Yükseköğretimde Program Liderliği: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Yükseköğretim ekosistemindeki “değişkenliği, belirsizliği, karmaşıklığı ve muğlaklığı” (VUCA dünyasını) dikkate alan, ortak akla dayalı, şeffaf bir liderlik anlayışıyla program geliştirme (tasarlama, değerlendirme ve güncelleme) sürecinde stratejik bir rol oynadığı düşünülen öğretim elemanlarının program liderliği düzeylerinin incelenebilmesi amacıyla beşli likert türünde derecelendirilen Program Liderliği Ölçeği’nin 150 madde ve tek boyuttan oluştuğu saptanmıştır. Bu araştırma kapsamında araştırma grubu belirlenirken amaçsal örnekleme yöntemine başvurulmuş olup kariyerlerinin herhangi bir döneminde idari görev üstlenen öğretim elemanlarına ulaşılmıştır. Veri analizi sonucunda açımlayıcı faktör analizi bulguları incelendiğinde, öz değeri birden büyük olan 31 faktörlü bir yapının ortaya çıktığı gözlenmiştir. Öte yandan ilgili alan yazında program liderliğine ilişkin çeşitli boyutların olduğunu öne süren araştırmalar bulunsa da bu boyutların iç içe geçmesi nedeniyle boyutlar arasında tam bir ayrımın yapılamadığı göz önünde bulundurularak bu araştırma kapsamında birinci ve ikinci öz değer oranı da incelenmiştir. Nitekim birinci ve ikinci öz değer oranının üçten büyük olması nedeniyle tek boyutlu bir yapının ortaya çıktığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Tek boyutluluğun temel ve katı olmak üzere ikiye ayrıldığı göz önünde bulundurularak bu ölçekte öz değeri birden büyük olan ikincil minör faktörlerin bulunması nedeniyle ölçek yapısının temel tek boyutluluğa uygun olduğu düşünülmüştür. Tek faktörlü bu yapının toplam varyansın %45.312’sini açıkladığı bulgulanmıştır. Bununla birlikte ölçeğin tek faktörlü yapısını test etmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiş olup veri analizi sonucunda uyum indekslerinin (GFI=.88, AGFI=.89, CFI=.96 ve RMSEA=.06) kabul edilebilir aralıkta olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıca bu araştırma kapsamında madde sayısının fazla olması nedeniyle Madde Tepki Kuramı çatısı altında yer alan Rasch analizinden yararlanılmış olup model-veri uyumunun sağlandığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öte yandan ölçek güvenirliğinin belirlenebilmesi noktasında hesaplanan Cronbach alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı 0.951 olarak bulgulanmıştır. Sonuç olarak Program Liderliği Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik değerlerinin yüksek düzeyde olduğu saptanmış olup elde edilen bulgular, öğretim elemanlarının program liderliği düzeylerini belirlemeye yönelik ilk ölçme aracı olma özelliği taşıyan bu ölçeğin öğretim elemanlarının program liderliği düzeylerini belirleme noktasında geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yükseköğretim
• Program Liderliği
• Ölçek Geliştirme

Curriculum Leadership in Higher Education: A Scale Development Research

Abstract

It had been determined that the Curriculum Leadership Scale, which was rated in five-point likert type, consisted of 150 items and a single dimension in order to examine the curriculum leadership level of lecturers, who were considered to play a strategic role in the curriculum development (design, evaluation and revision) process with a transparent leadership approach based on common sense, taking into account the “volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity” (VUCA world) in the higher education ecosystem. While determining the research group, lecturers who undertook administrative duties at any time in their careers were reached by applying the purposive sampling method. As a result of the data analysis, when the exploratory factor analysis findings were examined, it was observed that a 31-factor structure with an eigenvalue greater than one emerged. Even though there were studies suggesting that there were various dimensions of curriculum leadership in the relevant literature, considering that a complete distinction could not be made between the dimensions due to the intertwining of these dimensions, the first and second eigenvalue ratio were also examined in this study. As a matter of fact, it was concluded that a unidimensional structure emerged since the first and second eigenvalue ratios were greater than three. Considering that unidimensionality was divided into two categories as essential and strict, it was assumed that the scale structure was suitable for essential unidimensionality due to the presence of secondary minor factors with eigenvalues greater than one in this scale. It was found that this unidimension structure explained 45.312% of the total variance. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the unidimension structure of the scale, and as a result of the data analysis, it was determined that the fit indices (GFI=.88, AGFI=.89, CFI=.96 and RMSEA=.06) were within the acceptable range. In addition, due to the high number of items in the scale, Rasch analysis was utilised and it was concluded that model-data fit was ensured. On the other hand, the Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficient, which was calculated to determine the scale reliability, was found to be 0.951. As a result, the validity and reliability values of the Curriculum Leadership Scale were found to be at a high level, and the findings revealed that this scale, which was the first measurement tool to determine the curriculum leadership level of the lecturers, was a valid and reliable tool for determining the curriculum leadership level of the lecturers.

Keywords

• Higher Education
• Curriculum Leadership
• Scale Development

References

1. Adam, F. (2009). Curriculum reform in higher education: A humanities case study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of the Witwatersrand.
2. Akkoyunlu, B., Orhan, F. & Umay, A. (2005). Bilgisayar öğretmenleri için Bilgisayar Öğretmenliği Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeği geliştirme çalışması [A study on developing Teacher Self Efficacy Scale for computer teachers]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 1-8. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/87736
3. Albashiry, N. M., Voogt, J. M., & Pieters, J. M. (2016). Curriculum leadership in action: A tale of four community college heads of department leading a curriculum development project. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(5), 401-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1065775
4. Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(4), 581-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167800200413
5. Anggraeni, R. D. (2014). Increasing lecturer competence as the quality assurance of lecturer performance. Management Studies, 2(5), 309-329. https://www.academia.edu/9734717/Increasing_Lecturer_Competence_as_the_Quality_Assurance_of_Lecturer_Performance
6. Avizhgan, M., Jafari, E. M., Nasr, A. R., & Changiz, T. (2015). Curriculum leadership in the postgraduate: Gap between current and optimal status. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 20(4), 387-392. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4468456/
7. Awopeju, O. A., & Afolabi, E. R. I. (2016). Comparative analysis of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory based item parameter estimates of senior school certificate mathematics examination. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 263-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n28p263
8. Ayre, C., & Scally A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808

9. Bayırlı, A. & Balcı, A. (2021). Okul müdürlerinin eğitim programı liderliğini belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Developing a scale to determine curriculum leadership of school principals]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 19(2), 1252-1276. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.938818
10. Baykul, Y. (1979). Örtük özellikler ve klasik test kuramları üzerine bir karşılaştırma [A comparison of implicit properties and classical test theories]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
11. Beachum, F., & Dentith, A.M. (2004). Teacher leaders creating cultures of school renewal and transformation. Educational Forum, 68(3), 276-286. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ724873.pdf
12. Beavers, A., 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), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
13. Bhandari, P., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2023). What is a likert scale? Guide & examples. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/likertscale/#:~:text=A%20Likert%20scale%20is%20a,about%20the%20statement%20or%20question
14. Bolat, Y. & Baş, M. (2023). İki önemli öğretmenlik mesleği yeterliği: eğitim programı okuryazarlığı ve eğitim programı liderliği [Two important teaching professional competencies: Curriculum literacy and curriculum Leadership]. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 37(2), 294-330. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2023372541
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
16. Chen, W. H., Lenderking, W., Jin, Y., Wyrwich, K. W., Gelhorn, H., & Revicki, D. A. (2014). Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of Life Research, 23, 485-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5
17. Cheng, A.Y.N., & Szeto, E. (2016). Teacher leadership development and principal facilitation: Novice teachers’ perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 58, 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.003
18. Chew, J.O.A., & Andrews, D. (2010). Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: Case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-010-9079-0
19. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
20. Collins, L., Maye, P., Rogers, K., & Coyne, F. (2013, October). The lecturer-as-learner : A critical analysis of a team-teaching pilot programme [Paper presentation]. 6th Annual Learning Innovation Network Conference – Sustainable Models of Student Engagement – Rhetoric or Achievable? Dublin, Ireland.
21. Collinson, V. (2012). Leading by learning, learning by leading. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.657866
22. Cooper, K. S., Stanulis, R. N., Brondyk, S. K., Hamilton, E. R., Macaluso, M., & Meier, J. A. (2016). The teacher leadership process: Attempting change within embedded systems. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 85-113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1089605
23. Çelen, Ü. (2008). Klasik test kuramı ve madde tepki kuramı yöntemleriyle geliştirilen iki testin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of validity and reliability of two tests developed by classical test theory and item response theory], İlköğretim Online, 7(3), 758-768. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilkonline/issue/8600/107095
24. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K. & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi [A qualitative interview method: Focus group interview]. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107. https://keg.aku.edu.tr/arsiv/c4s1/c4s1m6.pdf
25. de Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford Press.
26. Delener, N. (2013). Leadership excellence in higher education: Present and future. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 19(1), 19-33. https://doi.org/10.7790/cibg.v19i1.6 DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
27. Demir, B., Yücesoy, Y. & Serttaş, Z. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının program okuryazarlık seviyeleri: KKTC örneği [Curriculum literacy levels of teacher candidates: The example of TRNC]. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 28-37. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turksosbilder/issue/58519/825663
28. Demiral, S. (2009). Öğretmen ve okul yöneticisi algılarına göre ilköğretim okul müdürlerinin program liderliği davranışları [Curriculum leadership behaviors of primary school principals according to teacher and school administrator perceptions]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Osmangazi Üniversitesi.
29. Derin-Kılıç (2024). Yükseköğretimde program yetkinliği, liderliği, esnekliği ve çevikliği: Bir yapısal eşitlik modellemesi [Curriculum competence, leadership, flexibility and agility in higher education: A structural equation modeling]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Atatürk University.
30. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
31. Education, Consulting, Research, Analytics. (ECRA). (2010). Curriculum leadership. https://ecragroup.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/
32. Fairman, J. C., & Mackenzie, S. V. (2015). How teacher leaders influence others and understand their leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.904002
33. Foster, R. (2005). Leadership and secondary school improvement: Case studies of tensions and possibilities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360312042000299233
34. Friedman, H. (2011). The myth behind the subject leader as a school key player. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(3), 289-302. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/52755/
35. Ghamrawi, N. (2010). No teacher left behind: Subject leadership that promotes teacher leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359713
36. Gözen-Çıtak, G. (2007). Klasik test ve madde-tepki kuramlarına göre çoktan seçmeli testlerde farklı puanlama yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması [A comparison of differential scoring methods for multiple-choice tests in terms of classical test and item response theories]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara University.
37. Güler, N., İlhan, M. & Teker, G. T. (2018). İkili karşılaştırmalarla ölçekleme yöntemi ile Rasch analizinden elde edilen ölçek değerlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparing the scale values obtained from pairwise comparison scaling method and Rasch analysis]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 31-48. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/433519
38. Günay, D. (2018). Türkiye’de lisansüstü eğitim ve lisansüstü eğitime felsefi bir bakış [Graduate Education in Turkey and a Philosophical View on Graduate Education]. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 71-88. https://doi.org/10.26701/uad.450965
39. Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P. & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in professional learning community contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992776
40. Haiyang, S. (2010). An application of classical test theory and many facet Rasch measurement in analyzing the reliability of an English test for non-English major graduates. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 87-102. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Haiyang-Sun-3/publication/266252020
41. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Vol. 2). Sage Publications.
42. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
43. Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., & Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21(1), 100-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/109634809702100108 
44. Hofstein, A., Carmeli, M., & Shore, R. (2004). The professional development of high school chemistry coordinators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000031460.64585.fd
45. Huang, H., & Wu, M. (2005). A study of curriculum leadership behavior of elementary school principals in Kaohsiung County. School Administration, 39, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1373/001213421002020194
46. Imenda, S. N. (2006). Knowledge production as a function of the individual institution’s idea of a university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 245-260. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC37238
47. Jackson, D. L. (2001). Sample size and number of parameter estimates in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis: A Monte Carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0802_3
48. Jefferies, S. (2000). A literature review exploring a meaning for the term “curriculum leadership”. Waikato Journal of Education, 6, 133-141. https://hdl.handle.net/10289/6281
49. Kapur, R. (2021). Leadership role in educational institutions. International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 13(3), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.53378/353015
50. Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(3), 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg031
51. Khambali, M., Rokhman, F., Yulianto, A., & Sudana, I. M. (2022). Influence of academic qualifications, lecturer competencies and curriculum on student learning achievement through teaching factory. Multicultural Education, 8(8), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6954101
52. Khan, M. A., & Law, L. S. (2015). An integrative approach to curriculum development in higher education in the USA: A theoretical framework. International Education Studies, 8(3), 66-76. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060861
53. Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Çebi, A. & Kan, A. (2014). E-öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik “Sosyal Bulunuşluk Ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması [Developing a “Social Presence Scale” for e-learning environment]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 755-768. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.12738/estp.2014.2.1847
54. Kıncal, R. Y. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Nobel Yayınevi.
55. Kiany, G. R., & Jalali, S. (2009). Theoretical and practical comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item-Response Theory. IJAL, 12(1), 168-197. https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-62-en.pdf
56. Koçtürk, N. & Kızıldağ, S. (2018). Çocukluk Dönemi Cinsel İstismarına İlişkin Mitler Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The development of the Childhood Sexual Abuse Myths Scale: Validity and reliability study]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30, 778-808. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.406626
57. Kyriazos, T. A., & Stalikas, A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: The steps of scale development and standardization process. Psychology, 9(11), 2531-2560. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4236/psych.2018.911145
58. Lai, E., & Cheung, D. (2015). Enacting teacher leadership: The role of teachers in bringing about change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 673-692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535742
59. Lai, H. C., & Lien, H. Y. (2025). Instructional leadership scale for high school principals: Development and validation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(3), 484-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231177531
60. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
61. Lee, M., Peterson, J. J., & Dixon, A. (2010). Rasch calibration of Physical Activity Self-Efficacy and Social Support Scale for persons with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.02.010
62. Little, J. W. (2003). Constructions of teacher leadership in three periods of policy and reform activism. School Leadership & Management, 23(4), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29584.43524
63. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
64. Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principals’ support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0013161X07299438
65. Menon, S., Suresh, M., & Raghu Raman, R. (2022). Curriculum agility in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(9), 1175-1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2058355
66. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd edition). Pyrczak Publishing.
67. Morrison, K. M., & Embretson, S. (2018). Item generation. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, D. & J. Hughes (Eds.) The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (pp. 75-94). Wiley.
68. Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2006). Teacher led school improvement: Teacher leadership in the UK. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22(8), 961-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.010
69. Nadeak, B., & Naibaho, L. (2019, December). Managing lecturers’ competence development at Universitas Kristen Indonesia [Paper presentation]. Prosiding CELSciTech, Indonesia.
70. Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Identifying the training needs of Heads of Department in a newly established university in Vietnam. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.678730
71. Nicholson, J., Capitelli, S., Richert, A.E., Wilson, C., & Bove, C. (2017). Teacher leaders building foundations for data-informed teacher learning in one urban elementary school. New Educator, 13(2), 170-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2016.1140856
72. Osborne, J. W. (2014). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
73. Öztemel, E. (2013). Yükseköğretim kurumlarında araştırma ve inovasyon kültürünün oluşturulması [Building the culture of research and innovation in the higher education institutions]. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 3(1), 22-29. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yuksekogretim/issue/41246/498207
74. Poekert, P., Alexandrou, A. & Shannon, D. (2016). How teachers become leaders: An internationally validated theoretical model of teacher leadership development. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 21(4), 307-329. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1118269
75. Revelle, W., & Garner, K. M. (2022). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In Harry T. Reis, TW and Judd, CM (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (36-44). Cambridge University Press.
76. Rutherford, C. (2006). Teacher leadership and organizational structure. Journal of Educational Change, 7(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10833-006-0013-4
77. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
78. Slocum-Gori, S., & Zumbo, B. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 102(3), 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8
79. Smith, P. S., Hayes, M. L., & Lyons, K. M. (2017). The ecology of instructional teacher leadership. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.005
80. Somer, O. (1998). Türkçe’de kişilik özelliği tanımlayan sıfatların yapısı ve Beş Faktör Modeli [The structure of adjectives that define personality traits in Turkish and the Five Factor Model]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 13(42), 17-32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/57153
81. Stark, J. S. (2002). Testing a model of program curriculum leadership. Research in Higher Education, 43, 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013070117226
82. Şahin, A., & Weiss, D. J. (2015). Effects of calibration sample size and item bank size on ability estimation in computerized adaptive testing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1585-1595. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0102
83. Şenay, H. H., Şengül, M., & Seggie, F. N. (2020). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim çalışmaları: Eğilimler ve öneriler [Higher education studies in Turkey: Trends and recommendations]. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.26701/uad.697415
84. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edition). Pearson.
85. Tekindal, S. (2021). Nicel, nitel, karma yöntem araştırma desenleri ve istatistik [Quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method research designs and statistics]. Nobel Yayınevi.
86. Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (THEQC). (2022). Kurum İç Değerlendirme Raporu (KİDR) Hazırlama Kılavuzu. [Institutional Internal Evaluation Report Preparation Guide]. https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/Docs/ KidrKlavuz1.4/Kidr_Surum_3.0.pdf
87. Van Oort, L., Schröder, C., & French, D. P. (2011). What do people think about when they answer the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire? A ‘think‐aloud’ study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X500819
88. Voolaid, K., & Ehrlich, Ü. (2017). Organizational learning of higher education institutions: The case of Estonia. The Learning Organization, 24(5), 340-354. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1158516
89. Walker, M., & McLean, M. (2010). Making lives go better: University education and professional capabilities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 24(5), 847-869. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC37637
90. Wang, X., Chen, J., Yue, W., Zhang, Y., & Xu, F. (2022). Curriculum leadership of rural teachers: Status quo, influencing factors and improvement mechanism-based on a large-scale survey of rural teachers in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.813782
91. Wilson, F. R., Pan, W., & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
92. Woodhouse, J., & Pedder, D. (2017), Early career teachers’ perceptions and experiences of leadership development: Balancing structure and agency in contrasting school contexts. Research Papers in Education, 32(5), 553-577. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02671522.2016.1225794
93. Yeşilbaş-Özenç, Y. (2024). Yükseköğretimde kalite [Quality in higher education]. Üniversite Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 498-509. https://doi.org/10.32329/uad.1538784
94. Yeşilyurt, S. & Çapraz, C. (2018). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kullanılan kapsam geçerliği için bir yol haritası [A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 251-264. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.297741
95. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. (9. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
96. Yılmaz, H. B. & Tınmaz, A. K. (2016). Öğrenci görüşlerine göre öğretim elemanlarının pedagojik yeterlikleri [Students’ views about pedagogical competence of lecturers]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 6(2), 209-219. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/higheredusci/issue/61490/918125
97. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003255
98. Zimmer, W. K., & Keiper, P. (2021). Redesigning curriculum at the higher education level: Challenges and successes within a sport management program. Educational Action Research, 29(2), 276-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1727348