The Development and Validation of Technological Leadership Behavior Instrument for School Principal

Abstract

The Technological Leadership Behavior Instrument for School Principal (TLBISP) was developed and validated to examine technological leadership behaviors of secondary school principals in the use of technology by teachers according to secondary school teachers’ views. The content and construct validity were ensured, and the internal consistency and reliability coefficients were calculated. While the sample of Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) consisted of 308 teachers, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) consisted of 240 teachers from the secondary schools in Mamak district of Ankara city in the spring semester of the 2017-2018 academic year. While EFA showed four factors with a 24-items structure, the CFA showed 18-items with four factors which are called motivation, orientation, precaution, and support. CFA showed that model fit indices (such as goodness-of-fit) values were acceptable. Cronbach Alfa coefficient value was .72, and Pearson coefficients of factors were between .22 and .60. In conclusion, TLBISP is a valid and reliable measurement instrument.

Keywords

• Technological leadership
• School principal
• Leadership
• Behavior
• Teacher
• Technology

References

1. Aguinis, H., Henle, C. A., & Ostroff, C. (2001). Measurement in work and organizational psychology. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work And Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 27-50). London: SAGE
2. Ağaoğlu, E., Ceyhan, E., Ceyhan, A. & Şimşek, Y. (2008). The Validity and Reliability Studies of The Computer Anxiety Scale on Educational Administrators [Elektronik versiyon]. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education- TOJDE July, 9 (3), Article 4.
3. Akbaba Altun, S. (2004). Information technology classrooms and elementary school principals' roles: Turkish experience. Education and Information Technologies, 9(3), 255-270.
4. Alpar, R. (1998). İstatistik ve spor bilimleri. Ankara: Bağırgan.
5. Banoğlu, K. (2011). Okul müdürlerinin teknoloji liderliği yeterlikleri ve teknoloji koordinatörlüğü. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(1), 199-213.
6. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows. London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Plenum

9. Coakes, S.J. (2005). SPSS: Analysis without Anguish Using SPSS Version 12.0 for Windows (v. 12). Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
10. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first Course in Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Creighton, T. (2003). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
12. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16 (3), 297-334.
13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS & LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: PEGEM Akademi.
14. Dede, C. (1993). Leadership without followers. In G. Kearsley & W. Lynch (Eds.). Educational technology: Leadership perspectives, 19-28. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications Inc.
15. Dönmez, B., & Sincar, M. (2008). Avrupa Birliği sürecinde yükselen ağ toplumu ve eğitim yöneticileri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(24), 1-19.
16. Durnalı, M. (2018). Öğretmenlere göre okul müdürlerinin teknolojik liderlik davranışları ve bilgi yönetimini gerçekleştirme düzeyleri (Doktora Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
17. Durnalı, M. (2019). Ortaokul Öğretmenlerinin Görüşlerine Göre Okul Müdürlerinin Sergilediği Teknolojik Liderlik Davranış Düzeyi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 12(2).
18. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (Third Edition). London: SAGE Press.
19. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142.
20. Grady, M. L. (2011). Leading the technology-powered school. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
21. Hailey, S. C. (2017). The Impact of leadership on technology ıntegration practices in K-12 schools (Doctoral dissertation). Delaware State University, Dover, Delaware, United States.
22. Hatcher, L. (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS® System for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
23. Hoe, S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76-83.
24. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
25. Hu, L. T., & 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.
26. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading Statistics and Research. Boston: Pearson.
27. Inkster, C.D. (1998). Technology leadership in elementary school principals: A comparative case study (Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.
28. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2009). ISTE Standarts Administrators. 17 December 2017 retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf
29. Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). Faktör analizi, (Ed. Şeref Kalaycı), SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
30. Karasar, N. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
31. Kearsley, G., & Lynch, W. (1992). Educational leadership in the age of technology: The new skills. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(1), 50-60.
32. Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a Behavioral Science Researcher: A Guide to Producing Research That Matter. New York: The Guilford Press.
33. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3nd Ed.). New York London: The Guilford.
34. Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Y. Petscher, & C. Schatsschneider (Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (ss. 171-207). New York: Routledge.
35. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
36. MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı) (2001). Eğitim Teknolojileri Genel Müdürlüğü, 27/06/2001 tarih ve 53 No’lu Bilgi Teknolojilerinin Kullanımı konulu Genelge. 15 December 2017 retrieved from http://www.cep.edu.rs/sites/default/files/greenpaper.pdf
37. Micheal, S.O. (1998). Best practices in information technology (IT) management: Insight from K-12 schools’ technology audits. International Journal of Educational Management, 12(6), 277-288.
38. Murphy, D. T., & Gunter, G. A. (1997). Technology integration: The importance of administrative supports. Educational Media International, 34(3), 136-139.
39. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Ropp, M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in pre-service teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 402–24.
41. Russo, R. (2004). Statistics for the behavioural sciences: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press.
42. 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.
43. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
44. Schoeny, Z. G., Heaton, L. A., & Washington, L. A. (1999). Perceptions and educational technology needs of school administrators. 15 December 2017 retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED4322 44.pdf (ERIC ED 432 244)
45. Sincar, M. (2009). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği rollerine ilişkin bir inceleme (Gaziantep ili örneği) (Doktora Tezi). İnönü Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Malatya.
46. Slavec, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, 14(1), 39.
47. Stegall, P. (1998). The principal: Key to technology implementation, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424614
48. Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NS: Erlbaum.
49. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013): Using multivariate statistics (6th international ed. cover edn). Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage Publications.
50. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Akademi.
51. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
52. Valdez, G. (2004). Critical issue: Technology leadership: Enhancing positive educational change. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 6(7), 12.
53. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using MPLUS: Methods and applications. West Susex: John Wiley & Sons.
54. Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 608-618.
55. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.
56. Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
57. Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışmalarında Kapsam Geçerliği İçin Kapsam Geçerlik İndekslerinin Kullanılması. XIV. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı, 771-774, 28-30 Eylül, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.