after the analysis show that internal school variables such as shared leadership, leadership satisfaction, source, teacher leadership and the staffs' feeling valued are effective factors on school's organizational learning. Moreover, teachers' work is an effective and strong factor on student's participation which is also described as student outcome variable. Summary Social, political and economical changes have caused changes in organizational structures. These changes and indefiniteness have increased the importance of efforts in bringing about learning organizations. For general Turkish high schools which are a part of secondary education institutions, it is impossible to show no reaction towards the changes taking place in their surroundings. High schools must be learning organizations to successfully accomplish their goals. A learning organization is capable of creating; acquiring, commenting, transferring, and keeping knowledge (David and Garvin, 2000). Learning organizations are both more productive and adaptive than traditional organizations. In order to develop such organizations vision, patience and courage are obviously needed (Kofman and Senge, 1993). In school structures, there are many different elements affecting organizational learning process. These elements are (1) factors outside the school which express students' socio-economic level and social class background, (2) internal school variables which express leadership, staff valued, leadership satisfaction, school-community relations, organizational learning and teachers work; and (3) student outcome variables that represents students' participation and school commitment (Kale, 2003; Silins and Mulford, 2004). The relations among these variables are complex and they affect each other mutually. Studies done in this subject in Turkish context are generally about the determining schools' organizational learning level (Kale, 2003; Çelik, 1999; Ensari, 1998) or are about determining schools' organizational learning obstacles (Töremen, 2001). However, in Turkey limited studies have been done on if internal school variables and the nature of organizational learning have an effect on student achievement. In other words, at which level leadership styles in the school and internal school variables are effective on the nature of organizational learning. For this reason, this study seeks answers to the following questions: 1)As learning organizations; what are the characteristics of high schools? 2)Do leadership practices have effects on the development of learning organizations? 3)Do leadership practices and the nature of organizational learning have an effect on students' outcomes? Method Data were collected from randomly selected 21 high school principals, 257 teachers and 322 students in different classes of these high schools. Data were collected via ‘Administrator and Teacher Questionnaire' adapted from the questionnaire used in “Leadership for organizational learning and student outcomes: The LOLSO Project” study (Silins, Mulford and Zarins, 1999). Data were collected via ‘Administrator and Teacher Questionnaire' adapted from the questionnaire used in “Leadership for Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes: The LOLSO Project” study (Silins, Mulford and Zarins, 1999). The original sample of the scale consists of two different groups prepared to obtain data from the teachers and the students which form the sample of the study. The first part of the scale is the ‘Teacher and Principal Questionnaire' which contains the defining of schools that are associated with high schools operating as learning organizations and leadership characters and process applied in these schools. This questionnaire consists of four dimensions which characterise high schools as learning organizations and these are 1.Trusting and Colloboration, 2.Shared and Monitored Mission, 3.Taking initiatives and risks, and 4.Professional Development. The alpha validity coefficient of the sample is between .90 and. 96. ‘The Leadership Scale' which exsists in the same scale and which is prepared to determine the leadership applications which enrich the organizational learning and these are 1.Vision and Goals,2.Culture,3.Structure,4.Intellectual Stimulation,5.Individual Support, and 6.Performance Expectations. The alpha validity coefficient is between .70 and .98. The second phase of the scale used in the study to obtain data is the ‘Student Questionnaire' which defines student's views of teachers' work in the classroom and student outcomes such as attendance, students' self-concept, and participation in and engagement with schools. The alpha validity coefficient is between .51 and .90. Results and Findings In order to test the direct and indirect relations among the variables, Path analysis, which is a structural equality analysis, was used. The reason for this is to be able to make logical explanations of observed correlations by forming the models reason-result relations among the variables. The most important finding after structural equality analysis is that leadership style (β=.46, p<.05), staff valued (β=.23, p<.05), resource (β=.14, p<.05), leadership satisfaction (β=.19, p<.05) and teacher leadership (β= .24, p<.05) affect organizational learning. In other words, these five variables were found as the direct indicators of organizational learning. Moreover, resource and leadership variables had the strongest indirect effect. Organizational learning was the only direct indicator of teacher work variable (β=.25, p<.05).However, organizational learning affected resource, staff valued and teacher work indirectly. Three variables appearing as the direct indicators of students' school commitment were leadership style (β=.18, p<.05), teacher work (β=.68, p<.05) and participation (β=.28, p<.05)teacher work, students' perception level of their own teachers was the strongest indicator of school commitment. Leadership style, the principal's behavior in the school, did not have so strong effect on school commitment. An interesting finding was that leadership style (β=.26, p<.08) and leadership satisfaction (β=.13, p<.05) were the direct indicators of school-society relations. However, school-society relations, in this model, had no effect on another variable. The model explains 77% of the commitment variable. Conclusions and Suggestions The analysis findings of this study show that all of the high schools that are working as learning organizations have the attributes which characterize organizational learning. In other words, these schools can be described as schools which have the opportunity of developing themselves continually and make decisions by using their own initiatives in a cooperative atmosphere based on the trust of the teachers. One important finding of our study is the positive effect of the leadership behavior of school principals who reflect all applications of all dimensions of transformational leadership on organizational learning variable. The necessity of giving more importance to human dimension instead of the structural dimension to develop schools has been proved once more .In other words, the fundamental of a successful school reform is trust, respect, and staff valued. (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999; Mulford and Silins, 1998). The only strongest indicator of student outcomes variable which exists as student participation and school commitment is the teacher work variable. Teaching style, various activities inside the classroom, class organization, respecting and giving value students' ideas are perceived positively by the students and this constitutes psycho-social pressure on students' class participation and school attendance. Researchers who wish to study in this field in the future may add variables such as socio-economic situation of the school's environment and the size of the school.

Keywords

Organizational learning , teacher leadership , transformational leadership , learning organization.

Liderlik Uygulamalarının İçsel Okul Değişkenleri ile Öğrenci Çıktı Değişkenlerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, öğrenci çıktı değişkenleri üzerinde içsel okul değişkenleri ile örgütsel öğrenmenin doğasının bir etkisinin olup olmayacağını araştırmaktadır. Başka bir ifade ile örgütsel öğrenmenin doğası üzerinde okulda uygulanan liderlik uygulamaları ile içsel okul değişkenlerinin hangi düzeyde etkili olup olmadığı araştırılacaktır. Bunun için Ankara ili merkez ilçelerinde yer alan 21 genel lise ile bu liselerde görev yapan 257 öğretmen ve farklı sınıflarda okuyan 322 öğrenciye 5 dereceli likert tipinde bir ölçek uygulanmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki doğudan ve dolaylı ilişkileri açıklamak için Path analizi kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgular göstermektedir ki, paylaşılmış liderlik uygulamaları, liderlik doyumu, kaynak, öğretmen liderliği ve personelin kendisine değer verildiği duygusuna sahip olması gibi içsel okul değişkenleri okulun örgütsel öğrenmesi üzerinde etkili birer faktör olarak bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, öğrenci çıktı değişkeni olarak ifade edilen öğrenci katılımı ve bağlılığı üzerinde, öğretmenlerin işi değişkeninin etkili bir güçlü faktör olduğudur.

Keywords

Örgütsel öğrenme , öğretmen liderliği , dönüşümsel liderlik , öğrenen örgüt.

References

• Argyris, C. Ve Schön, D. (1974). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison: Wester Reading.
• Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeleri. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Bascia, N. (1997). Invisible leadership : Teacher’s union activity in schools. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research . 43 (2), 69–85.
• Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. CA: Sage.
• Blase, J. (1993). Principals instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly., 35 (3), 349-378.
• Bredeson, P. V. (1995). Educating teachers for leadership and change. CA: Corwin Pres.
• Bursalıoğlu, Z. (1982). Okul yönetiminde yeni yapı ve davranış. Ankara: A.Ü. Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi.
• Çelik, V. (1996). “Eğitimsel reform için yeni bir okul kültürü”. (Editör: İlhami Fındıkçı) Eğitimimize Bakışlar, İstanbul: 1. Kültür Koleji Yay.
• Çelik, V. (1999). Eğitimsel liderlik. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Çelik, V. (2005). Eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği. (Editör: Yüksel Özden) Liderlik. Pegem A Yayıncılık, 2. Baskı, Ankara.
• David, A. Garvin, L. (2000). Building a learning organization., Harvard Business Review, 71, 78-91.
• Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
• Deming, W. (1996). Krizden çıkış (Çev: Cem AKAŞ). Arçelik A.Ş.
• Ensari, H. (1998). Öğrenen organizasyon olarak okul, M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 3 (2), 111–123.
• Gronn, P. (1996). From transacions to transformations: A new world order in the study of educational leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 24(1), 77– 89.
• Güçlü, N. (1999). Öğrenen örgütler. G.Ü. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 7( 2), 117–127.
• Hage, J. and Dewar, R. (1973). Elite Valye versus Organizational Structure in Predicting Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 279–90.
• Hale, L.E. and Moorman, N.H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.
• Hallinger, P. And Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157–191.
• Harrison, J.W. and Lembeck, E. (1996). Emergent teacher leaders. G. Moller and M. Katzenmeyer (Eds). Every Teacher is a Leader Realizing Potential of Teacher Leadership (pp.101–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Hodges, A. (2000). Web of support for a personalised, academic foundation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
• Honey, P. ve Mumford, A.. (1986). The Manual of Learning Styles: School improvement in an era of change. London: Cassell.
• Johnson, J.R. (1998). Embracing change: A leadership model for the learning organization. International Journal of Training and Development; 2 (2).
• Johnson, R. and Wiehern, D.W. (1982). Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
• Kale, M. (2003). Liselerin örgütsel öğrenme düzeylerinin belirlenmesi, H.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
• Kavrakoğlu, İ. (1996). Öğrenen örgüt, İstanbul: Kal-der.
• Kofman, F. ve Senge, P.M. (1993) Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22 (2), 1–19.
• Korkmaz, M. (2005). Duyguların ve liderlik stillerinin öğretmenlerin performansları üzerinde etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 11(43), 401–422.
• Lambert, L. (1998). How to build leadership capacity. Educational Leadership. Alexandria. VA: ASCD.
• Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership. 49 (5), 8–18.
• Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quiarterly. 30 (4), 498–518.
• Leithwood, K. ve Jantzi, D. (1999). The effects of transformational leadership in organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Education Administration, 38 (2), 112–128.
• Marier, N. R. (1970). Problem solving and creativity: In groups and individuals. Belmont, CA: Brooks / Cole.
• Murphy. J.; and Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. CA: Corwin Press.
• O’Sullivan, F. (1997). Learning organizations-reengineering school for life long learning. School Leadership Management. 17 (2), 217-228.
• Redmond, M. R; Mumford, M.D. ve Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–51.
• Robinson, L. (2000). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership. 49 (5), 813.
• Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. CA: Jossey-Bass. Selvi,
• İ. H. (2002). Öğrenen organizasyonlar. September
• <///www.5mworld.com/ekim2000/makele-ogrenen.htm>.
• Senge, P.M. (1992). Building learning organizations, Journal for Quality and Participation, 15 (2), 30–38.
• Silins, H. ve Mulford, B. (2004). Schools as learning oganisations-effects of teacher leadership and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, (3–4), 443–466.
• Silins, H.C. (1992). Effective leadership for school reform. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 38 (4), 317–334.
• Silins, H.C. (1994). Leadership characteristics and school improvement. Australian Journal of Education, 38 (3), 266–281.
• Silins, H; Zarins, S; and Mulford, W. (2002). What characteristic and processes define a school as a learning organisation? Is this a useful concept to apply to schools? International Education Journal. 3(1), 24–32.
• Silins, H; Zarins, S; and Mulford, W. (1999). Leadership for organizational learning and student outcomes: The LOLSO project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Montreal, Canada.
• Sirotnik, K. And Kimball, K. (1996). Preparing educators for leadership: In praise of experience. Journal of sechool leadership, 6, 180–201.
• Skogstad, A. Ve Einarsen, S. (1999). The importance of a change-centred leadership style in four organizational cultures. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 25(3), 289–306.
• Smylie, M. And Denny, J. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26 (3), 235–259.
• Stone, M, Lorejs, J. ve Lomas, A. (1997). Commonalities and differences in teacher leadership at the elementary middle and high school levels. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
• Swieringa, J. And Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learning organisation: Beyond the learning curve. Workingham: Addison Wesley.
• Şahin, A.E. (1995). Seçilmiş özel ve devlet okullarında örgütsel öğrenme sürecinin nitel bir değerlendirmesi. O.D.T.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
• Şişman, M. ve Turan, S. (2005). Eğitim ve okul yöneticiliği. Eğitim ve Okul Yönetimi El Kitabı. Editör: Özden. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Şişman. M. (2002). Öğretim liderliği. Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
• Töremen, F. (2001). Öğrenen okul. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Wasley, P.D. (1991). Teachers as leaders : The rhetoric of reform and the realities of practice. N.Y.: Teachers College Pres.
• Whitaker, T. (1995). Informal teacher leadership – the key to successful change in middle level school. NASSP Bulletin, 76-81.
• Yener, L. (1997). Learning organizations. İstanbul: Marmara Üniv. Sosy. Bil. Enst. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
• Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations. NJ: Prentice Hall.