Digital leadership in educational organizations: A scale adaptation study

Öz

In this study, it was aimed to adapt the DigiFuehr 2.0 Scale developed by Claassen et al. (2023) to Turkish and to conduct validity and reliability studies on three groups of participants consisting of teachers. In the study, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed in line with translation study, linguistic application, and validity and reliability studies. The findings indicate that the scale is a valid and reliable assessment tool for Turkish education leaders. In particular, the dimensions of support and self-organization play an important role in evaluating the digital leadership skills of leaders. In addition, this scale provides a powerful tool for evaluating and developing the digital leadership skills of educational leaders. Therefore, it will allow a more in-depth examination of the effects of digital leadership skills in studies to be carried out in educational organizations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital leadership
• Leadership
• Scale adaptation

References

1. Ahlemann, F., Schütte, R., & Stieglitz, S. (2021). Innovation Through Information Systems. Springer International Publishing.
2. AlAjmi, M.K. (2022). The impact of digital leadership on teachers’ technology integration during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kuwait. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101928
3. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155 173. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02294170
4. Antonopoulou, H., Halkiopoulos, C., Barlou, O., & Beligiannis, G.N. (2020). Leadership types and digital leadership in higher education: Behavioural data analysis from University of Patras in Greece. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(4), 110-129. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.4.8
5. Arham, A.F., Norizan, N.S., Arham, A.F., Hasbullah, N.N., Malan, I.N.B., & Alwi, S. (2022). Initializing the need for digital leadership: A meta-analysis review on leadership styles in educational sector. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(8), 2755 2773. https://journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/10280/6661
6. Balcı, A. (2000). İkibinli yıllarda Türk milli eğitim sisteminin örgütlenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(24), 495 508. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/108514
7. Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588 606. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
8. Bersin, J. (2018). The rise of the social enterprise: A new paradigm for business. Forbes April, 3, 2018.

9. Black, W., & Babin, B.J. (2019). Multivariate data analysis: Its approach, evolution, and impact. In The great facilitator: Reflections on the contributions of Joseph F. Hair, Jr. to marketing and business research (pp. 121-130). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
10. Boomsma, A. (1985). Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika, 50(2), 229-242.
11. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological methods & research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Pegema Yayıncılık.
13. Can, A. (2018). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative Data Analysis in Scientific Research Process with SPSS]. Pegem Akademi.
14. Ceylan, M. (2019). 21. yüzyıl becerileri bağlamında okul yöneticilerinin değişen rollerinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre incelenmesi [Examining the changing roles of the school principles in the context of the 21st century skills from teachers' point of view] [Unpublished master's thesis]. Trakya Üniversitesi.
15. 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
16. Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 167 198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111421987
17. Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233 255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
18. Claassen, K., Dos Anjos, D.R., Kettschau, J.P., Wrede, S.J.S., & Broding, H.C. (2023). DigiFuehr 2.0: Novel insights for digital leadership. Journal of Occupational Health, 65(1), e12383. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12383
19. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. NJ Eribaum.
20. Cvetković, B.N., Stošić, A.S., & Mitić, I.T. (2023). Leadership In Education In The Digital Age. Facta Universitatis, Series: Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 189-199. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUTLTE221115019N
21. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik [Multivariate statistics for social sciences]. Pegem Akademi.
22. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C.S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of computing in teacher education, 23(2), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402454.2006.10784561
23. Fidell, L.S., & Tabachnick, B.G. (2003). Preparatory data analysis. Handbook of Psychology: Research Methods in Psychology, 2, 115 141. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0205
24. Figus, A. (2021). Information Society and Digital Leadership in the Globalized Educational System: Political Approach. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.07.02.3
25. Finch, J.F., & West, S.G. (1997). The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality. 31(4). 439 485. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2194
26. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
27. Gierlich-Joas, M., Hess, T., & Neuburger, R. (2020). More self-organization, more control-or even both? Inverse transparency as a digital leadership concept. Business Research, 13, 921-947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00130-0
28. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
29. Håkansson, L.M., & Pettersson, F. (2019). Digitalization and school leadership: on the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(3), 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126
30. Highton, M. (2022). The importance of diversity and digital leadership in education: a feminist perspective from higher education. Handbook of Digital Higher Education, 351-362. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800888494.00039
31. Karakose, T., Polat, H., & Papadakis, S. (2021). Examining teachers’ perspectives on school principals’ digital leadership roles and technology capabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(23), 13448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313448
32. Keleş, H.N., Atay, D., & Karanfıl, F. (2020). Instructional leadership behaviors of school principals during the COVID 19 pandemic process. Milli Egitim, 49(1), 155 174. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.787255
33. Levin, B.B., & Schrum, L. (2013). Using systems thinking to leverage technology for school improvement: Lessons learned from award-winning secondary schools/districts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(1), 29 51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782612
34. Petry, T. (2018). Knowledge management in digital change. In: North K, Maier R, Haas O, eds. Digital leadership. Springer.
35. Putnick, D.L., & Bornstein, M.H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
36. Richardson, J.W., Bathon, J., Flora, K.L., & Lewis, W.D. (2012). NETS• A scholarship: A review of published literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782600 Ridho, M.R., Lesmana, I., Safitri, H.D.A., Meirani, R.K., & Prestiadi, D. (2023, February). Digital Leadership in the Scope of Education. In International Conference on Educational Management and Technology (ICEMT 2022) (pp. 52-61). Atlantis Press.
37. Robiah, P.S., & Nurdin, D. (2021). Implementation of Digital Leadership in developing student learning at SMP Manggala Kab. Bandung. In Proceeding of International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and Management (ICREAM) (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 23-27).
38. Rooney, D., & McKenna, B. (2007). Wisdom in organizations: Whence and whither. Social Epistemology, 21(2), 113-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02691720701393434
39. Sheninger, E. (2019). Digital leadership: Changing paradigms for changing times. Corwin Press.
40. Sousa, M.J., Cruz, R., & Martins, J.M. (2017). Digital learning methodologies and tools–a literature review. Edulearn17 Proceedings, 5185 5192. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.2158
41. Tanniru, M., & Peral, J. (2021). Digital Leadership in Education. In Effective Leadership for Overcoming ICT Challenges in Higher Education: What Faculty, Staff and Administrators Can Do to Thrive Amidst the Chaos (pp. 73-91). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-306-020211008
42. Tanniru, M., Khuntia, J., & Weiner, J. (2018). Hospital leadership in support of digital transformation. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(3), 1. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pajais/vol10/iss3/1/
43. Tigre, F.B., Curado, C., & Henriques, P.L. (2023). Digital leadership: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(1), 40 70. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221123132
44. Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4 69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
45. Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: a reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4) 377 392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406668
46. Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H.E. (2009). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-I. (1. baskı). Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
47. Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.006
48. Yusof, M., Yaakob, M., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). Measurement model of teaching competency of secondary school teachers in Malaysia. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(20), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i20.11465
49. Zhong, L. (2017). Indicators of digital leadership in the context of K-12 education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 10(1), https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1001.03