Öz

Leadership is a high-level skill containing 21st-century skills such as setting goals, undertaking responsibility, dealing with uncertainty. This study investigated the mediating role of the contextual characteristics of school consisting of type, level, and size on the relationship between teachers' leadership performance and students' acquisition of leadership skills. We first proposed three hypotheses based on the literature and then tested them. The data were gathered from a totally of 575 teachers working at formal compulsory schools located in the city center of Aksaray in the school year 2020-2021. We accessed the study participants through multi-stage sampling methods (stratified, proportional, random). Data were collected using the leadership potential measurement instrument that the researchers had previously developed. We performed descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, t-test for independent samples, one-way analysis of variance, exploratory factor analysis and path analysis were used in the analysis of the data. While two hypotheses were verified, the hypothesis suggesting the mediating role of the contextual characteristics of the school was rejected. The study found that the frequency of teachers' leadership significantly predicted students' leadership acquisition; however, it found that the contextual characteristics of the school did not have a significant mediating effect. The study concluded that the most important effect on equipping students with leadership skills, regardless of whether the schools are private or public schools, large or small schools, primary or secondary school or high school, is the teacher's leadership behaviors. Based on the results, suggestions have been developed to support leadership education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• student leadership skills
• school contextual qualities
• mediation effect.
• teacher leadership

Öğretmen Liderliği ve Öğrencilerin Liderlik Becerilerini Edinmesi Arasındaki İlişkide Okulun Bağlamsal Niteliklerinin Aracı Etkisi

Öz

Liderlik, hedef belirleme, belirsizlikle baş etme, sorumluluk üstlenme gibi 21. yy becerilerini kapsayan bir üst beceridir. Bu çalışmada, öğretmenlerin liderlik yapmaları ile öğrencilerin liderlik becerilerini edinimleri arasındaki ilişkide okulların bağlamsal özelliklerinden tür, düzey ve büyüklüğün aracı etkisi incelenmiştir. Literatüre dayalı üç farklı hipotez geliştirilerek bunlara uygun modeller test edilmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri 2020-2021 öğretim yılında Aksaray il merkezindeki okullarda görevli toplam 575 öğretmenden elde edilmiştir. Katılımcılara, çok aşamalı (tabakalı, oransal, tesadüfi) örnekleme yöntemiyle erişilmiştir. Araştırmacıların daha önce geliştirmiş oldukları liderlik potansiyeli ölçme aracı kullanılarak veriler toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistikler, korelasyon analizi, bağımsız örneklemler için t testi, tek yönlü varyans analizi, açımlayıcı faktör analizi ve yol analizi kullanılmıştır. Test edilen hipotezlerden ikisi doğrulanırken, okulların aracı etkisini öneren hipotez reddedilmiştir. Çalışmada, öğretmenlerin liderlik yapma sıklığının öğrencilerin liderlik edinimini anlamlı şekilde yordadığı bulunurken; okulun bağlamsal özelliklerinin anlamlı bir aracı etkisinin olmadığı bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Araştırma sonunda, okulların özel ya da devlet okulu olması, büyük ya da küçük okul olması, ilkokul veya ortaokul ya da lise olması fark etmeksizin öğrencilerin liderlik becerileri edinmelerinde en önemli etkinin öğretmenlerin liderlik davranışları sergilemesi olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu araştırmanın sonuçları temel alınarak liderlik eğitimini iyileştirici, destekleyici öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen liderliği
• öğrencilerin liderlik becerileri
• okulun bağlamsal özellikleri
• aracı etki.

Kaynakça

1. Adair, J. (2005). Etkili stratejik liderlik. Çeviren: F. Beşenek. İstanbul: Babıali Kültür Yayınları.
2. Agasisti, T., Falzetti, P. & Soncin, M. (2020). School principals’ managerial behaviours and students’ achievement: An empirical analysis of Italian middle schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(5), 937-951.
3. Araşkal, S. and Kılınç, A.Ç. (2019). Examining the factors affecting teachers’ leadership: A qualitative research. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 25(3), 419-468.
4. Akyürek, M. İ. (2020). Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerde Liderlik. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 198-219.
5. Arbuckle, J. 2016. IBM® SPSS® Amos™ 24 User’s Guide. USA: IBM Corporation.
6. Arvey, R. D., Zhang, Z., Avolio, B. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 693.
7. Aslan, H. And Karip, E. 2014. Improving the leadership standards of school principals. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20(3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2014.011
8. Arslan, M. C., & Özdemir, M. (2015). Öğretmen liderliğine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 190-207.

9. Beycioğlu, K. and Aslan, B. 2012. Teachers and administrators’ views on teacher leadership. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 191-223.
10. Bolam, R. 2004. Reflections on the NCSL from a historical perspective. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 32(3), 251–67.
11. Bush, T., & Middlewood, D. (2005). Leading and managing people in education. Sage.
12. Bush, T. 2008. Leadership and management development. London: Sage.
13. Cansoy, R. (2017). The Effectiveness of Leadership Skills Development Program for University Students. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(3), 65-87. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i3.899
14. Cansoy, R. and Parlar, H. 2018. Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550-567
15. Connolly, M., James, C. and Fertig, M. 2019. The difference between educational management and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibility. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(4), 504-519.
16. Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. 2018. Designing and conducting mixed method research. Los Angeles: Sage
17. Çimen, B. & Karadağ, E. (2020). A qualitative study on working conditions and future anxieties of teachers at private schools. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(2), 518-541. DOI: 10.17679/inuefd.476428
18. Eckert, J. and Daughtrey, A. 2019. Teacher leadership development: Tracking one district’s progress over three years. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(2). 1-22. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.27.4130
19. Elmuti, D., Minnis, W. and Abebe, M. 2005. Does education have a role in developing leadership skills? Management Decision, 43 (7/8), 1018-1031, DOI: 10.1108/0025174 0510610017
20. EURYDICE 2018. National education systems: Ongoing reforms and policy developments. Available from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/general/14-ongoing-reforms-and-policy-developments_en [Accessed 20 May 2021].
21. Fraenkel, J.R. Wallen, N.E. and Hyun, H.H. 2012. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Gerstenschlager, N.E. and Barlow, A.T. 2019 Transitioning from practicing teacher to teacher leader: a case study. Teacher Development, 23(1), 18-35, DOI: 10.1080/13664 530.2018.1515106
23. Grigoropoulos, J.E. 2020. How can manifesting leadership skills infused with ethos, empathy, and compassion better prepare students to assume leadership roles? International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1): 54-66.
24. Gumus, S., Bellibas, M.S., Esen, M. and Gumus, E. 2018. A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25-48.
25. Hallinger, P. 2018. Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational management administration & leadership, 46(1), 5-24.
26. Hallinger, P.and Heck, R.H. 2011. Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2): 149-173.
27. Hardie, B., Highfield, C. and Lee, K. 2022. Attitudes and values of teachers and leaders towards entrepreneurship education. Research Papers in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2028891
28. Hattie, J. 2012. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge.
29. Haug, B.S. and Mork, S.M. 2021. Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: What teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from educational reforms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 100, 103286.
30. Houghton, J.D., Dawley, D. and DiLiello, T.C. 2012. The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): A more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 216-232.
31. Karakütük, K; Tunç, B.; Bülbül, T.; Özdem, G.; Taşdan, M.; Çelikkaleli, Ö. & Ayram, A. (2014). Genel ortaöğretim okullarının büyüklüğü ile okul iklimi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39 (171), 304-316
32. Kearns, K. 2019. The Leadership Portfolio Program at The University of Pittsburgh: Teaching leadership to graduate students. Teaching Public Administration, 37(3), 255-273.
33. Kim, M. 2009. The factors influencing leadership skills of gifted and regular students and its implications for gifted education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 6(2): 49-67.
34. Kılınç, A.Ç., Bellibaş, M.Ş. and Bektaş, F. 2021. Antecedents and outcomes of teacher leadership: The role of teacher trust, teacher self-efficacy and instructional practice. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(7), 1556-1571.
35. Konuk, S. and Posner, B.Z. 2021. The effectiveness of a student leadership program in Turkey. Journal of Leadership Education, 20(1): 79-101. https://doi.org/10.12806/V20/I1/R6.
36. Koşar, D., Er, E.R., Kılınç, A.Ç. and Koşar, S. 2017. Analysis of teacher leadership studies: A content analysis study. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 4(7), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.317712
37. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. 2018. The Student Leadership Challenge. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
38. Lauermann, F. 2017. Teacher motivation, responsibility, pedagogical knowledge and professionalism: a new era for research. In S. Guerriero (Ed.) Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession. 173-191. Paris: OECD Publication.
39. Lunenburg, F.C. and Ornstein, A.C. 2022. Educational Administration: Concepts and practices. London: Sage.
40. Mansor, A. N., Hamid, A. H., Medina, N.I., Vikaraman, S.S., Wahab, J.L.A., MohdNor, M.Y. & Alias, B.S. (2022). Challenges and strategies in managing small schools: A case study in Perak, Malaysia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 694-710. DOI: 10.1177/1741143220942517
41. Manz, C.C. 1986. Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management review, 11(3), 585-600.
42. Manz, C.C. and Sims Jr., H.P. 1991. Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(4), 18-35.
43. Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management review, 11(3), 585-600.
44. Marzano, R.J. 2007. The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
45. May, J.M. 2017. Cultivating teacher leadership in public secondary schools: Encouraging the leadership potential in all teachers. Thesis (PhD). Temple University.
46. Merriam, S.B. and Tisdell, E.J. 2016. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.
47. Mitchell, R.M., Sun, J., Zhang, S., Mendiola, B. & Tarter, J.C. (2015). School Effectiveness: A Meta-analytic review of published research. İçinde M.F. DiPaola & W. K. Hoy (Eds.), Leadership and School Quality (s. 161-170). Charlotte, NC. IAP.
48. MoNE (Ministry of National Education). 2021a. Öğretim programları [Curriculums]. Available from: http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx [Accessed 25 August 2021].
49. MEB (2021). Örgün eğitim istatistikleri: 2020-2021. Erişim: https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2021_09/10141326_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2020_2021.pdf [06 Aralık 2021].
50. Muijs, D. and Harris, A. 2003. Teacher leadership: Improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational management and administration, 31(4), 437-448.
51. Nguyen, D., Harris, A., and Ng, D. 2019. A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): Evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(1), 60-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023
52. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2020. Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.
53. OECD. 2021. Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.
54. Hamza, Ö. Z., & Baloğlu, N. (2020). Öğrencilerin Eğitim Kademelerinde Liderliği Deneyimleme Durumlarının Analizi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 139-158.
55. Ogurlu Ü., & Emir S. (2014). Effects of a leadership development program on gifted and non-gifted students’ leadership skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 223-242. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.14689/ejer.2014.55.13
56. Özdemir, S., Çoban, Ö. and Bozkurt, S. 2020. Examination of the relationship between school principals’ 21st century skills and their strategic leadership according to teachers’ opinions. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi 10(2): 399-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2020.014.
57. Patton, M.Q. 2015. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage
58. Poekert, P., Alexandrou, A. and 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://doi.org/10.1080/13596748. 2016.1226559
59. Posner, B.Z. and Kouzes, J.M. 2012. The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. Jossey-Bass.
60. Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S. and Manz, C.C. 1998. Self-leadership and performance outcomes: The mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 523-538.
61. Revans, R. (1982), ‘The origins and growth of action learning’, Bromley, Chartwell-Bratt.
62. Sahlberg, P. (2018). Eğitimde Finlandiya modeli (C. Mavituna, Çev.). İstanbul: Metropolis Yayıncılık.
63. Senge, P. (2013). Beşinci Disiplin. 10. Baskı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları
64. Smylie, M.A. and Eckert, J. 2018. Beyond superheroes and advocacy: The pathway of teacher leadership development. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 46(4), 556-577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694893
65. Szeto, E. 2020. Influence of professional cultures and principal leadership effects on early-career teacher leadership development in Hong Kong schools, Professional Development in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1770837
66. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. 2013. Using multivariate statistics. Sixth edition. New York: Pearson.
67. Turkish Education Association Think Tank (TEDMEM). 2020. Education evaluation report, 2019. Ankara: TED. www.tedmem.org/yayin
68. TEDMEM. (2021). Türkiye’nin TIMSS 2019 performansı üzerine değerlendirme ve öneriler (TEDMEM Analiz Dizisi 8). Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları.
69. United Nations Education Science Culture Organization (UNESCO) 2017. E2030: Education and skills for the 21st century. Available from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000250117_eng.[Accessed 27 July 2021]
70. Uslu, T. and Aslan, M. 2020. Student leadership scale: Validity and reliability study. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education (INUJFE), 21(3). 1181-1196.
71. Viennet, R. and Pont, B. 2017. Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework (OECD Education Working Papers No. 162). Paris: OECD Publication.
72. Voegtlin, C. 2016. What does it mean to be responsible? Addressing the missing responsibility dimension in ethical leadership research. Leadership, 12(5), 581-608.
73. Webber, C.F. and Nickel, J. 2021. Sustainable teacher leadership. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 6(1), 277-311. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2021.1.9
74. Woodhouse, J. and 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
75. Yin, H. and Huang, S. 2021. Applying structural equation modelling to research on teaching and teacher education: Looking back and forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, 103438.