A Scale Development Study on the Schools Areas to be Improved
Esen Altunay, University of Ege, Turkey
Piştav Piştav Akmeşe, University of Ege, Turkey
Gül Şahin, University of Ege, Turkey
Yunus Emre Ağaçdiken, University of Ege, Turkey
Erdal Toprakçı, University of Ege, Turkey
The European Conference on Education 2019
Official Conference Proceedings
Abstract
Since all individuals in society do not have sufficient conditions in terms of education,
there are significant differences in the achievement levels of students in different
regions. In order to cope with this problem it can be provided enhancing the quality of
learning environments, the restructuring of the school system based on the
qualifications of the school system, increasing the quantity and quality of the
academic staff and the integration of information and communication technologies
into the training programs. Therefore, changes should be made in the educational
system for improving the quality of school and teaching. However, the success of
change initiatives is generally low. As the process of change can be successful,
employees should be informed about the change and their concerns should be
addressed and the goals of change must be unified with the purposes of the
employees. The study aims to determine the perceptions of primary and secondary
school teachers and their administrators about the areas of their schools to be
improved and to state whether these perceptions differ in terms of some variables. The
design of this research is a descriptive survey model. In this study, a scale was
developed as a data collection tool. The study sample consisted of 1539 primary and
secondary school teachers and administrators who have worked in the metropolitan
districts of Izmir in the public schools in the 2018-2019 academic year.
Keywords: School improvement, administrator, teacher
iafor
The International Academic Forum
www.iafor.org
Introduction
Since all individuals in society do not have sufficient conditions in terms of education,
there are significant differences in the achievement levels of students in different
regions. In order to cope with this problem, it can be provided enhancing the quality
of learning environments, the restructuring of the school system based on the
qualifications of the school system, increasing the quantity and quality of the
academic staff and the integration of information and communication technologies
into the training programs (TSV, 2015). Therefore, changes should be made in the
educational system to improve the quality of school and teaching. However, the
success of change initiatives is generally low (Kondakçı, Zayim, & Çalışkan, 2010).
As the process of change can be successful, employees should be informed about the
change and their concerns should be addressed and the goals of change must be
unified with the purposes of the employees. When critical situations are overcome and
administrators have full support, resistance to change is broken and the change is
successful (Töremen, 2002; Altunay, Arlı, & Yalçınkaya, 2012). In this direction, the
determination of the situation for the improvement of a school that can realize the
change, the use and application level of school development strategies and the factors
affecting the school improvement process should be taken into account. For the
continuity of improvement, it is necessary to share and learn new things and to
appreciate the people who develop themselves. Therefore, determining the factors
that affect school and teaching quality is of great importance for the administration of
change, school improvement and increasing of the quality.
School administrators and teachers' internal evaluation of the schools they work in
provides important benefits both for their development and school. Because school
employees have to cope with the obstacles that arise in the process of education and
training directly. As the first step of school improvement, it can be provided that
school administrators and teachers make a self-assessment about their schools and
share information about the inadequacies of structure and human resources to improve
the school qualifications under the guidance of these results. In general, it can be seen
that the majority of the practices on school improvement carried out unplanned in
schools are also negatively affected by the fact that basic and social change is not
taken into consideration, the necessary preparation is not made, the measures are not
taken and the systematic process is not carried out. In this context, planned
improvement in the school involves a regular, consistent and continuous progress to
increase the quality of work-life without reducing productivity; the acclaimed,
accepted, and conscious movement in the desired direction (Erkal, 1995). The concept
of "improvement" in school improvement is perceived as the process of achieving
effectiveness and change management. The concept of school improvement can often
be confused with the concept of school effectiveness and can be used interchangeably
(Halsall, 1998). However, school effectiveness and school improvement approach
come from different sources in intellectual, methodological and theoretical
dimensions. The concept of school improvement is against the imposition of
innovation from top to bottom with a reactive approach; it prefers the change from
bottom to top (Reynolds, 1995; Chapman et al. 2011). However, the literature has
been developed together. In this context, according to the learning process described
by Senge (2016) for learning organization theory can be taken into account the
development capacity of the school; the design of practices the school improvement
and the determination of priority improvement areas can be made the school a
learning institution by providing learning from experiences.
Organizational improvement is not only the person, the technology or the structure
and process in the organization but the change of them as a whole. In this study,
Barnard's (1964) concept of organization based on cooperation, on the basis of open
social system theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966) and learning organization theory (Senge,
2016), it has been tried to determine the areas where characteristics of individuals in
the school organization (students, teachers, administrators and parents) and relating to
the characteristics of the institutional process. During the workshop in the scope of the
project, participants were asked to express their views on the inadequacies of schools
as open-ended. Because there are a limited number of researches about school
improvement and the content of the concept changes over time, it is hoped that the
development of a data collection tool needs to be improved to identify the areas of the
schools of primary and secondary school teachers and school administrators and the
findings on the improvement of schools will contribute to the field.
Purpose of the Research
The study aims to develop a data collection tool and determine the perceptions of
primary and secondary school teachers and their administrators/principals about the
areas of their schools to be improved.
1. What are the areas of schools to be improved?
2. What are the views of primary and secondary school teachers and
administrators/principals about the areas of their schools to be improved?
Method
Model
The design of this research is a descriptive survey model. A scale was developed to
reveal the present situation.
Population and Sample
The study population was consisted of 14.941 primary and secondary school teachers
and administrators/principals who have worked in the metropolitan districts of İzmir
in the public schools in the 2018-2019 academic year. For the basic application of the
study, the proportional cluster method was used. The distribution of the sample
according to individual characteristics is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of Sample by Individual Characteristics
Individual Characteristics
N
%
1-6 year
100
6,5
7-12 year
262
17,0
Seniority
13-18 year
319
20,7
19-24 year
470
30,5
25 year and over
388
25,2
1-5 year
771
50,1
6-10 year
410
26,6
Duration of Working
11-15 year
185
12,0
16 year and over
173
11,2
Female
1159
75,3
Gender
Male
380
24,7
26-30 age
95
6,2
31-35 age
212
13,8
36-40 age
285
18,5
Age
41-45 age
325
21,1
46-50 age
312
20,3
51-55 age
216
14,0
56 age and over
94
6,1
Total
1539
100,0
When the distribution of the sample in Table 1 according to individual characteristics
is examined, it is seen that the number of the participants is 1539. The majority of the
participants were female (n =1159; % 75.3), had 19-24 years seniority (n = 470;
30.5%), had been working in their schools for 1-5 years (n = 771; 50.1%) and the ages
of teachers and administrators/principals were between 40-50 years (41-45 years n =
325, 21.1%; 46-50 years n = 312, 20.3%).
Data Collection Tool
In this research, a scale was developed as a data collection tool. In the first phase of
the scale development, the related area had been searched and the areas where schools
need to be improved were determined. In the literature review process, scales in the
field were examined. In the scope of a research-development (R&D) project, a
workshop was conducted in order to determine the areas where schools need to be
improved. Raw data contained a total of 65 pages of suggestions obtained in writing
form from the 89 school administrators and teachers who attended to the workshop
about the areas where their schools need to be improved. The raw data obtained from
the primary and secondary school teachers and administrators were analyzed and a
scale of the draft was prepared by writing the 118 items including school
improvement areas.
At the preparation stage of the draft scale, the scale was first examined by seven
faculty members from different universities and departments of Educational Sciences
for the validity of language and content (scope) and two teachers were consulted for
the clarity. By making necessary corrections in terms of content and expression, the
number of items was reduced to 102 and for first tour validity analysis in the pilot
application, the scale was distributed to 800 participants. The data of 580 scales were
used among collected scales. As a result of validity and reliability analyses, the scale
was reduced to 82 items. For the second tour criterion-related validity and reliability
application of the draft scale, 780 scales were distributed and analyzed. Finally, 2100
scales were distributed for the basic application. Data of 1539 participants were used.
Validity and Reliability
For the validity and reliability studies of the scale, the pre-application was applied to
580 participants and the construct validity and reliability analyzes of the scale were
performed. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Barlett spherity test were
calculated to determine the suitability of data for factor analysis and KMO value was
found to be .98 and Bartlett test result (x² = 113691,961; p = 0.000) was found to be
significant. Because of the seven-dimensional structure of the scale, it has been found
that the EFA was collected under seven factors as a result of the Maximum
Likelihood method and the variance explained by the seven factors related to the scale
was 69%. Items loads of draft scale prepared with 102 items and Scree plot chart were
examined, seven sub-dimensions were defined because they were conceptually
interpretable seven factors. Barnard's concept of cooperative organization (1964),
open social system theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966) and learning organization theory
(Senge, 2016) were used for naming dimensions. As a result of the repeated factor
analysis, it was decided that the scale form should be 82 items.
As a result of the explanatory factor analysis (EFA), the dimensions of the ASNI
perception
scale were called such as; the first factor “School
administrators/principals” had 42,195% of the total variance; the second factor
“Students” had 9,639% of total variance; the third factor "Teachers" had 6,823% of
the total variance; the fourth factor “Physical-Technical Facilities” had 3,969% of the
total variance; the fifth factor “Targets and Way of Determination” had 2,915% of the
total variance; the sixth factor “Parents of Students ” had 2.339% of the total
variance; the seventh factor “Institutional process” had 1,707% of the total variance.
According to the results of the analysis, the reliability values for the dimensions are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Results of reliability analysis of scale factors
Factors of ASNI scale
Students
Teachers
School
Administrators/Principals
Parents of Students
Physical-Technical Facilities
Targets
and
Way
of
Determination
Institutional Process
Total
Distribution of
substances according to
factors
1. - 15. between items
16.-37. between items
38.-51. between items
60.-66. between items
67.-74. between items
75-82. between items
Factor
loads
Calculated
Reliability
Coefficients
,317-,464
,524-,668
,340-,-700
,951
,972
,395-528
,357-,579
,536-,657
,937
,901
,558-698
,957
,972
,978
,955
For the reliability of 82 items of the ASNI Perception Scale, Cronbach's Alpha
internal consistency coefficient was calculated separately for the whole scale and each
subscale. the According to the analysis of the internal consistency coefficients of the
ASNI Perception Scale, Cronbach's Alpha values of ranged from .90 to .97. In
addition, the relationship between the subscales of the draft scale was investigated and
the correlation coefficients between the factors were presented in Table 3. As a result
of the analysis, it was observed that the dimensions were in a positive and significant
relationship with each other.
Parents od Students
Institutional Process
Physical-Technical
Facilities
Targets and Way of
Determination
School Administrators
Teachers
Students
Table 3. Correlations between factors of ASNIP Scale
Students
1 ,405** ,305** ,278** ,395** ,359** ,475**
Teachers
,405** 1 ,512** ,313** ,509** ,659** ,234**
School Administrators/Principals ,305** ,512** 1 ,413** ,646** ,746** ,311**
Physical-Technical Facilities
,278** ,313** ,413** 1 ,484** ,406** ,387**
Targets and Way of determination ,395** ,509** ,646** ,484** 1 ,618** ,364**
Institutional Process
,359** ,659** ,746** ,406** ,618** 1 ,302**
Parents od Students
,475** ,234** ,311** ,387** ,364** ,302**
1
** p<0.01 level is significant. (Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the ASNI perception scale, it
was observed that the structure revealed in the EFA was confirmed. This result also
shows that the dimensions of the scale are statistically verified. The model obtained
with CFA is given in Figure 1 and Table 4.
Figure 1. CFA Standardize Results
In Figure 1, the model obtained in MPlus program output was tested in the
confirmatory factor analysis of the ASNI Perception scale. Calculated loads are
presented in Table 4.
Dimensions
Students
Teachers
School
Administrators/
Principals
Table 4. DFA t values of ASNIP Scale
Substances
T values
R1
0.558**
R2
0.606**
R3
0.645**
R4
0.583**
R5
0.627**
R6
0.634**
R7
0.513**
R8
0.621**
R9
0.623**
R10
0.658**
R11
0.683**
R12
0.561**
R13
0.610 **
R14
0.619**
R15
0.579**
M1
0.448**
M2
0.570**
M3
0.607**
M4
0.596**
M5
0.565**
M6
0.621**
M7
0.594 **
M8
0.612**
M9
0.643**
M10
0.666**
M11
0.605**
M12
0.604**
M13
0.577**
M14
0.585**
M15
0.620 **
M16
0.655**
M17
0.614**
M18
0.665**
M19
0.617**
M20
0.654**
M21
0.569**
M22
0.628**
Y1
0.775**
Y2
0.733**
Y3
0.742**
Y4
0.736**
Y5
0.714**
Y6
0.764**
Y7
0.781**
R2
0.520
0.568
0.614
0.555
0.581
0.528
0.389
0.583
0.575
0.690
0.606
0.520
0.558
0.628
0.537
0.644
0.557
0.567
0.646
0.717
0.710
0.713
0.675
0.653
0.519
0.648
0.560
0.639
0.618
0.710
0.670
0.609
0.639
0.644
0.557
0.567
0.646
0.713
0.699
0.770
0.776
0.783
0.797
0.838
Y8
Y9
Y10
Y11
Y12
Y13
Y14
V1
V2
V3
Parents
of
V4
Students
V5
V6
V7
V8
T1
T2
PhysicalT3
T4
Technical
T5
Facilities
T6
T7
H1
H2
H3
Targets
and
H4
Way
of
H5
Determination
H6
H7
H8
K1
K2
K3
Institutional
K4
K5
Process
K6
K7
K8
** p <0.01 level is significant.
0.759**
0.767 **
0.803 **
0.852 **
0.706**
0.778**
0.730 **
0.747 **
0.650 **
0.678**
0.618**
0.745**
0.729**
0.795**
0.793**
0.797**
0.792**
0.915**
0.813**
0.856**
0.913**
0.861**
0.673**
0.707**
0.718**
0.736**
0.745**
0.746**
0.749**
0.769**
0.649**
0.635**
0.775**
0.779**
0.766**
0.766**
0.666**
0.736**
0.792
0.816
0.766
0.787
0.670
0.753
0.716
0.613
0.557
0.617
0.521
0.689
0.671
0.819
0.731
0.572
0.569
0.665
0.644
0.564
0.607
0.593
0.567
0.659
0.594
0.770
0.841
0.824
0.808
0.795
0.637
0.654
0.793
0.821
0.790
0.813
0.700
0.678
As shown in Table 4, according to the CFA results, the compliance of the sevendimensional model of the ASNI perception scale with the data set was confirmed by
the analysis of the Mplus 6.1 program. Goodness of fit indexes of the model were
obtained in confirmatory factor analysis: X² = 14639.241; X² / df = 4.54; p = 0.00;
CFI = 0.908; TLI = 0.905, S-RMR = 0.041 and RMSEA = 0.048. When the goodness
values of fit of the model stated were examined, it was determined that the
measurement model was an acceptable model.
After giving the final shape of the scale of perception of areas where schools should
be improved, criterion-related validity studies were conducted with Effective School
Scale (ESS) developed by Balcı (1993: cited in Balcı, 2014). Among the subdimensions and on a total scores basis of the Pearson moments product correlation
coefficients of "Effective School Scale" developed by Balcı (2014) (r = 257-, 487; p
<.001) and OGGAÖ were found statistically low and medium level significant
relationship for the criterion-related validity study. Between total scores of two scales
were found statistically a moderate level (r=,494; p<,001) significant relationship.
Data Analysis
The data were obtained from the sample for the exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis of the scale was tested using Mplus 6.1 software program. As the skewness
and kurtosis values were examined before the analysis varied in the range of + 1 / -1,
it was concluded that the normal distribution assumption was met. Also, SPSS 21.00
statistical package program was used to analyze the data. The arithmetic mean and
standard deviation analysis was used to determine the perceptions of the participants.
Conclusions
The findings of the study were presented under two main headings: the psychometric
findings of the perception scale related to the areas of the schools to be improved and
the perceptions of primary and secondary school teachers and school administrators
about the areas.
1. Psychometric findings of perception scale related to the areas where schools
should be improved
In this study, psychometric measurements of the scale of perception of the areas that
need to be improved for primary and secondary school teachers and
administrators/principals were tried to be done. For the validity analysis, exploratory
factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and criterion-related
validity analysis were performed. Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficients
were calculated for reliability. Factor structure of the perception of areas in which
schools need to be developed was examined with EFA. In addition, the goodness of fit
(CFI = 0.908; TLI = 0.905; S-RMR = 0.041 and RMSEA = 0.048) obtained from the
CFA to investigate whether the factor structure of the scale was valid was found to be
within acceptable limits (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993; Şimşek; 2007).
To test the criterion-related validity of the scale of perception of areas in which
schools need to be developed, the correlation between the measurement tools of
similar structures were examined. After it was determined that the seven-factor
structure of the scale was valid at the level of primary and secondary school teachers
and administrator (principals) in the research, similarly the relationship between this
scale and "Effective School Scale" which was developed by Balcı (2014), applied and
used in many studies in the field of Educational Administration in the past was
examined.
The scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be improved (ASNIPS)
consists of 82 items and includes seven dimensions: teachers, school administrators,
students, parents, objectives, physical-technical facilities and institutional process.
According to the opinions of teachers and school administrators, "teacher", which is
the first dimension of the scale of perception of areas that schools need to be
developed, indicates the areas that should be developed for teachers in schools. The
participants who have high scores in this dimension think that teachers are sufficient
and effective in their schools. The participants with low scores in this dimension state
that teachers are weak in terms of communication, pedagogical competence and
learning culture.
The second factor of the scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be
improved (ASNIPS) is the "school administrators/principals". According to the views
of teachers and school administrators, this dimension indicates the areas that need to
be improved for school administrators. The attendants who have high scores in this
dimension consider that the administrators in their schools are sufficient and effective.
The participants having low scores in this dimension state that school administrators
are weak in terms of human and material resources management.
The third factor of the scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be
improved (ASNIPS) is "students". This dimension indicates the areas that need to be
improved for students in schools according to the viewpoints of teachers and school
administrators. The participants who have high scores in this dimension think that
students have high cognitive, affective and psychomotor competencies in their
schools. The attendants with low scores in this dimension think that the students are
weak in terms of their cognitive, affective and dynamic competences.
The fourth factor of the scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be
improved (ASNIPS) is "physical-technical" possibilities. This dimension indicates the
areas that need to be improved for physical-technical opportunities in schools
according to the opinions of teachers and school administrators. In this dimension the
participants with high scores state that the physical-technical facilities in their schools
are sufficient and effective. The participants who have low scores in this dimension
think that the physical-technical facilities in their schools are weak.
The fifth factor of the scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be
developed (ASNIPS) is "parents of students". This dimension indicates the areas to be
improved for the parents of the students in schools according to the ideas of teachers
and school administrators. The attendants who have high scores in this dimension
think that the parents of the students in their schools are supportive of the students and
the school. On the other hand, the participants having low scores in this dimension
express that their parents are weak in supporting the student and the school.
The sixth factor of the scale of perception of areas where schools need to be
developed (ASNIPS) is the institutional processes ". This dimension indicates the
areas that should be developed for institutional processes in schools according to the
opinions of teachers and school administrators. The participants with high scores in
this dimension think that the institutional processes in their schools are sufficient and
and effective. The participants who have low scores in this dimension state that the
institutional processes are weak.
The last factor of the scale of perception of the areas in which schools need to be
developed (ASNIPS) is "targets and way of determination. According to the
viewpoints of teachers and school administrators, this dimension indicates the areas
that need to be developed on purpose in schools. The attendants who have high scores
in this dimension think that the goals in their schools are sufficient, efficient and
effective. The participants having low scores in this dimension express that the
schools are weak in terms of goals and the way these aims are determined.
2. The areas of schools that need to be improved according to teachers and
school administrators
The opinions of the primary and secondary school teachers and administrators about
the areas where schools need to be improved were analyzed and the findings were
given in Table 5.
Table 5. The areas of schools that need to be improved according to teachers and
school administrators
School Improvement
Mean
SS/Std. Deviation
Dimensions
Students
3,378
,6253
Teachers
3,939
,6179
School Administrator/Principal
3,969
,7691
Parents of Students
3,039
,7521
Physical-Technical Facilities
2,804
,9021
Targets and way of determination
3,642
,7583
Institutional Process
3,763
,7491
School Improvement
3,586
,5660
The opinions of primary and secondary school teachers and administrators about the
areas that schools should be improved are at the "High" level. When the average
scores of primary and secondary school teachers and administrators regarding the
areas that need to be improved in schools are examined, the average of the scores of
determining the needs of school improvement is as follows from the least needed
criteria to the most needed; “School Administrators/Principals” (X=3,969), “Teacher”
(Χ = 3,939), “Institutional Process” (X=3,763), “Targets and way of determination”
(Χ = 3,642), “Students” (Χ = 3.378), “Parents of Students” (X=3,039) and “PhysicalTechnical Opportunities” (X=2,804). The participants stated that the most inadequate
area was “Physical-technical facilities” sub-dimension in schools and it is necessary
to be improved and the most adequate area was "school administrator" sub-dimension.
In other words, according to the perceptions of primary and secondary school teachers
and school administrators/principals, considering this ranking, the criteria of
“Physical-technical opportunities” (Χ = 2,804) need to be improved at the most and
the criteria of school administrators/principlas need to be improved at least (Χ =
3,969) among the criteria of the needs of schools improvement.
In line with the findings obtained in this research, some application and research
suggestions may be presented. When the researches related to the areas that schools
need to be developed are examined, it can be said that physical technical
opportunities, the performance and motivation of students, the professional
development of teachers and administrators, the contribution of parents of students to
school goals, and the activities to support cooperation with school members should be
emphasized. It will be useful to conduct experimental studies examining how the
different practices of school development affect students' motivation towards school
and achievement. In this way, which ones of the school development practices
contribute to school members can be understood more clearly.
Because of the physical areas of the buildings of schools' being limited and the low
level of parents’ awareness to support education, teachers can develop creative
solutions to develop physical and technical conditions in a positive way, improve
themselves in this matter and increase their cooperation with the school's
environment.
Teachers and administrators' scores related to their schools can be examined
according to their individual and professional characteristics and problem-solving
skills can be developed together to find the source of their problems and solve them.
According to the teachers' self-assessment, the causes of the problems can be
determined in detail and teachers can participate in the decisions for the school
development process. In addition, social activities and educational activities can be
done for all members of the school.
Finally, school members may be advised to carry out learning and teaching activities
that support the school development process. For this reason, it may be effective to
use activities that increase the motivation of teachers in this process.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey (TÜBİTAK) (grant number 217K375)
References
Altunay, E., Arlı, D. ve Yalçınkaya, M. (2012). İlköğretim Okullarında Değişim
Yönetimine İlişkin Nitel Bir Çalışma (TKY Çalışmalarında Ödül Alan/Almayan
Okullar Örneği) (A Qualitative Study On Change Management in Primary Schools
Award Winning and Non-Award Winning Schools Case in Study of TQM), Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri (KUYEB) Dergisi, 12(2), 713-730. ISSN: 1303-0485.
Retrieved from www.edam.com.tr/kuyeb
Balcı, A. (2014). Örgütsel Gelişme Kuram ve Uygulama (Organizational
Development Theory and Practice). Genişletilmiş ve Gözden Geçirilmiş Dördüncü
Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Balcı, A. (2014). Etkili Okul ve Okul Geliştirme: Kuram, Uygulama ve Araştırma
(Effective School and School Improvement: Theory, Practice and Research). 7. Baskı.
Ankara: PegemA Yayınları.
Barnard, C.I. (1964). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harward
University Press.
Chapman, C. Armstrong, P. Harris, A. Muijs, D.Reynolds, D. & Sammons, P (Eds).
(2011). School Effectiveness and Improvement Research, Policy and Practice:
Challenging the Orthodoxy? London, Routledge.
Erkal, M. E. (1995). Sosyoloji (Toplumbilimi) (Sociology). İstanbul: Der Yayınları.
Halsall, R. (1998). Teacher Research and School Improvement. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with
the SIMPLIS Command Language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York:
Wiley.
Kondakçı, Y., Zayim, M. & Çalışkan, Ö. (2010). Okul Yöneticilerinin Değişime
Hazır Olma Tutumlarının Okulun Öğretim Düzeyi, Yöneticilerin Deneyimi ve Okul
Büyüklüğü Bağlamında İncelenmesi (Investigation of School Administrators'
Attitudes to Readiness of Change in the context of School Teaching Level,
Administrators' Experience and School Size). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi
Dergisi, 11(2), 155-175.
Reynolds, D. (1995). Linking School Effectiveness Knowledge and School
Improvement Practice. In Dimmock, C. (1995). Ed. School-Based Management and
School Effectiveness. London and New York: Routledge
Senge, P. (2016). Beşinci Disiplin: Öğrenen Organizasyon Sanatı ve Uygulaması.
(The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization). Çevirenler
Ayşegül İldeniz, Ahmet Doğukan, Barış Pala. 17. Baskı. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür
Sanat Yayıncılık.
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş (Temel İlkeler ve LISREL
Uygulamaları) (Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling (Basic Principles and
LISREL Applications).) Ankara: Ekinoks.
Töremen, F. (2002). Eğitim Örgütlerinde Değişimin Engel ve Nedenleri (Barriers and
Causes of Change in Educational Organizations), Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Dergisi, 12(1), 185-202.
TSV (2015). Türkiye’nin Stratejik Vizyonu 2023 Projesi (2006-2023, Türkiye).
(Turkey's Strategic Vision 2023 Project). Retrieved from http://www.tsv2023.org/
Contact email: esenaltunay@yahoo.com or esen.altunay@ege.edu.tr