Pedagojik Liderlik: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, çalışanların algıları ile liderin pedagojik liderlik özelliklerini gösterme düzeyini betimleyecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Araştırmada ölçek geliştirmenin amacına uygun olacak şekilde tarama modeli tercih edilmiştir. Ölçek tüm kurum ve kuruluş türlerinde uygulanabilecek tarzda geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın örneklemini İstanbul ili Anadolu Yakası ilçelerinde resmi okullarda görev yapmakta olan öğretmenler oluşturmaktadır. Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde öncelikle Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve ardından Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiştir. AFA işlemi 372 katılımcı verisi ile, DFA işlemi ise 542 katılımcı verisi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analizler sonucunda iki boyuttan ve 30 maddeden oluşan bir ölçek elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğin alt boyutları gelişim odaklılık ve profesyonellik şeklinde isimlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı .97 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Maddelerin ayırt ediciliğini tespit etmek amacıyla %27’lik alt ve üst grup karşılaştırması yapılmış ve maddelerin ayırt edici olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğuna karar verilmiş ve ölçek Pedagojik Liderlik Ölçeği şeklinde isimlendirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liderlik
• Pedagojik Liderlik
• Ölçek Geliştirme

Pedagogical Leadership: Scale Development

Öz

The objective of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool that will describe the extent to which leaders demonstrate pedagogical leadership characteristics, as perceived by employees. In accordance with the objective of scale development, the survey model was selected as the most appropriate methodology for this study. The scale was developed in a manner that allows for its application in all types of institutions and organizations. The research sample comprises teachers employed in public schools located in the Anatolian Side districts of Istanbul. In the process of scale development, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was initially conducted, followed by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The EFA was conducted with data from 372 participants, while the CFA was conducted with data from 542 participants. The analyses yielded a scale comprising two dimensions and 30 items. The sub-dimensions of the scale were designated as development orientation and professionalism. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was determined to be 0.97. To ascertain the discrimination of the items, a 27% lower and upper group comparison was conducted, which demonstrated that the items were discriminative. Consequently, it was concluded that the scale was valid and reliable, and it was designated the Pedagogical Leadership Scale.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Leadership
• Pedagogical Leadership
• Scale

Kaynakça

1. Aung, T. (2018). Pedagogical leadership in myanmar: An exploratory study. [Master dissertation, Flinders University].
2. Balcı, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (9. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A. Barret, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.
3. Bashir, F., & Afzal, A. (2019). Effects of pedagogical leadership on the student achievements at secondary level. UMT Education Review, 2(2), 90–118.
4. Bayram, N. (2013). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. Bursa: Ezgi.
5. Best, F. (1988). The metamorphoses of the term ‘pedagogy’. Prospects, 18(2), 155-166.
6. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (4. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Erkan Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (30. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
11. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44.
12. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.
13. Contreras, T. S. (2016). Pedagogical leadership, teaching leadership and their role in school improvement: A theoretical approach. Propósitos Y Representaciones, 4(2), 231-284.
14. Coughlin, A. M., & Baird, L. (2013). Pedagogical leadership. London: London Bridge Child Care Services & Karwartha Child Care Services.
15. Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2013). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Ankara: Anı.
16. Çokluk, Ö., Şekerçioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
17. Day, C., Sammons, P., & Gorgen, K. (2020). Successful school leadership. Education Development Trust.
18. Dimmock, C., & Goh, J. W. (2011). Transformative pedagogy, leadership and school organisation for the twenty-first-century knowledge-based economy: The case of Singapore. School Leadership & Management, 31(3), 215-234.
19. García-Martínez, I., & Tadeu, P. (2018). The influence of pedagogical leadership on the construction of professional identity, systematic review. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(3), 145-162.
20. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. (16. Bsk.). Routledge.
21. Hansen, A. M., Kraemmergaard, P., & Mathiassen, L. (2011). Rapid adaptation in digital transformation: A participatory process for engaging IS and business leaders. MIS Quarterly Executive, 10(4). 175-185.
22. Heikka, J. (2014). Distributed pedagogical leadership in early childhood education [Academic dissertation, Tampere University]. Finland.
23. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
24. Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. The Guilford Press.
25. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (24.Bsk) Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
26. Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-138.
27. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
28. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(1), 563–575.
29. Lee, Y. Y. (2016). Pedagogical leadership to support new teachers’ growth. [Master dissertation, Jyväskylä University].
30. Llorent-Bedmar, V., Navarro-Granados, M., & Palma, V. C. C. (2021). Pedagogical leadership exercised by the principals of disadvantaged schools in Spain. School Leadership & Management, 41(3), 239-259.
31. Lucas, B., & Claxton, G. (2013). Pedagogic Leadership: Creating cultures and practices for outstanding vocational learning. Centre for Real-World Learning, University of Winchester, United Kingdom, published by, 157.
32. MacNeill, N., & Silcox, S. (2003). Pedagogic leadership: putting professional agency back into learning and teaching. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 1, 1-5.
33. Macneill, N., Cavanagh, R. F., & Silcox, S. (2005). Pedagogic leadership: Refocusing on learning and teaching. International Electronic Journal For Leadership in Learning, 9(2), 1-11.
34. Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2017). Pedagogical leadership in action: Two case studies in English schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(6), 733-748.
35. Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2012). Learning-centred leadership or pedagogical leadership? An alternative approach to leadership in education contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(1), 107-118.
36. Marr, B., & Moustaghfir, K. (2005). Defining intellectual capital: A three‐dimensional approach. Management Decision, 43(9), 1114-1128.
37. Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Garcia Forero, C. (2010). Goodness-of-fit testing. International Encyclopedia of Education, 7, 190-196.
38. Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10-18.
39. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
40. Özdamar, K. (2016). Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimlerinde ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. Eskişehir: Nisan.
41. Paredes, L. M. N., Vargas, I. M., Aranda, E. A. E., & Hernández, Y. C. U. (2019). The director's pedagogical leadership and its incidence in teaching performance. Journal of Global Education Sciences, 1(1), 43-52.
42. Peng, D., & Vašťatková, J. P. (2016, 28 Kasım – 2 Aralık). Headteacher as pedagogıcal leader ın pedagogıcal leadershıp ın schools. Reflexıon of pedagogy and psychology [European Pedagogy Forum]. Hradec Králové, The Czech Republic.
43. Sainger, G. (2018). Leadership in digital age: A study on the role of leader in this era of digital transformation. International Journal on Leadership, 6(1), 1.
44. Sandri, O. (2022). What do we mean by ‘pedagogy’ in sustainability education? Teaching in Higher Education, 22(1), 114-129.
45. Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770.
46. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
47. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it important? Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
48. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice, 1(1), 37-46.
49. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
50. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. (1. Bsk.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
51. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş (Temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları). Ankara: Ekinoks.
52. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Boston. USA.
53. Turner, J. W. (2020). An explanatory sequential mixed methods study of pedagogical leadership: High school principals’ ınfluence on ınnovative pedagogical practice [Doctoral dissertation, Calgary University].
54. Varlık, S., Sorm, S., & Günbayı, İ. (2021). Validity and reliability of the pedagogical leadership scale: Mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, (4), 1-12.
55. Webb, R. (2005). Leading teaching and learning in the primary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 33(1), 69-91.
56. Young, J. (2022). Leadership resilience in a digital age. Routledge. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367280970
57. Yurdabakan, İ., & Çüm, S. (2017). Scale development in behavioral sciences (Based on exploratory factor analysis). Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 11(2), 108-126.
58. Zarkada, E. (2022). Pedagogical leadership and efficiency at the administration of primary school units. [Master dissertation, Piraeus University]. Proquest.