Eğitim Yöneticileri Teknoloji Liderliği Standartlarına İlişkin Öğretmen, Yönetici ve Denetmenlerin Görüşleri

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin, okul yöneticilerinin ve denetmenlerin 2009 yılında ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education-Uluslararası Eğitimde Teknoloji Topluluğu) tarafından eğitim yöneticileri için geliştirilmiş olan teknoloji liderliği standartlarının (NETS-A) Türkiye'ye uygunluğuna ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Nitel araştırma yöntemi ile gerçekleştirilen araştırmada; amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden maksimum çeşitleme örneklemesi kullanılarak belirlenen 46 eğitimciden odak grup ve bire bir görüşme teknikleri ile veriler toplanmıştır. Araştırma bulguları; “Vizyoner Liderlik”, “Dijital Çağ Öğrenme Kültürü”, “Profesyonel Uygulamada Mükemmellik”, “Sistematik Gelişim” ve “Dijital Vatandaşlık” olmak üzere beş ana performans göstergesinin Türkiye'ye uygunluğu konusunda eğitimcilerin çoğunlukla hemfikir olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu standartlardan Türkiye'ye uygun olmayanların uygun olmama gerekçeleri ve uygun olduğu halde hayata geçirilmesinde sorun yaşanabileceği düşünülenlere ilişkin görüşler sunulmuştur. Kaynak yetersizliği araştırmada en büyük sınırlılık olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları teknoloji liderliğinin öğretim liderliği, etik liderlik, toplumsal liderlik, vizyoner liderlik, dönüşümcü liderlik ile beraber ele alınması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.

Views of Teachers, Administrators and Supervisors Regarding the Technological Leadership Standards for Administrators

Background. As the demand for building more effective and efficient learning communities is growing, the need for the school administrators who are aware of their instrumental roles in using and implementing technology has increased considerably (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah & Fooi, 2009; Akbaba-Altun & Gürer, 2008; Yalın, Karadeniz & Şahin, 2007; Anderson & Dexter, 2005). Moreover, with the integration of technology into education, the administrators have been forced to develop certain competencies. Although standardization of such competencies is a very difficult and complicated process (Turan & Şişman, 2000), the number of studies that focus on determining and defining the competencies of school administrators in the area of technology has increased in the last decade (Afshari et al., 2009; Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Can, 2008; ISTE, 2002, 2009; Yu & Durrington, 2006; Bakioğlu & Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2008). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) developed the National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators (NETS-A) in the USA in 2002. The standards have been further developed and revised in 2009 under 5 main technological leadership performance indicators, which were: “Visionary Leadership”, “Digital Age Learning Culture”, “Excellence in Professional Practice”, “Systemic Improvement”, and “Digital Citizenship”. The technological leadership standards developed by ISTE (2002, 2009) have been modeled by some other studies, e.g., Anderson & Dexter (2005), Yu & Durrington (2006) and Afshari & others (2009). In Turkey, there has also been an increase in the number of studies focusing on technological leadership competencies as well as the attitudes of school administrators towards technology and their level of technology use (see Can 2003, 2008; Bakioğlu & Hacıfazlıoğlu, 2008; Helvacı, 2008; Akbaba-Altun, 2002, 2008a, 2008b; Akbaba-Altun & Gürer, 2008; Seferoğlu, 2009; Karadağ, Sağlam, & Baloğlu, 2008; Cerit, 2004). However, there is still a lack of consensus on the technology leadership standards in Turkey, as the existing laws and regulations only focus on the description of main duties and responsibilities. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the views of teachers, school administrators and supervisors regarding the compatibility of ISTE's (2009) NETS-A technology leadership standards with Turkish educational system. The study had two main research questions: 1) What are the views of the participants regarding the compatibility of technology leadership standards in Turkey? 2) What are the suggestions of the participants regarding the adaptation to and improvement of those standards in Turkey? Method: The study was conducted using qualitative research methods, such as focus groups and individual interviews. Data was collected from 46 educators by employing maximum variation sampling, a type of purposive sampling method. Thirty one educators participated in focus groups, of which 6 were principals, 9 deputy principals, 11 teachers and 5 were supervisors. Interview participants included 15 educators: 10 principals, 4 deputy principals and 1 supervisor. During focus group discussions a questionnaire, which was translated by the researchers, was used in order to test the compatibility of ISTE (2009) educational technology standards for administrators with educational system of Turkey. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part targeted the demographic characteristics of the participants. The second part had 5-point Likert-scale items to determine the compatibility of ISTE (2009) educational technology standards for administrators with Turkish system. Quantitative information was subjected to exploratory data analysis, while the data gathered from focus group discussions, questionnaires, reflection reports and interview transcriptions was analyzed using content analysis. Using Seidman (1998) as reference, the most important quotations related to performance indicators were chosen and cross-case and cross-over analyses were carried out. Findings: The findings of the study demonstrate that the educators were mostly positive in respect to the compatibility of the 5 main performance indicators, “Visionary Leadership”, “Digital Age Learning Culture”, “Excellence in Professional Practice”, “Systemic”, and “Digital Citizenship”, with Turkish context. Participants talked about the ways in which adaptation could be maintained for some of the indicators due to centralized organizational structure in Turkey. When asked about the extent to which the indicators were used, experiences of the participants differed with regards to the type of school, depending on whether it was private or public. Participants from the public schools experienced financial restrictions as obstacles to the use of indicators. Results. In order to realize the excellence in professional practice performance indicators, opportunities for the “communities of practices” should be created. In this way, administrators, teachers, and supervisors could have a setting, which would enable them to share their practices and experiences. Administrators and teachers should be encouraged to have different technological competencies. Although the sub categories of systemic improvement are being implemented in schools within the frame of “e-school practices”, those practices should be transformed and developed in ways that channel “digital learning culture”. All participants agreed on the importance of “ethics” with regards to technology use. Almost all echoed similar concerns in ethical standards. Most asserted that technology ethical standards should be incorporated in teaching, research, communication and administration. Results of the study revealed that in order to realize and practice the performance indicators, financial restrictions should be overcome. Moreover, administrators should acquire technology leadership traits while serving in instructional, visionary, ethic, transformational and community leadership roles. The study showed that technology leadership overall aligns with the mentioned leadership traits and roles.

___

  • Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Technology and school leadership. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 235-248.
  • Akbaba-Altun, S. (2002). Okul yöneticilerinin teknolojiye karşı tutumlarının incelenmesi. Çağdaş Eğitim, 286, 8-14.
  • Akbaba-Altun, S. (2008a). İlköğretim okul yöneticilerinin teknolojiye karşı tutumları ve duygusal zekaları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Düzce ili örneği. 8. Uluslararası Eğitim Teknolojileri Konferansı, 6-9 Mayıs 2008 (ss. 1302-1305). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Akbaba-Altun, S. (2008b). Okullarda teknoloji liderliği. İçinde, Deryakulu, D. (Ed.). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretiminde sosyo-psikolojik değişkenler (ss. 151153) Ankara: Maya Akademi.
  • Akbaba-Altun, S., & Gürer, M.D. (2008). School administrators’ perceptions of their roles regarding information technology classrooms. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 35-54.
  • Anderson, R.E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 49-82.
  • Aydın, İ. P. (2001). Yönetsel, mesleki ve örgütsel etik, Ankara: Pegem.
  • Aydın, A. (2010). Yaşadığımız dünya. Pegem: Ankara.
  • Bakioğlu, A. & Hacıfazlıoğlu, Ö. (2008). Lecturers’ and students’ attitudes towards the use of technology in lectures: No taboos, more thinking. Kentel J.A. and Short, A. (eds.). Totems And Taboos: Risk and Relevance in Research on Teachers and Teaching (ss.155-171). Sense Pub: The Netherlands.
  • Can, T. (2003). Bolu orta öğretim okulları yöneticilerinin teknolojik liderlik yeterlilikleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3 ), 94107.
  • Can, T. (2008). İlköğretim okulları yöneticilerinin teknolojik liderlik yeterlilikleri. 8. Uluslar arası Eğitim Teknolojileri Konferansı, 6-9 Mayıs 2008 (ss. 1053-1057). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  • Celep, C. (2004). Dönüşümsel Liderlik. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Cerit, Y. (2004). Küreselleşme sürecinde ilköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin nitelikleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(8), 1-11.
  • Çelik, V. (1999). Eğitimsel Liderlik, Ankara: Pegem. Gosmire, D. & Grady, M. (2007). Principal as technology leader. http://www.principals.org/ portals/0/content/55193.pdf, 15/07/2010 tarihinde alındı.
  • Gümüşeli, A. İ. (1996). İstanbul ilindeki ilköğretim okulu müdürlerinin öğretim liderliği davranışları. İstanbul. www. agumuseli.com adresinden 14 Ocak 2010 tarihinde edinilmiştir.
  • Gümüşeli, A.İ. (2001). Okul müdürlerinin liderlik alanları. Eğitim Yönetimi, 28, 531548.
  • Helvacı, M.A. (2008). Okul yöneticilerinin teknolojiye karşı tutumlarının incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(1), 115133.
  • ISTE (2002). NETS for administrators 2002. http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ NETS/ForAdministrators/2002Standards/NETS_for_Administrators_2002_S tandards.htm, 08/01/2010 tarihinde alındı.
  • ISTE (2009). NETS for administrators 2009. http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ NETS/ForAdministrators/2009Standards/NETS_for_Administrators_2009.ht m, 08/01/2010 tarihinde alındı.
  • Karadağ, E., Sağlam, H. & Baloğlu, N. (2008). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim: İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin tutumlarına ilişkin bir araştırma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(3), 251-266.
  • Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Seferoğlu, S.S. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında teknoloji kullanımı ve yöneticilerin bakış açıları. Akademik Bilişim, 1-6.
  • Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Şimşek, H. (2010). 19. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Açış Konuşması, Uluslararası Kıbrıs Üniversitesi, Lefkoşe, Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti.
  • Şişman, M. (2004). Öğretim liderliği. Ankara: Pegem.
  • Tanzer, S. (2004). “Mesleki ve teknik öğretim okul yöneticlerinin teknolojik liderlik yeterlikleri”. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bolu.
  • Turan, S. & Şişman, M. (2000). Okul yöneticileri için standartlar: Eğitim yöneticilerinin bilgi temelleri üzerine düşünceler. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(4), 68-87.
  • Yalın, H.İ., Karadeniz, Ş. & Şahin, S. (2007). Barries to information and communication technologies integration into elementary schools in Turkey. Journal of Applied Sciences, 70(24), 4036-4039.