Okul Yöneticilerinin Teknoloji Liderliği, Teknostres ve Teknoloji Kabulü Arasındaki Yapısal İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 6, 1781 - 1797, 25.12.2021

Ömer Yahşi Sinan Hopcan

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.960670

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, teknoloji liderliğinin okul yöneticilerinin teknostres ve teknoloji kabulü üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Teknoloji, 21. yüzyıl toplumunun ihtiyaçlarını karşılamak için sürekli değişen ve dönüşen eğitim örgütlerinin ve hızla gelişen teknolojinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan teknoloji liderliğinin vazgeçilmez bir parçası olarak görülmektedir. Literatürde yapılan önceki çalışmalar incelendiğinde bu boyutların ayrı ayrı ele alındığı ancak üç boyutu bir arada inceleyen bir çalışma olmadığı görülmüştür. Bu çalışma teknoloji liderliği, teknostres ve teknoloji kabulü arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymayı amaçladığı için ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya pilot uygulamaya 112, asıl çalışmaya 387 olmak üzere toplam 499 okul yöneticisi katılmıştır. Bu araştırmanın yapılabilmesi için İstanbul Üniversitesi - Cerrahpaşa Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Etik Kurulu’ndan 15.04.2021 tarih ve E-74555795-050.01.04-77271 sayılı izin alınmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcıları İzmir'de bulunan A-12 okullarının okul yöneticileridir. Bu çalışmada Eğitim Yöneticileri Teknoloji Liderliği Ölçeği, Teknoloji Kabul ve Kullanım Birleştirilmiş Modeli (UTAUT) 2 Ölçeği ve Öğretmenlerin Teknostres Düzeylerini Belirleme Ölçeği (TTLDS) kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır. Çalışma ile ilgili gerekli izinler İzmir İl Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğünden alınmıştır. Veriler, SPSS 18.0 istatistik programı ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada toplanan verilerin analiz sonuçlarına göre, okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği, teknostres düzeyleri ve teknoloji kabul düzeylerini yordamaktadır. Ayrıca, okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji kabul düzeyleri, teknostres düzeylerini yordamaktadır. Çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlara göre teknoloji liderliği ve teknoloji kabul düzeylerinin teknostres üzerinde negatif etkiye sahip olduğu; teknoloji liderliğinin teknoloji kabul düzeyi üzerinde olumlu etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

okul yöneticileri, teknoloji kabulü, Teknoloji liderliği, tekno stres

Reviewing The Structural Relationship Among the Technology Leadership, Technostress and Technology Acceptance of School Administrators

Öz

The aim of this study is to review the influence of technology leadership on school administrators’ technostress and technology acceptance. Technology is seen as an indispensable part of educational organizations that are constantly changing and transforming to meet the needs of 21st century society and technology leadership, which has emerged as a result of rapidly developing technology. Although prior studies have examined these dimensions separately, there has been no study that investigates them all. This research is designed as a correlational survey model as it aims to reveal the relationships between technology leadership, technostress and technology acceptance. The participants of the study were school administrators of K-12 schools in Izmir, Turkey. A total of 499 school administrators, 112 of whom were participated in the pilot study and 387 in the main study. In order to conduct this research, ethical permission was obtained from the Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee of Istanbul University – Cerrahpasa with the date 15.04.2021 and number E-74555795-050.01.04-77271. The Technology Leadership Competency Scale for School Administrators, The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) 2 Scale and The Teachers’ Technostress Levels Defining Scale (TTLDS) were used in this study. The data was collected through an online survey. Permission was obtained from the İzmir Provincial Directorate of National Education-Turkey. The SPSS 18.0 statistics program was used to analyze the data. According to the study’s findings, administrators' technology leadership predicts their technostress and technology acceptance. In addition, administrators' technology acceptance predicts their technostress. Technology leadership and technology acceptance have statistically significant negative effects on technostress. Technology leadership has a statistically significant positive effect on technology acceptance.

Anahtar Kelimeler

school administration, technology acceptance, technology leadership, technostress

Kaynakça

• Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Technology and school leadership. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 235-248.
• Akgun, F. (2019). Öğretim elemanlarının bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerine yönelik kabulleri ve teknostres algıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Investigation of the relationship between information technology acceptance and perceived technostress levels in academic staff]. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 9(2), 40-66.
• Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating eacher stress when using technology. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1103-1110.
• Arokiasamy, A. R. A., Bin Abdullah, A. G. K., & Ismail, A. (2015). Correlation between cultural perceptions, leadership style and ICT usage by school principals in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 319-332.
• Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858.
• Banoglu, K. (2011). Okul müdürlerinin teknoloji liderliği yeterlikleri ve teknoloji koordinatörlüğü [School principals’ technology leadership competency and technology coordinatorship]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(1), 208-213.
• Berger, R., Romeo, M., Gidion, G., & Poyato, L. (2016). Media use and technostress. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), INTED 2016 proceedings. 10th International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia: IATED Academy.
• Boyer-Davis, S. (2018). The relationship between technology stress and leadership style: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business and Educational Leadership, 8(1), 48-65.
• Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. USA: Reading.
• Brown, L (2014). Best practices of leadership in educational technology. I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 1-6.
• Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). USA: Sage.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• Califf, C. B., & Brooks, S. (2020). An empirical study of techno-stressors, literary facilitation, burnout and turnover intention as experience by K-12 teachers. Computers & Education, 157, 1-14.
• Cetin, D., & Bulbul, T. (2017). Okul yöneticilerinin teknostres algıları ile bireysel yenilikçilik özellikleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [Examining the relationship between school administrators' technostress perceptions and individual innovativeness characteristics]. Abant Izzet Baysal University Education Faculty Journal, 17(3), 1241-1264.
• Chang, I. H. (2012). The effect of principals' technological leadership on teachers' technological literacy and teaching effectiveness in taiwanese elementary schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 328-340.
• Coklar, A. N., Efilti, E., & Sahin, Y. L. (2017). Defining teachers’ technostress levels: A scale development. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(21), 28-41.
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
• Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leaderhip of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17-36.
• Dinham, S. (2016). Leading learning and teaching. Australia: ACER Press.
• Dong, Y., Xu, C., Chai, C.S, & Zhai, X. (2020). Exploring the structural relationsjip among teachers’technostress, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), computer self-efficacy and school support. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 147-157.
• Drossel, K., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2017). Predictors of teachers’ use of ICT in school: The relevance of school characteristics, teachers’ attitudes and teacher collaboration. Education & Information Technologies, 22(2), 551-573.
• Durnalı, M. (2019). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre okul müdürlerinin sergilediği teknolojik liderlik davranış düzeyi [Technological leadership behavior level of secondary schools principals according to teachers’ views]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 12(2), 401-430.
• Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person environment fit theory: Conceptual foundation, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-68). England: Oxford University Press.
• Eichhorn, K., Prestridge, S., Petko, D., Sligte, H., Baker, R., Alayyar, G., & Knezek, G. (2018). Supporting learning leaders for the effective integration of technology into schools. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 457-472.
• Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., & Koop, C. (2017). ICT use in mathematics lessons and the mathematics achievement of secondary school students by international comparison: Which role do school level factors play? Education & Information Technologies, 22, 1-25.
• Fisher, D.M., & Waller, L. R. (2013). The 21st Century Principal: A study of technology leadership and technology integration in Texas K-12 schools. The Global E-learning Journal, 2(4), 1-44.
• Fuglseth, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress within the context of employee use of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 161-170.
• Gerald, S. M. (2020). Measuring principals’ technology leadership and principals’ beahviors: A quantitative study. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute, USA.
• Goksun, D. O. (2016). Teknostresin eğitim alanına yönelik örtük moderatörleri [Implicit moderators for technostress's education field]. 4th International Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education Symposium, 6-8 October.
• Gulpan, J., & Baja, R. M. (2020). Technological leadership of 21st century principals of private secondary schools. International Journal of Advances Research and Publications, 4(4), 66-69.
• Hacifazlioglu, O., Karadeniz, S., & Dalgic, G. (2010). Eğitim yöneticileri teknoloji liderliği standartlarına ilişkin öğretmen, yönetici ve denetmenlerin görüşleri [Views of teachers, administrators and supervisors regarding the technological leadership standards for administrators]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 16(4), 537-577.
• Hacifazlioglu, O., Karadeniz, S., & Dalgic, G. (2011). Okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliğine ilişkin algıları: Metafor analizi [Perceptions of school administrators on technology leadership: Metaphor analysis]. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 1(1), 97-121.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
• Hamzah, M. I. M, Juraime, F., Hamid, A. H. A., Nordin, N., & Attan, N. (2014). Technology leadership and Its relationship with school-Malaysia standard of education quality (School-MSEQ). International Education Studies, 7(13), 278-85.
• Hargreaves, A. (2007). School leadership for systematic improvement in Finland. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Harper, S. (2000). Managing technostress in UK libraries: A realistic guide. Ariadne, 25, 18-21.
• Hong, J., Hwang, M., Ting, T., Tai, K., & Lee, C. (2013). The innovativeness and self-efficacy predict the acceptance of using ipad-2 as a green behavior by the government’s top administrators. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 313-320.
• Hsieh, C.C., Yen, H.C., & Kuan L.Y. (2014). The relationship among principals technology leadership, teaching innovation and students’ academic optimism in elementary schools. International Conferences on Educational Technologies 2014 and Technology and Education 2014.
• Irving, K. (2010). Technology leadership for the 21st century. In J. Rhoton (Ed.) Science education leadership: Best practices for the new century (pp. 145-159). USA: NTSA.
• ISTE. (2009). NETS for Administrators 2009. Date of access: 28.06.2021, http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-administrators.
• Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
• Jena, R. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical study among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1116-1123.
• Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, N. H. (2016). The effects of secondary teachers’ technostress on the intention to use technology in South Korea. Computers & Education, 95, 114-122.
• Karadeniz, S., & Hacifazlioglu, O. (2013). School administrators turning dystopias into utopias: technology stories from low socio-economic schools. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 28(1), 211-222.
• Karasar, N. (2005). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
• Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2017). Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: effects on teacher ict integration and student outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(2), 172-196.
• Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & McCullough, C. (2019). How school districts influence student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 519-539.
• Lin, F., Fofanah, S. S., & Liang, D. (2011). Assessing citizen adoption of e-government initiatives in gambia: a validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 271-279.
• Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. (2015). Integrating technology: The principals' role and effect. International Education Studies, 8(5), 43-53.
• Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Mcleod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 216-240.
• Moreira, M. A., Rivero, V. M. H., & Alonso, J. J. S. (2019). Leadership and school integration of ICT teachers perceptions in Spain. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 549-565.
• Naidu, S., & Laxman, K. (2019). Factors inhibiting teachers’ embracing elearning in secondary education: a literature review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 124-143.
• Okebaram, S. M. (2013). Minimizing the effects of technostress in today’s organization. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3, 649-658.
• Omar, M. N., & Ismail, S. N. (2020). Mobile technology integration in the 2020s: The impact of technology leadership in the Malaysian context. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(5), 1874-1883.
• Oznacar, D. (2017). The role of school administrators in the use of technology. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 253-268.
• Paul, N., & Glassman, M. (2017). Relationship between internet selfefficacy and internet anxiety: A nuanced approach to understanding the connection. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 147-165.
• Powell, S. B. (2020). A quantitive investigation of software as a service adoption in higher education institutions in the United States (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University, USA.
• Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433.
• Richardson, J. W., & Sterrett, W. L. (2018). District technology leadership then and now: A comparative study of district technology leadership from 2001 to 2014. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 589-616.
• Richardson, J. W., Flora, K, & Bathon, J. (2013). Fostering a school technology vision in school leaders. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 144-160.
• Sabzian, F., & Gilakjani, A. P. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes about computer technology training, professional development, integration, experience, anxiety, and literacy in English language teaching and learning. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 3(1), 67-75.
• Salanova, M, Llorens, S., & Cifre, E (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 422-436.
• Sarabadani, J, Carter, & M. Compeau, D. (2018). 10 years research on technostress creators ad inhibitors: synthesis and critique. AMCIS 2018 - America´s Conference on Information Systems, 1-10. New Orleans.
• Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School Leadership, 21(2), 241-261.
• Shepherd, G.S.S. (2004). Relationships between computer skills and technostress: How does this affect me? ASCUE Conference, June 6-10, 1004, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
• Shu, Q., Tu, Q., & Wang, K. (2011). The impact of computer self-efficacy and technology dependence on computer-related technostress: A social cognitive theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), 923-939.
• Simon, B. (2001). Wissensmedien im bildungssektor: Eine akzeptanzuntersuchung an hochschulen [Knowledge Media in the Education System: Acceptance Research in Universities] (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Wien, Austria.
• Suh, A., & Lee, J. (2017). Understanding teleworkers’ technostress and its influence on job satisfaction. Internet Research, 27(1), 140-159.
• Tabachnick, G. G., & L. S. Fidell. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
• Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragunathan, T. S. (2014). Examining impacts of technostress on the professional salesperson’s behavioural performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 34(1), 51-69.
• Tillman, R. M. (2014). The relationship between school administrator's leadership behavior and the acceptance and use of technology in schools (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana.
• Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Towards a differentiated and domain-specific view of educational technology: An exploratory study of history teachers’ technology use. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1402-1413.
• Waxman, H. C, Boriack, A.W., Lee, Y., & MacNeil, A. (2013). Principals’ perception of the importance of technology in schools. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(3), 187-196.
• Wei, L. M., Piaw, C. Y., & Kannan, S. (2017). Relationship between principal technology leadership practices and teacher ICT competency. MOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 4(3), 13-36.
• Weng, C. H., & Tang, Y. (2014). The relationship between technology leadership strategies and effectiveness of school administration: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 76, 91-107.
• Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F., & Summers, G.F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84-136.
• Wiltgen, T. M. (2020). The perceived influence of advanced technology on an American high school teacher’s psychological capital (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Grand Canyon University, USA.
• Wright, J. M. (2014). Planning to meet the expanding volume of online learners: An examination of faculty motivation to teach online. Educational Planning, 21(4), 35-49.
• Yieng, W. A., & Daud, K. B. (2017). Technology leadership in Malaysia's high performance school. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 4(1), 8-14.
• Yılmaz, M. B., & Kavanoz, S. (2017). Teknoloji kabul ve kullanım birleştirilmiş modeli- 2 ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlk ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability of Turkish version of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology-2]. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(32), 127-146.
• Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 10(1), 27-40.