Research Article
Year 2017,
Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 365 - 381, 31.12.2017
Abstract
Günümüzde okullar çevrenin değişen
şartlarına göre kendilerini yapılandırmak, daha iyi çıktılar vermek,
çevrelerindeki diğer okullarla rekabet etmek ve öğrencileri değişen dünyaya
hazırlamak konusunda giderek daha fazla baskı altında kalmaktadır. Bunun
yanında, uygulayıcılar olarak öğretmenler ve yöneticiler merkezi politikaların
getirdiği değişimleri ve yenilikleri uygulamak ve eğitim öğretim süreçlerini
bunlara göre yapılandırmakla yükümlüdür. Eğitim sistemindeki reformların
başarıya ulaşması için bu uygulayıcıların yeniliği kabullenmeleri ve yaymaları,
diğer bir deyişle yenilikçi davranış göstermeleri önemlidir. Ancak literatürde,
herhangi bir okulda çalışan öğretmenlerin birbirlerini değerlendirerek okuldaki
yenilikçi davranışların seviyesini ölçebilecek bir ölçme aracı yoktur. Bu
araştırmanın amacı bu eksikliği gidererek de Jong ve den Hartog tarafından
geliştirilen Yenilikçi Davranış Ölçeği (YDÖ)’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanmasıdır.
Çalışma grubunda farklı illerde görev yapan 110 öğretmen bulunmaktadır. Ölçeğin
uyarlanmasında dil geçerliliğinin tespiti için korelasyon analizi, uyum
derecesinin belirlenmesi için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve ölçeğin
güvenirliğini tespit etmek için güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. Doğrulama ve
güvenirliğe ilişkin yapılan analizler dikkate alındığında yenilikçi
davranışları ölçmek amacıyla uyarlanan bu ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir
ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir. Ölçeğin bu haliyle öğretmenlerin yenilikçi
davranışları hakkında örgütsel çıkarımlarda bulunabilmek için yararlı olacağı
düşünülmektedir.
Keywords
References
- Akkoç, İ. (2012). Gelişim kültürü ve etik iklimin yenilikçiliğe etkisinde dağıtım adaletinin rolü. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(3), 45-60.
- Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 10, 123-167.
- Basu, R., and Green, S. C. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x
- Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2001) Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge
- Brunce, D., and West, M. A. (1995). Personality and perceptions of group climate factors as predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 199-215. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1995.tb01076.x
- Bülbül, T. (2012). Okullarda Yenilik Yönetimi Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 157-175.
- Chen, M. (2010). Education nation, six leading edges of innovation in our scholls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. L. (1992). A firstcourse in factor analysis. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
- Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2016): The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation Report. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2016.pdf
- Cormican, K., and O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management. Technovation, 24, 819-829. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00013-0
- Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590. doi:10.2307/256406
- de Jong, J., and den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
- Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M., and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job ınnovation: the impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 129-141. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x
- Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., and Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
- Goswami, S., and Mathew, M. (2005). Definition of innovation revisited: An emprical study on Indian information technology industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 371–383. doi: 10.1142/S1363919605001307
- Hargreaves, D. (1999). Schools and the future: The key role of innovation in innovating schools. In Innovationg Schools (s. 45-57). Paris: OECD Publications
- Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.
- Kleysen, R. F., and Street, C. T. (2001). Towards a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284-296. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005660
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: GuilfordPress.
- Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: an empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79-102. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
- Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
- Marcoulides, G., and Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. Londra: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publishers.
- Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, B. (2010). How the world's most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey and Company.
- Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., and Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and Teaching, 19(4), 398-418. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.770230
- OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus.Paris:OECD Publishing.
- Paulhus, D. L., and Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, and R. F. Krueger (Eds). InHandbook of ResearchMethods in PersonalityPsychology (s. 224-239). New York: Guilford.
- Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20-29. doi: 10.1108/13673270710762684
- Reed, A. (2000). Determinants of successful organisational innovation: a review of current research. Journal of Management Practive, 3(1), 95-119.
- Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F., Bramwell, G., and Kronish, N. (2011). A synthesis of research concerning creative teachers in a Canadian context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 533–542.
- Reuvers, M., van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 227-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00487.x
- Schlechty, P. C. (2014). Okulu yeniden kurmak. (Y. Özden, Çev.) Ankara: Nobel.
- Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. doi:10.2307/256701
- Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
- Senge, P. (2000). Beşinci Disiplin. (A. İldeniz ve A. Doğukan, Çev.) İstanbul: YKY.
- Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. doi: 10.2307/256865
- Sweeney, J. E. (2016). Innovation in the School Context: An ExploratoryStudy. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Faculties oftheUniversity of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
- Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel.
- Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., and Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ ınnovative behavior: a literature review.Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471. doi: 10.3102/00346543145579
Year 2017,
Volume: 6 Issue: 3, 365 - 381, 31.12.2017
Abstract
Today, schools are increasingly
under pressure to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, to give society
better output, to compete with other schools in their environment, and to
prepare students for a changing world. Indeed, as practitioners, teachers and
managers are obliged to apply the changes and innovations brought by central
policies and to organize the teaching and learning processes accordingly. For
reforms in the education system to succeed, it is important for these
practitioners to embrace innovation and to spread it, or in other words, show
innovative work behaviours. However, in Turkish literature, there is no
measuring instrument that can measure the level of innovative behaviour in
schools by enabling teacher colleagues to evaluate each other. The aim of this
research is to adapt the Innovative Work Behaviour (IWB) scale developed by
Jong and den Hartog to the Turkish context in an attempt to eliminate this
shortcoming. In the study group, there are 110 teachers working in different
cities. In the adaptation process, correlation analysis was used to determine
the validity of the language, confirmatory factor analysis was used to
determine the level of compliance, and reliability and validity analyses were
used to determine the reliability and validity of the scale. Taking into
account the analysis of validity and reliability, this scale, adapted to
measure innovative behaviours, can be said to be a valid and reliable
measurement tool. It is thought that the scale, as it is,
will be useful for making organizational inferences about teachers' innovative behaviours.
References
- Akkoç, İ. (2012). Gelişim kültürü ve etik iklimin yenilikçiliğe etkisinde dağıtım adaletinin rolü. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(3), 45-60.
- Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 10, 123-167.
- Basu, R., and Green, S. C. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00643.x
- Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2001) Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists. London: Routledge
- Brunce, D., and West, M. A. (1995). Personality and perceptions of group climate factors as predictors of individual innovation at work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44, 199-215. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1995.tb01076.x
- Bülbül, T. (2012). Okullarda Yenilik Yönetimi Ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 157-175.
- Chen, M. (2010). Education nation, six leading edges of innovation in our scholls. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Comrey, A. L., and Lee, H. L. (1992). A firstcourse in factor analysis. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
- Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO (2016): The Global Innovation Index 2016: Winning with Global Innovation Report. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2016.pdf
- Cormican, K., and O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management. Technovation, 24, 819-829. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00013-0
- Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590. doi:10.2307/256406
- de Jong, J., and den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1), 23-35. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
- Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M., and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job ınnovation: the impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 129-141. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x
- Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., and Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of disruptive innovators. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
- Goswami, S., and Mathew, M. (2005). Definition of innovation revisited: An emprical study on Indian information technology industry. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(3), 371–383. doi: 10.1142/S1363919605001307
- Hargreaves, D. (1999). Schools and the future: The key role of innovation in innovating schools. In Innovationg Schools (s. 45-57). Paris: OECD Publications
- Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302.
- Kleysen, R. F., and Street, C. T. (2001). Towards a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 284-296. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005660
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: GuilfordPress.
- Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: an empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79-102. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.006
- Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
- Marcoulides, G., and Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. Londra: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Publishers.
- Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., and Barber, B. (2010). How the world's most improved school systems keep getting better. McKinsey and Company.
- Nemeržitski, S., Loogma, K., Heinla, E., and Eisenschmidt, E. (2013). Constructing model of teachers’ innovative behaviour in school environment. Teachers and Teaching, 19(4), 398-418. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.770230
- OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus.Paris:OECD Publishing.
- Paulhus, D. L., and Vazire, S. (2007). The Self-Report Method. R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, and R. F. Krueger (Eds). InHandbook of ResearchMethods in PersonalityPsychology (s. 224-239). New York: Guilford.
- Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20-29. doi: 10.1108/13673270710762684
- Reed, A. (2000). Determinants of successful organisational innovation: a review of current research. Journal of Management Practive, 3(1), 95-119.
- Reilly, R. C., Lilly, F., Bramwell, G., and Kronish, N. (2011). A synthesis of research concerning creative teachers in a Canadian context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 533–542.
- Reuvers, M., van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 227-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00487.x
- Schlechty, P. C. (2014). Okulu yeniden kurmak. (Y. Özden, Çev.) Ankara: Nobel.
- Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. doi:10.2307/256701
- Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
- Senge, P. (2000). Beşinci Disiplin. (A. İldeniz ve A. Doğukan, Çev.) İstanbul: YKY.
- Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. doi: 10.2307/256865
- Sweeney, J. E. (2016). Innovation in the School Context: An ExploratoryStudy. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Faculties oftheUniversity of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
- Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel.
- Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., and Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ ınnovative behavior: a literature review.Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430-471. doi: 10.3102/00346543145579
There are 39 citations in total.
Details
| Primary Language | Turkish |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Research Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | December 31, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017Volume: 6 Issue: 3 |
