Ekip Yenilikçiliği ile Öğretmenlerin Öğretim Uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkide Öğretmenlerin Mesleki Uygulamalarının Aracılık Rolü

Öz

Öğretmenlerin öğretme davranışları genellikle eğitim reformlarının ve okul iyileştirme çabalarının okul sonuçlarını nasıl etkilediğine dair düşüncelerin merkezinde yer alır. Bu nedenle eğitim bilimciler tarafından yapılacak çalışmaların, öğretmenlerin sınıf içi öğretim uygulamalarını etkileyen değişkenlerin güncelliğini koruduğunu belirlemesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada, ekip yenilikçiliğinin öğretmenlerin mesleki uygulamalarının aracılık gücü (öğretmenler arası değişim ve koordinasyon – öğretmenler arasında derslerde profesyonel iş birliği) aracılığıyla öğretmenlerin öğretim uygulamaları üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçladık. Araştırmada OECD tarafından 2018 yılında gerçekleştirilen Uluslararası Öğretme ve Öğrenme Araştırmasına (TALIS) katılan ortaokullarda görev yapan 3083 öğretmenden toplanan veriler kullanılmıştır. Öğretmenlerin ekip yenilikçiliği, mesleki uygulamaları ve verilerden elde edilen öğretim uygulama puanları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, ekip yenilikçiliğinin öğretmenlerin mesleki uygulamalarını desteklediğini ve bu tür mesleki uygulamaların öğretmenlerin öğretim uygulamaları üzerinde küçük bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koydu. Diğer bir sonuç, öğretmenlerin mesleki uygulamalarının ekip yenilikçiliği ile öğretmenlerin öğretim uygulamaları arasındaki ilişkiye aracılık ettiğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin öğretim uygulamaları ile ekip yenilikçiliği arasında merkezi ve katı bir bürokratik eğitim sistemine sahip ülkelerde kapsamlı bir şekilde araştırılmamış bir bağlantı kurmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, politika yapıcıların ve okul müdürlerinin öğretmenlerin ekip yenilikçiliğini destekleyecek uygulamalar geliştirmeleri önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekip yenilikçiliği
• öğretmenlerin mesleki uygulamaları
• öğretmenlerin öğretim uygulamaları
• mesleki iş birliği
• değişim ve koordinasyon

Team Innovativeness, Teachers' Professional Practices, and Teachers’ Instructional Practices: Testing a Mediation Model

Öz

Teachers' teaching behaviors are often at the center of reflections on how educational reforms and school improvement efforts affect school outcomes. For this reason, studies by educational scholars need to determine that the variables affecting teachers' classroom instructional practices remain up to date. In this study, we aimed to scrutinize team innovativeness’s effect on teachers’ instructional practices through the mediating power of the teachers' professional practices (exchange and coordination among teachers - professional collaboration in lessons among teachers). In this study, data collected from 3083 teachers working in secondary schools participating in the International Teaching and Learning Survey (TALIS), conducted by the OECD in 2018, were used. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to examine the relationship between teachers' team innovativeness, professional practices, and instructional practice scores obtained from the data. The results revealed that team innovativeness supports teachers' professional practices, and such professional practices have a small impact on teachers' instructional practices. Another result showed that teachers' professional practices mediated the relationship between team innovativeness and teachers' instructional practices. This study establishes a link between teachers' instructional practices and team innovativeness, which has not been extensively researched in countries with a centralized and rigidly bureaucratic educational system. In this context, it is recommended that policymakers and school principals develop practices to support teachers' team innovativeness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Team innovativeness
• teachers
• teachers’ instructional practices
• professional collaboration
• exchange and coordination.

Kaynakça

1. Admiraal, W., Louws, M., Lockhorst, D., Paas, T., Buynsters, M., Cviko, A., … Post, L. (2017). Teachers in school-based technology innovations: A typology of their beliefs on teaching and technology. Computers & Education, 114, 57–68.
2. Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en
3. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.
4. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
5. Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2023). Empowering principals to conduct classroom observations in a centralized education system: Does it make a difference for teacher self-efficacy and instructional practices? International Journal of Educational Management, 37(1), 85–102.
6. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.
7. Blömeke, S., Nilsen, T., & Scherer, R. (2021). School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(8), 1645-1667.
8. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/O/bo8212979.html

9. Buske, R. (2018). The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers’ innovativeness – analyzing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance-based partial least square modeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 262–284.
10. Buyukgoze, H., Caliskan, O., & Gümüş, S. (2022). Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership.
11. Civikly, J. M. (1992). Clarity: Teachers and students making sense of instruction. Communication Education, 41(2), 138–152.
12. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.
13. Cohen, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observations. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 378–387.
14. Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., … Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. (p. 21). Durham University.
15. Çoban, Ö., Özdemir, N., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2023). Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(1), 95-115.
16. Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Büttner, G., Fauth, B., … Hardy, I. (2015). Embedded formative assessment and classroom process quality: How do they interact in promoting science understanding? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1133–1159. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
17. Doronin, D., Shen, L., & Ali, M. (2020). Parallel mediating effect of knowledge sharing quality on team innovativeness. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(12), 1449–1461.
18. Dumont, H., & Istance, D. (2010). Analysing and designing learning environments for the 21st century. In D. Istance, H. Dumont & F. Benavides (Eds.), The nature of learning: Using research to inspire practice (pp. 19–34). Center for Educational Research and Innovation.
19. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 56–83.
20. Förtsch, C., Werner, S., Dorfner, T., von Kotzebue, L., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2017). Effects of cognitive activation in biology lessons on students’ situational interest and achievement. Research in Science Education, 47, 559–578.
21. Frederiksen, M. H., & Knudsen, M. P. (2017). From creative ideas to innovation performance: The role of assessment criteria. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 60–74.
22. Fullan, M. (2001). New meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). Teachers College.
23. Ghosh, S., & Srivastava, B. K. (2021). The functioning of dynamic capabilities: Explaining the role of organizational innovativeness and culture. European Journal of Innovation Management, 25(4), 948–974.
24. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
25. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega, 25(1), 15–28.
26. Guskey, T. R. (1985). Staff development and teacher change. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 57-60.
27. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
28. Hanfstingl, B., & Mayr, J. (2007). ‪Prognose der bewährung im lehrerstudium und im lehrerberuf [Prediction of success in teacher education and profession]. Journal Für Lehrer Innenbildung, 7(2), 48–56.‬
29. Hattie, J. (2009). A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
30. Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1–10.
31. Huber, S. G., & Skedsmo, G. (2016). Teacher evaluation—Accountability and improving teaching practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28, 105–109.
32. Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.
33. Jun, J., Lee, T., & Park, C. (2021). The mediating role of innovativeness and the moderating effects of strategic choice on SME performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(4), 627–647.
34. Jurasaite-Harbison, E., & Rex, L. A. (2010). School cultures as contexts for informal teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 267–277.
35. Kline, S. J. (1985). Innovation is not a linear process. Research Management, 28(4), 36–45.
36. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170.
37. Kyrgidou, L. P., & Spyropoulou, S. (2013). Drivers and performance outcomes of innovativeness: An empirical study. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 281–298.
38. Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537.
39. Liu, Y., & Phillips, J. S. (2011). Examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 44–52.
40. Loogma, K., Kruusvall, J., & Ümarik, M. (2012). E-learning as innovation: Exploring innovativeness of the VET teachers’ community in Estonia. Computers & Education, 58(2), 808–817.
41. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124.
42. McGeown, V. (1980). Dimensions of teacher innovativeness. British Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–163.
43. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Morhman Jr, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. Jossey-Bass.
44. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2019). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
45. Nguyen, D., Pietsch, M., & Gümüş, S. (2021). Collective teacher innovativeness in 48 countries: Effects of teacher autonomy, collaborative culture, and professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 1-13.
46. OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015. OECD. Acess of date 22. 02. 2023 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/eag-2015-en
47. OECD. (2019a). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD. Acess of date 22. 02. 2023 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/1d0bc92a-en
48. OECD. (2019b). TALIS 2018 Technical Report (p. 494) [Research Report]. Acess of date 10. 02. 2023 https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Technical_Report.pdf
49. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
50. Özdemir, N. (2020). How to improve teachers’ instructional practices: The role of professional learning activities, classroom observation and leadership content knowledge in Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(6), 585-603.
51. Özdemir, N., Kılınç, A. Ç., Polatcan, M., Turan, S., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2023). Exploring teachers’ instructional practice profiles: Do distributed leadership and teacher collaboration make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(2), 255–305.
52. Özden, C., & Atasoy, R. (2021). Sınıfta öğretim [Teaching in the classroom] In N. Özdemir, S. Turan & Ö. Çoban (Eds.), 21. yüzyıl okullarını yeniden düşünmek [Rethinking 21st century schools]. (pp. 229–258). Pegem Akademi.
53. Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 259–278.
54. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
55. Reyes Jr, V. C., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115, 1–19.
56. Santos, J., Figueiredo, A. S., & Vieira, M. (2019). Innovative pedagogical practices in higher education: An integrative literature review. Nurse Education Today, 72, 12–17.
57. Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 539–556.
58. Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33.
59. Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262–275.
60. Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471.
61. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Iterative Best Evidence Synthesis Programme.
62. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944–956.
63. Van Dijk, A., Hendriks, P., & Romo-Leroux, I. (2016). Knowledge sharing and social capital in globally distributed execution. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 327–343.
64. Van Tartwijk, J., & Hammerness, K. (2011). The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education. Teaching Education, 22(2), 109–112.
65. Vieluf, S., Kaplan, D., Klieme, E., & Bayer, S. (2012). TALIS teaching practices and pedagogical innovations evidence from TALIS: Evidence from TALIS. OECD.
66. Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705.
67. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352.
68. Widmann, A., & Mulder, R. H. (2020). The effect of team learning behaviours and team mental models on teacher team performance. Instructional Science, 48(1), 1–21.