The Effect of Innovative Schools and Schools' Openness to Change on Teachers' Adaptive Performance

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to examine the effect of teachers' perceptions of innovative schools and schools' openness to change on their perceptions of adaptive performance. Predictive correlational design was used in the study. Simple random sampling method was utilized to determine the sample. The sample consisted of 258 teachers. Personal Information Form, Innovative School Scale, Schools' Openness to Change Scale and Teachers' Perceived Adaptive Performance Scale were applied to collect the data. In data analysis, descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation and hierarchical regression analysis were used. In the study, teachers' perceptions of innovative schools and adaptive performance were found to be high, and their perceptions of schools’ openness to change were found to be moderate. It was determined that innovative school and schools' openness to change together significantly predicted adaptive performance. It was determined that the dimensions of organizational impediments, teachers' openness to change and school environment's press for change were significant predictors of adaptive performance while innovative schools and schools' openness to change were together. It was concluded that in order to increase the adaptive performance of teachers, it is necessary to realize innovative practices in schools and to increase the openness of schools to change. Suggestions were made to prevent the factors that hinder innovations in schools and to increase the openness to change of teachers and the school environment.

Keywords

• Adaptive performance
• Innovative school
• Openness to change
• Teacher

Yenilikçi Okul ve Okulların Değişime Açıklığının Öğretmenlerin Uyumsal Performansına Etkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmada, öğretmenlerin yenilikçi okul ve okulların değişime açıklık algılarının uyumsal performans algılarına etkisini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada yordayıcı korelasyonel desen kullanılmıştır. Örneklemin belirlenmesinde basit tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Örneklemi 258 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Verilerinin toplanmasında Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Yenilikçi Okul Ölçeği, Okulların Değişime Açıklık Ölçeği ve Öğretmenlerin Algıladıkları Uyumsal Performans Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistik, Pearson korelasyon ve hiyerarşik regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada, öğretmenlerin yenilikçi okul ve uyumsal performans algıları yüksek, okulların değişime açıklık algıları orta düzeyde bulunmuştur. Yenilikçi okul ile okulların değişime açıklığının birlikte uyumsal performansı anlamlı bir şekilde yordadığı belirlenmiştir. Yenilikçi okul ile okulların değişime açıklığının birlikte iken Örgütsel engeller, Öğretmenlerin değişime açıklığı ve Okul çevresinin değişim baskısı boyutlarının uyumsal performansın anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerin uyumsal performanslarının daha fazla artması için hem okullarda yenilikçi uygulamaların gerçekleştirilmesinin hem de okulların değişime açıklığının arttırılmasının gerekli olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Okullarda yeniliklerin engellenmesine neden olan faktörlerin önlenmesine, öğretmenlerin ve okul çevresinin değişime açıklığının arttırılmasına yönelik öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Değişime açıklık
• Öğretmen
• Uyumsal performans
• Yenilikçi okul

Kaynakça

1. Alayoğlu, A. H. (2019). Relationship between innovation climate, creative self efficacy and openness to change (Thesis No: 576618). [Master thesis, Marmara Univeristy]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
2. Akyürek, M. İ. (2022). The relationship between the innovative school and the democratic leadership characteristics of administrators. Journal of Social Sciences of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, 19(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.912763
3. Andres, L. M., Cruz, J. B. D., Gonzaga, M. P., Rodriguez, I. S., Sanchez, J. A., & Ortiz, A. F. (2021). Teachers’ level of adaptability and performance: Their response to the rapidly transforming academic world. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 6(3), 326-331. https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijels.63.46
4. Aslan, H., & Kesik, F. (2016). Development of innovative school scale: A validity and reliability analysis. Educational Administration in Theory and Practice, 22(4), 463-482. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2016.018
5. Avşar, D. Ş., İnandı, Y., & Arslantaş, H. İ. (2022). Examining the relationship between the level of self-efficacy of teachers and the level of schools' openness to change. i-Manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 15(3), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.26634/jpsy.15.3.18621
6. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 169-196. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250983
7. Bhat, S. A., & Beri, A. (2016). Development and validation of teachers perceived job performance scale (TPJP) in higher education. Man in India, 96(4), 935-944.
8. Bodur, E., & Argon, T. (2019). Teachers' views on innovative schools and organization climate. International Journal of Leadership Training, 1(1), 75-88.

9. Bozbayındır, F., & Alev, S. (2018). The analysis of the relationship between self-efficacy, proactive personality and openness to change perceptions teachers. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 19(2), 293-311. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.346666
10. Brühwiler, C., & Vogt, F. (2020). Adaptive teaching competency: Effects on quality of instruction and learning outcomes. Journal for Educational Research Online, 12(1), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:19121
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [The data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Pegem Academy.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Academy.
13. Canlı, S., Demirtaş, H., & Özer, N. (2015). School administrators’ tendencies towards change. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 634-646. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.88636
14. Cerit, Y., Kadıoğlu-Ateş, H., & Kadıoğlu, S. (2018). The relationship between effective leadership qualities and classroom teachers’ openness to change. Kalem International Journal of Education and Human Sciences 8(1), 105-129. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2018.95
15. Charbonnier‐Voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29(3), 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/CJAS.232
16. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri desen ve analiz [Research methods design and analysis]. (A. Aypay, Trans. Ed.). Anı Publications.
17. Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An important capacity for effective teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.7459/ept/38.1.03
18. Curşeu, P. L., Schruijer, S. G. L., & Fodor, O. C. (2022). Minority dissent, openness to change and group creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 34(1), 93-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.2018833
19. Çağlar, Ç. (2013). The relationship between the schools’ level of openness to change and the teachers’ level of organizational commitment. Adıyaman University Journal of Social Sciences, (15), 119-150. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.652
20. Çağlar, Ç. (2014). The relationship between academic optimism levels of schools and their levels of openness to change. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 7(1), 94-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.5578/keg.5731
21. Çayak, S., & Erol, İ. (2022). The relationship between teachers' levels of readiness for change and the innovativeness levels of schools. Ahi Evran University Journalof Kırşehir Education Faculty, 23(2), 1529-1558. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1035762
22. Çekmecelioğlu, H. G. (2006). Örgüt iklimi, duygusal bağlılık ve yaratıcılık arasındaki ilişkilerin değerlendirilmesi: Bir araştırma [Evaluation of the relationships between organizational climate, affective commitment and creativity: A research]. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi [Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences], 20(2), 295-310.
23. Çelikten, M. (2001). School directors' skills in the management of change. Education and Science, 26(119), 14-19.
24. Çobanoğlu, Ü. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions toward the frequencies of principal behaviors supporting organizational change. (Thesis No:210899). [Master thesis, Pamukkale University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
25. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Pegem Academy.
26. Demirkalp, S. (2022). Investigation of business skills and qualifications in use of basic technology according to teacher's features (Thesis No: 753076). [Master thesis, Aksaray University]. Council of Higher Educaion National Thesis Center
27. Demirtaş, H. (2012). Primary schools’ openness to change. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 18-34.
28. Dilekçi, Ü. (2018). Instructional emotions of teachers and their perceived adaptive performances (Thesis No: 511262). [Doctoral dissertation, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University]. Council of Higher Educaion National Thesis Center.
29. Dilekçi, Ü., & Sezgin-Nartgün, Ş. (2020a). Adaptive performance as a dimension of job performance: A theoretical framework. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 53(1), 301-328. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.560443
30. Dilekçi, Ü., & Sezgin-Nartgün, Ş. (2020b). Adaptation of teachers’ perceived adaptive performance scale to Turkish culture: Validity reliability and descriptive analysis. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35(2), 448-465. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2019052615
31. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
32. Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2015). Uygulamada araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analizi bütünleştiren yaklaşım [Research methods in applied settings: An integration approach to design and analysis]. (S. Turan, Trans. Ed.). Nobel publications.
33. Guo, D., Guo, Y., & Jiang, K. (2016). Government-subsidized R&D and firm innovation: Evidence from China. Research Policy, 45(6), 1129-1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.002
34. Gürbüz, S., & Bayık, M. E. (2019). Motivation, openness to experience, and affective commitment: The mediating role of attitudes towards change. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 34(Special Issue), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpd1300443320190502x000029
35. Hashemi, S. E., Asheghi, M., & Naami, A. (2019). Relationship of mindfulness and cognitive defusion to burnout, openness to change and adaptive performance with mediating role of psychological flexibility: A case study of iran south railway company. NeuroQuantology, 17(6), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2019.17.06.2344
36. Helvacı, M. A. (2011). Developing the reasons of the resistance to changes evaluation scale. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(3), 2033-2047.
37. Hölzl, W., & Janger, J. (2014). Distance to the frontier and the perception of innovation barriers across European countries. Research Policy, 43(4), 707-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.001
38. Irawan, R., & Sudibjo, N. (2022). Employee adaptive performance in Sekolah musik Indonesia: The impact of organizational climate, knowledge sharing behavior and innovative work behavior. Educational Management, 11(1), 53-66.
39. Jundt, D. K., Shoss, M. K., & Huang, J. L. (2015). Individual adaptive performance in organizations: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 53-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1955
40. Karasar, N. (2023). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Nobel Academic Publication.
41. Kareem, J., Patrick, H. A., Prabakaran, N., B. ,V., Tantia, V., M. P. M., P. K., & Mukherjee, U. (2023). Transformational educational leaders inspire school educators’ commitment. Frontiers. Education, 8, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1171513
42. Kline, R. B. (2011). Methodology in the social sciences: Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
43. Kuş, A. (2023). Investigation of school culture and adaptable performances perceived by class teachers (Thesis No: 791351). [Master Thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
44. Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R., & Terzioğlu, C. (2017). Secondary school teachers’ perceptions on their school’s openness to change. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(15), 732-743. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3307
45. Lenberg, P., Wallgren-Tengberg, L. G., & Feldt, R. (2017). An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change. Empirical Software Engineering, 22, 2179-2205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9482-0
46. Loughland, T., & Alonzo, D. (2019). Teacher adaptive practices: A key factor in teachers' implementation of assessment for learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(7), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2019v44n7.2
47. Meizatri, R., Rusdinal, R., & Rifma, R. (2023). Confirmatory factors influencing innovative schools in Indonesian rural areas. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.52152/kuey.v29i4.629
48. Noor, S., Tajik, O., & Golzar, J. (2022). Simple random sampling. International Journal of Education and Language Studies, 1(2), 78-82.
49. Oganisjana, K., Shipsey, M., de Silva, C. T. G., & Pai, M. P. (2023). Factors that impact adaptability of companies to changing circumstances with minimal destructive effect during crises. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 21(2), 30-38. https://doi.org/10.54808/JSCI.21.02.30
50. Özdaşlı, K. (2006). Toplam kalite yönetimi ve yenilik ilişkisi: Bir örnek olay [Total quality management and innovation relationship: A case study]. Academic Sight International Refereed Online Journal, (10), 1-16.
51. Park, S., & Park, S. (2019). Employee adaptive performance and its antecedents: Review and synthesis. Human Resource Development Review, 18(3), 294-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319836315
52. Patanakul, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2014). Examining the roles of government policy on innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 25(2), 97-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2014.07.003
53. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612
54. Riveras-León, J. C., & Tomàs-Folch, M. (2020). The organizational culture of innovative schools: The role of the principal. Journal of Educational Sciences, 42(2), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.35923/JES.2020.2.02
55. Schulz, L. (2010). Sneek peek in the black box: How change resources are related to positive organizational outcomes. [Master’s thesis, Universiteit Utrecht]. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/6254/Schulz%203414264%20.pdf?sequence=1
56. Shoss, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Vera, D. (2012). When does adaptive performance lead to higher task performance?. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 910-924. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.780
57. Sinval, J., Miller, V., & Marôco, J. (2021) Openness toward organizational change scale (OTOCS): Validity evidence from Brazil and Portugal. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0249986. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249986
58. Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Faculty change orientation scale. Unpublished manuscript.
59. Stonar, J., & Wankel, C. (1986). Management. Prestige Hall Pres.
60. Töremen, F. (2002). The obstacles and reasons of the change in educational organizations. Fırat University Journal of Social science, 12(1), 185-202.
61. Tunçer, P. (2012). Human resources and performance management in the change management process. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 7(1), 131-156.
62. Tunçer, P. (2013). Change resistance in the process of change management. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 32(1), 352-385.
63. Turan, S., & Cansoy, R. (2021). Yenilikçi okullar, özellikler-beceriler- stratejiler- uygulama örnekleri [Innovative schools, features-skills-strategies-application examples]. Nobel Publication.
64. Tümkaya, S., & Hürriyetoğlu, N. (2021). Öğretmenlerin mesleki bağlılık ve iş performansları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Examining the relationship between teachers' professional commitment and job performance]. Ş. Koca ve M. Ş. Akgül (Eds.), Eğitim bilimlerinde araştırma ve değerlendirmeler-I [Research and evaluations in educational sciences-I ]. (pp. 267-284). Gece Library
65. Vaughn, M., Parsons, S. A., Burrowbridge, S. C., Weesner, J., & Taylor, L. (2016). In their own words: Teachers’ reflections on adaptability. Theory Into Practice, 55, 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173993
66. Visser, B. A. T. (2012). Adapting to change: Relationships between personal resources, job resources, attitudes towards change, and positive outcomes in times of considerable organisational change. [Master's thesis, Universiteit Utrecht]. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/12233/Visser,%20B.%200113972.pdf?sequence=1
67. Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.I037//0021-9010.85.1.132
68. Williamson, B., & Payton, S. (2009). Curriculum and teaching innovation. Transforming clasroom practice and personalizsation. A Futurelab Handbook
69. Yeşil, A. (2018). An empirical evaluation of change and change management on foundations. International Academic Management Sciences Journal, 4 (5), 307-323.
70. Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., & Ferguson, M. A. (2019). Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust. Public Relations Review, 45(3), 101779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.012
71. Yüner, B., & Özdemir, M. (2020). Examination of the relationship between school innovation and teacher creativity. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 50, 162-179. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.538207
72. Zacharo, K., Koutsoukos, M., & Panta, D. (2018). Connection of teachers’ organizational commitment and transformational leadership. A case study from Greece, 17(8), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.17.8.6
73. Zainal, M. A., & Matore, M. E. E. M. (2019). Factors influencing teachers’ innovative behaviour: A systematic review. Creative Education, 10, 2869-2886. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.1012213