Türk Eğitim Sisteminde Örgütsel Öğrenme Mekanizmalarının Ölçülmesi: Ölçek Uyarlama ve Geçerlilik Çalışması

Öz

Örgütsel öğrenme eğitim araştırmalarında önemli bir kavram olarak kabul edilmekle birlikte, özellikle merkezi eğitim sistemlerinde kuramsal bilgi ile uygulama arasında belirgin bir boşluk bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Örgütsel Öğrenme Mekanizmaları (ÖÖM) ölçeğini Türkiye’nin kültürel ve eğitimsel bağlamına uyarlamak ve geçerliğini sınamak amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Uyarlama sürecinde çeviri, geri çeviri, alan yazın taraması ve madde tartışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliği açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleriyle, güvenirliği ise Cronbach alfa katsayısı ile incelenmiştir. Ayrıca bileşik güvenirlik, ortalama açıklanan varyans ve ayırt edici geçerlik gibi psikometrik özellikler de değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, ölçeğin özgün 27 madde ve dört faktörlü yapısının korunduğunu göstermiştir. Öğretmen görüşleriyle desteklenen Türkçe versiyon, yüksek düzeyde güvenirlik ve geçerlik sergilemiştir. Sonuç olarak, ÖÖM’nin Türkçe uyarlaması, okullarda örgütsel öğrenme mekanizmalarını ölçmek için geçerli bir araç sunmakta ve Türkiye gibi merkezi eğitim sistemlerinde araştırma ve uygulamalara katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• örgütsel öğrenme
• örgütsel öğrenme mekanizmaları
• okul müdürü
• öğretmen
• ölçek uyarlama

Measuring Organizational Learning Mechanisms in the Turkish Education System: Scale Adaptation and Validation Study

Öz

Organizational learning is widely acknowledged in educational research, yet a gap remains between theoretical understanding and practical application, particularly in centralized education systems. This study aimed to adapt and validate the Organizational Learning Mechanisms (OLM) scale for the Turkish cultural and educational context. The adaptation process included translation, back-translation, literature review, and item discussions. Validity was tested through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, while reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Additional psychometric properties such as composite reliability, average variance extracted, and discriminant validity were also examined. Findings confirmed that the original 27-item, four-factor structure of the OLM was preserved. The Turkish version demonstrated strong reliability and validity, supported by teacher input. Overall, the adapted OLM provides a robust tool for measuring organizational learning mechanisms in schools and is expected to support research and practice in centralized education systems similar to Türkiye.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• organizational learning
• organizational learning mechanisms
• school principal
• teacher
• scale adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Alkharusi, H. (2022). A descriptive analysis and interpretation of data from Likert scales in educational and psychological research. Indian Journal of Psychology and Education, 12(2), 13–16.
2. Ay-Isik, A. (2017). Okulların örgütsel öğrenme düzeyleri ile öğretmenlerin akademik iyimserlikleri arasındaki ilişki [Relationship between schools' organizational learning levels and teachers' academic optimism] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Usak University.
3. Berends, M., Heilbrunn, J., McKelvey, C., & Sullivan, T. (1998). Monitoring the progress of new American schools: A description of implementing schools in a longitudinal sample (Draft series paper DRU-1935-NAS). RAND. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2008/DRU1935.pdf
4. Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064
5. Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99355004
6. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Multivariate applications book series. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
8. Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2007). Organizational learning: Improving learning, teaching, and leading in school systems. Sage.

9. Collinson, V., Cook, T. F., & Conley, S. (2006). Organizational learning in schools and school systems: Improving learning, teaching, and leading. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4502_2
10. Crow, G. M. (2007). The Professional and Organizational Socialization of New English Headteachers in School Reform Contexts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207071385
11. Eren, Z., & Anik, S. (2021). Organizational learning networks and social network analysis of teachers' professional learning networks. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 10(3), 100–125.
12. Everitt, B. S. (2001). Statistics for psychologists: An intermediate course. Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage.
14. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2013). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Quantitative methods in education and the behavioral sciences: Issues, research, and teaching. Structural equation modeling: A second course (p. 439-492). IAP Information Age.
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
16. Fromm, G., Hallinger, P., Volante, P., & Wang, W. C. (2017). Validating a Spanish version of the PIMRS: Application in national and cross-national research on instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215617948
17. Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05278189
18. Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
19. Guzen, S. A., & Kaya, A. (2021). Investigation of the organizational learning mechanisms in high schools based on teachers' views. Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Journal of Education, 3(1), 1–28.
20. Hair, J. F., Jr. (1997). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
21. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
22. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006941729637
23. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0097
24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
25. İstanbul Provincial Risk Reduction Plan. (2022). İstanbul provincial disaster risk reduction plan-2022. Provincial Disaster and Emergency Directorate. https://istanbul.afad.gov.tr/irap-istanbul-il-afet-risk-azaltma-plani-yayinlandi
26. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). An introduction to LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software]. Scientific Software International, Inc.
27. Kilicoglu, G., Kilicoglu, D. Y., & Hammersley-Fletcher, L. (2020). Leading Turkish schools: A study of the causes and consequences of organisational hypocrisy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822778
28. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford.
29. Kruse, S. D. (2003). Remembering as organizational memory. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310481612
30. Krüger, M., & Scheerens, J. (2012). Conceptual perspectives on school leadership. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), School leadership effects revisited: review and meta-analysis of empirical studies (pp. 1–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2768-7_1
31. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2008). A longitudinal study on the stability over time of school and teacher effects on student learning outcomes. Oxford Review of Education, 34(5), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701782064
32. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X98034002005
33. Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardia’s test of multinormality. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (pp. 217–221). Wiley.
34. Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99355003
35. Miller, P. W. (2018). The nature of school leadership: Global practice perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
36. MoNE (Ministry of National Education). (2010). Okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenler için okul temelli mesleki gelişim kılavuzu [A guide to school-based professional development for school administrators and teachers]. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_11/06153206_otmg_kYlavuz.pdf
37. MoNE. (2022). Hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetleri kılavuzu [In-service training activities guide]. https://karayazi.meb.gov.tr › meb_iys_dosyalar
38. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organizational learning and improved student outcomes– what do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640302041
39. Mulford, B., & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualization of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111100125
40. Okumus, F., Avci, U., & Kilinc, I. (2007). Öğrenen örgütlerin oluşturulmasında üst kademe yöneticilerin rolü [The role of top-level managers in the formation of learning organizations]. Journal of Social and Economic Research, 7(13), 30–50.
41. Qadach, M., Schechter, C., & Da’as, R. (2020). From principals to teachers to students: Exploring an ıntegrative model for predicting students’ achievements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 736–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907133
42. Schechter, C. (2005). Organizational learning mechanisms: Exploring a conceptual framework for organizational learning in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 15(5), 571–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460501500505
43. Schechter, C. (2008). Organizational learning mechanisms: The meaning, measure, and implications for school improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 155–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07312189
44. Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). Crown Business.
45. Shengnan, L., & Hallinger, P. (2021). Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896042
46. Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X02239641
47. Stoll, L., & Kools, M. (2017). The school as a learning organisation: a review revisiting and extending a timely concept. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2016-0022
48. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043
49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
50. Unal, A. (2014). Örgütsel öğrenme mekanizmalarının okullarda kullanılması konusunda öğretmen görüşleri [The opinions of teachers about use of organizational learning mechanisms in schools]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 35(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE551
51. Van Den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. (1996). The innovative capacity of secondary schools: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090207
52. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136.
53. Yildirim, A. (2003). Instructional planning in a centralized school system: Lessons of a study among primary school teachers in Turkey. International Review of Education, 49, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026361208399
54. Yumusak, S., & Yildiz, H. (2011). Eğitim örgütleri öğrenen organizasyon özellikleri göstermekte midir? kamu ve özel ilköğretim okullarının Balıkesir İli örneğinde karşılaştırmalı bir analizi [Do education organizations show learning organizations charecterics? A comparative case study in term of Balıkesir Province]. Business and Economics Research Journal, 2(4), 159–177.