|
Alternatif Dilde Özet:
|
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.
|