Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE)

Transcription

1

2 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE) Volume 4, Issue 3 December 2014 MIJE is indexed in Turkish Educational Index, ASOS index, Index Copernicus, EBSCO Pub, Educational Research Abstracts (ERA), Aniji, DOAJ, Directory of Research Journals Indexing (DRJI) and ERIC (Published articles in MIJE are indexed by ERIC which is accepted by ERIC reviewers. Articles which are indexed by ERIC indicated in the table of contents in relevant issue)

3 OWNER YALÇINÖZ,Tankut (Rector of Mevlana University) EDITOR IN CHIEF ÇELİK, Vehbi (Dean of Education Faculty) EDITOR GÜMÜŞ, Emine ASSOCIATE EDITORS NEL, Norma LETSEKA, Moeketsi SAMUEL, Mihael Anthony ASSISTANT EDITORS Durmuş, Alpaslan KAYA, Sinan SECRETARIAT OF THE JOURNAL TOZKOPARAN, Süleyman, Burak ABADIANO, Helen R. (Central Connecticut State University, USA) AGAYEV, Ejder (Qafqaz University, Azerbaijan) AKBAŞ, Oktay (Kırıkkale University, Turkey) AKKOYUNLU, Buket (Hacettepe University, Turkey) AKMAN, Berrin Hacettepe University, Turkey AKPINAR, Burhan (Fırat University, Turkey) AKPINAR, Yavuz (Boğaziçi University, Turkey) AKTÜMEN, Muharrem (Ahi Evran University, Turkey) AKYOL, Hayati (Gazi University, Turkey) ALACACI, Cengiz (Florida International University, USA) AL-MABUK, Rathi (University of NorthernIowa, USA) Anastasiadou, Sofia D. (University of West Macedonia, Greece) ARICIOĞLU, Ahu (Pamukkale University, Turkey) BAEZZAT, Fereshteh (University of Mazandaran, Iran) BALOĞLU, Nuri (Ahi Evran University) BAYRAM, Servet (Marmara University, Turkey) BECK, Mitchell (Central Connecticut State University, USA) BİLGİN, İbrahim (Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey) BİRGİN, Osman (Uşak University, Turkey) BOOYSE, Johan (University of South Africa, South Africa) BOZDOĞAN, Aykut Emre (Giresun University, Turkey) BOZOĞLAN, Bahadır (Mevlana University, Turkey) BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK, Şener (Gazi University, Turkey) ÇAKIR, Abdulkadir (Mevlana University, Turkey) ÇAKIR, Recep (Amasya University, Turkey) ÇANKAYA, İbrahim (Uşak University, Turkey) ÇELİK, Vehbi (Mevlana University, Turkey) CHUANG, Hsueh-hua (National Sun Yat-sen University, Tayvan) ÇOŞKUN, Eyyup (Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey) DANIŞMAN, Yusuf (Mevlana University, Turkey) DEMİREAY, Uğur (Anadolu University, Turkey) DEMİREL, Şener (Fırat University, Turkey) DEMİRLİ, Ci hat (İstanbul Ticaret University, Turkey) EDITORIAL BOARD DEREVENSKY, Jeffrey L. (McGill University, Canada) DIBOLL, Mike (University of Sussex, UK) DOĞRU, S. Sunay Yıldırım(Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey) ECIRLI, Ahmet (Universiteti Bedër, Albania ERBAY, Filiz (Mevlana University, Turkey) ERGÜN, Mustafa (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey) FALLAHI, Vida (Shiraz University, Iran ) GAO, Ping (University of Northern Iowa, USA) GÖMLEKSİZ, Mehmet Nuri (Fırat University, Turkey) GÜNDÜZ, Mustafa (Yıldız Teknik University, Turkey) GÜNEL, Murat (TED, Turkey) GÜROL, Mehmet (Yıldız Technical University, Turkey) GURSEL, Musa (Mevlana University, Turkey) GÜZELLER, Cem Oktay (Akdeniz University, Turkey) HALAT, Erdoğan (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey) HALAI, Nelofer(Aga Khan University, Pakistan) HAMMOND, John (University of Canberra, Australia) HARPUTLU, Leyla (Ahi Evran University, Turkey ) HERRING, Mary C. (University of Northern Iowa, USA) HOSSEINCHARI, Ma ssound (Shiraz University, Iran ) HUANG, Chi-Jen (National Chiayi University, Taiwan) HUTSON, Bryant (The University of North Carolina a, USA) İŞÇİOĞLU, Ersin (Eastern Mediterranean University, TRNC) IŞIK, Erkan (Mevlana University, Turkey) İŞMAN, Aytekin (Sakarya University, Turkey) KARA, Ahmet (Adıyaman University, Turkey) KARADAĞ, Ruhan (Adıyaman University, Turkey) KARADENİZ, Şirin (Bahçeşehir University, Turkey) KARAMI, Morteza(University of Mazandaran, Iran) KARAKUŞ, Mehmet (Zirve University, Turkey) KARAMI, Morteza (University of Ma zandaran, Iran) KARATAŞ, Serçin (Gazi University, Turkey) KARIM, Rezaul (Leading University, Bangladesh)

4 KAUR, Ki randeep (Punjabi university, India) KAYA, Osman Nafiz (Fırat University, Turkey) KESER, Hafize (Ankara University, Turkey) KOCABAŞ, İbra him (Fırat University, Turkey) KOÇAK, Recep (Gazi Osman Paşa University, Turkey) KUMARAN, Duraikkannu (University of Madras, India) LAVICZA, Zsolt (Cambridge University, UK) LEBLANC, Raymond (University of Ottawa, Ca nada) LEMMER, Eleanor (University of South Africa, South Africa) LOUW, Gabriel (North-West University, South Africa) MCKEOWN, John A. G. (Mevlana University, Turkey) MEMMEDOV, Behmen (Qafqaz University, Azerbaijan) MICHAIL, Kalogiannakis (University of Crete, Greece) MITTAL, Shree Ram (University of Delhi, India) MOONSAMY, Sharon (University of the Witwatersrand, S.Africa) MSILA, Vuyi sile (University of South Africa, South Africa) NAM, Jeonghee (Pusan National University, Korea) NEL, Norma (University of South Africa, South Africa) ODABAŞI, H. Ferhan (Anadolu University, Turkey) OKUYUCU, Cihan (Yıldız Technical University University, Turkey) ÖMEROĞLU, Esra (Gazi University, Turkey) OMRAN, Ebra him Salehi (University of Mazandaran, Iran) ORAL, Behçet (Dicle University, Turkey) ÖZDEMİR, M. Soner (Kırıkkale University, Turkey) ÖZDEMİR, Selçuk (Gazi University, Turkey) ÖZER, Bayram (Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey) PANDAY, Shefali (University of Mumbai, India) PAPE, Stephen J.(University of Florida, USA) PEKER, Murat (Afyon Kocatepe, Turkey) GIJON PUERTA, José (Universidad de Granada, Spain) PHASHA, Tlakale Nareadi (University of South Africa, South Africa) PING-KWAN, Fok (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) POTGIETER, Calvyn (University of South Africa, South Africa) QUADIR, Tarik (Mevlana University, Turkey) RANA, Rizwan Akram (University of the Punjab, Pakistan) SADEGHI, Abbas (University of Guilan Iran) SAMUEL, Michael (University of Kwazulu-Nata, South Africa) ŞAHİN, İsmail (Selçuk University, Turkey) ŞAHİN, Sami (Gazi University, Turkey) SAMANI, Siamak (Islamic Azad University, Iran) SARI, Mustafa (Mevlana University, Turkey) SEMERCİ, Çetin (Fırat University, Turkey) ŞENAY, Hasan (Mevlana University, Turkey) SHAHIM, Sima (Shiraz University, Iran ) SHARRA, Steve(Michigan State University, USA) SHELLEY, Mack (Iowa State University, USA) SÜNBÜL, Ali Murat(Selçuk University, Turkey) TABAKU, Elida (Universiteti Bedër, Albania) TAŞPINAR, Mehmet (Gazi University, Turkey) THOMPSON, Ann D. (Iowa State University, USA) TÖREMEN, Fatih (Zirve University, Turkey) Trotman, Wayne (Izmir Katip Çelebi University) TÜYSÜZ, Cengiz (Mustafa Kemal University, Turkey) UZUNBOYLU, Hüseyin (Near East University, TRNC) UZOGLU, Mustafa (Giresun University, Turkey) URE, Omer (Mevlana University, Turkey) YALÇIN, Paşa (Erzincan University, Turkey) YALIN, H. İbra him (Gazi University, Turkey) YAMAN, Süleyman (Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Turkey) YILMAZ, Ercan (Selçuk University, Turkey) YÖRÜK, Sinan (Afyon Kocatepe University, Turkey) REVIEWER OF THE ISSUE Adnan ERKUŞ Mersin Üni. Martin Combrinck North-West University Defne YILMAZ Akdeniz Üni. Serkan İZMİRLİ Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üni. Serçin KARATAŞ Gazi Üni. Özgen Korkmaz Amasya Üni. Ahmet Bedel Mevlana Üni Musa Dikmenli Necm.Erbakan Üni. Banu YAMAN Trakya Üni. Ömer Faruk TUTKUN Sakarya Üni. Salih Zeki Genç Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üni. Halil İbrahim Çankaya Uşak Üni Tuncay Yavuz Özdemir Fırat Üni. Serpil KILIÇ, Fatih Uni. Alpaslan Durmuş Mevlana Üni. Sinan Kaya Mevlana Üni. Ergün Recepoğlu Kastamonu Üni. Sedat Gümüş Necm.Erbakan Üni. Ayşe Negiş Işık Mevlana Üni. Erkan Işık Mevlana Üni. Mehmet Emir Köksal Mevlana Üni. Vehbi Aytekin Sanalan Erzincan Üni Hasan Eşici Hasan Kalyoncu Üni.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Zulfu Demirtas The Student Opinions Concerning Freedom of Dress Code Including High Schools Among Others Ahmet Akbaba Lecturers Views On Experiences Of A Post Graduate Honours Research Module Implemented Curriculum Simon Bheki. Khoza An investigation of the Predictive Role of Authenticity on Proactivity Umran Akın, Ahmet Akın The Effect of Organizational Justice and Organizational Cynicism on the Organizational Commitment: An Application in Primary Education Institutions Cemal Aküzüm An analysis of the relationship between high school teachers organizational commitment levels and perceptions of school culture Ahmet Ayık, Öznur Ataş Students Beliefs on Effectiveness of Storyline Method in History Teaching Metin Kuş, Bülent Alcı An Investigation of the New Elementary Curriculum in Terms of Teachers Opinions Mehmet Arif Özerbaş Mevlana Stories and Gestalt Therapy Mehmet KAYA, Neslihan ARICI The examination of high school students learning strategies and motivation levels in physics course Erol Suzuk, Cem Gurel, Hakan Olgun A Phenomenographic Approach for Exploring Conceptions of Learning and Teaching Biology in Turkey Özlem Sadi An Investigation of Science and Technology Teachers Views on the 5th Grade Science Course İkramettin Daşdemir Leadership by consensus at MU: A look at two leaders Adem Bayar, James H Kerns

6 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE) Vol. 4(3), pp. 1-12, December, 2014 Available online at Article history Received: Received in revised form: Accepted: Key words: Learning, organizational learning, organization, school, teacher Introduction A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Zulfu Demirtas 1 Faculty of Education, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey This is a scale development study, conducted with the participation of 342 teachers who were working at Elazığ city center. Data were collected by using a questionnaire developed by Türkoğlu and Güçlü (2003) which does not consist explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis. Explanatory and Confirmatory factor analysis were done in the context of this study. The EFA conducted on Güçlü and Türkoğlu s (2003) 42-item questionnaire showed no meaningful relationship between the factors obtained and the dimensions of the original questionnaire. Owing to this, a two-stage method was utilized to obtain a five-dimensional scale. In the first stage, items forming each dimension were taken as a scale in themselves (subscale) and subjected to exploratory factor analysis. As a result of this analysis, a five-factor structure emerged. In the second stage, the subscales were considered to be the sub dimensions of a single scale; the remaining items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis once again; and significant findings were obtained. Thereafter, first and second stage CFA was conducted with the help of an SEM package program in order to test the five factor structure of the scale after exploratory analysis. In sum, the "Scale of Learning Schools" aiming to identify the learning capacity of schools and obtained by conducting EFA and CFA is a valid and reliable measurement tool. Employees in modern organizations of our day are expected to learn, interact with their fellow employees, teach them what they know, and learn from them. It can be said that the most distinct quality of such organizations is their ability to learn. Learning, which entails a permanent change in the knowledge or behaviours of individuals through experience (Hoy and Miskel, 2010: 41), does not have to be conscious and deliberate. In addition, it cannot always be expected to create a behavioural change. Learning may be defined as gaining a new perspective and awareness (Huber, 1991). Learning remains in our life from the beginning through the end (Töremen, 2001: 4), and by changing our beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours (Eren, 2004: 485), it enables us to recognize and correct our mistakes (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 9). Learning, a process of knowledge creation, happens when the conflict between adaptation to the environment and our logical thoughts is resolved (Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The strongest learning comes through experience (Uysal, 2008); however, such learning is only possible when feedback is quick and specific (Senge, 2000: 337). At the same time, when employees make an effort to imprint past experiences and achievements in organizational memory, learning new information becomes more difficult (Alas and Vadi, 2006). 1 Correspondence: zdemirtas@firat.edu.tr

7 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas Being a lifelong process, learning can take place on a personal, team or organizational level (Oltra and Vivas-Lo pez, 2013). The first level of the activity of learning, personal learning, happens as a result of individuals improving their questioning and thinking skills (Akgün, Keskin and Günsel: 2009: 72). In personal learning, individuals alter their knowledge, attitudes, values, skills, understanding and behaviours owing to personal work, gathering information, observing events, or having experiences (Gökmen Kavak, 2007). Without personal learning, there cannot be team or organizational learning. Likewise, personal learning does not guarantee team or organizational learning. However, personal learning is a prerequisite and condition to higher level learning. Team learning refers to individuals who have achieved personal learning to reach a new shared level of understanding by sharing and interpreting their knowledge within a group. The first stage of the discipline of team learning is dialog which shows the capacity of team members to think collectively (Nayır, 2010). Different from personal learning, team learning is affected by the social relations within the team, cooperation among team members and an effective communication network. If teams can learn, the entire organization becomes prepared to do so (Töremen, 2001: 6). Organizational learning is the highest and most collective level of learning. Learning at this level spreads knowledge within the organization and enables its common use (Karahan and Yılmaz, 2010). For organizations, learning is making inferences from routine work that guides behaviours (Levitt and March, 1998). Learning that occasionally emerges in an organization can also cause tension between new knowledge and the existing knowledge already in use (Crossan, Lane and White, 1999). The analysis of organizational learning has become an increasingly popular study field in recent years (Tohidi and Jabbari, 2012). Organizational learning can be defined as identifying and correcting mistakes and improving the process of correction (Argyris, 1977); the ability of the organization to adapt to its environment (DiBella, Nevis and Gould, 1996a); or the capacity (or processes) within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience (DiBella, Nevis and Gould, 1996b). Being an informal process (Oltra and Vivas- Lo pez, 2013) organizational learning mostly emphasizes the collective learning of members in its various definitions (Yukl, 2009). Organizational learning occurs as a result of individuals disseminating their knowledge and experiences gathered in or outside the work environment on an organizational level through teamwork (Özgen, Kılıç and Karademir, 2004), shared understanding, and information and mental models (Stata, 1989). As organizations are not simple collections of individuals, organizational learning is not the mere personal learning of employees; however, organizations only learn from the knowledge and experiences of individuals (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 9). In order to adapt to the changing environment, organizations must learn continuously. Argyris (1996: 5-7) emphasizes that the dynamic environment of organizations bring them face to face with constant ambiguity and change, which enforces them to learn continuously so as to cope with this situation. Senge (2000: 23) states that organizational learning can happen in the organization on adaptive and generative learning levels. Adaptive learning means adapting to the changes outside the organization and is based on solving new problems with existing skills. The main premises of emerging problems are not questioned and not blamed for the problems. Contrary to adaptive learning, generative learning involves looking at the world through a new lens and seeing the system that controls events. This kind of learning questions the main reasons for problems to emerge, and defines and solves them. Generative learning brings a competitive edge to the organization by guiding the surrounding change and combining it with the -2-

8 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(3); 1-12, 1 December, 2014 organization's internal factors. Senge (2000: 26-34) states that organizations include certain disabilities that hinder learning and that effective learning is only possible once they develop methods to overcome them. These disabilities are: (1) I am my position, (2) The enemy is out there, (3) The illusion of taking charge (4) The fixation on events, (5) The parable of the boiled frog, (6) The delusion of learning through experience and (7) The myth of the management team. According to Yukl (2009), learning disabilities may be a sign of weakness in the main processes of discovering, disseminating and implementing new information. Organizational learning can be strengthened by overcoming this weakness. Today's organizations are expected to be learning organizations in order to adapt to the everchanging environment. Learning organizations are those that can improve their attitudes, values and behaviours in light of the new information and understandings that they create, obtain or transfer (Garvin 1993). Learning organizations, where individuals constantly improve themselves together and individually in order to create a common desired future (Çalkavur, 2009: 59), offer their employees opportunities to discover and use their talents in order to reach the ultimate values of humanity such as unity, loyalty, collective effort and intelligence (Töremen, 2001: 18). These organizations constantly encourage their employees to learn and share their knowledge within the organization. People work together in small and large teams to achieve common targets and give each other feedback in order to see how well they have accomplished their task (Aydın, 2012: 201). There are certain preconditions to achieve organizational learning and become a learning organization. The primary name associated with learning organizations, Senge (2000: 9-14), lists the qualities that an organization must have to cope with the hardships of learning as follows: Personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. However, he also adds that these per se are not enough to become a learning organization; they need to be considered within systems thinking. Personal mastery is the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively. As such, it is an essential cornerstone of the learning organization -the learning organization's spiritual foundation. An organization's commitment to and capacity for learning can be no greater than that of its members (Senge, 2000: 10). Personal mastery enables individuals to constantly develop themselves by increasing their learning capacity. Mental models are deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action (Senge, 2000: 11). We analyse and interpret the events that we encounter primarily through our mental model. We make sense of the world through these models. A shared vision is a force in people's hearts, a force off impressive power. It may be inspired by an idea, but once it goes further than it is no longer an abstraction. It is palpable. People begin to see it as if it exists. Few, if any, forces in human affairs are as powerful as shared vision (Senge, 2004: 191). Shared vision is the driving force behind people working towards a single and shared aim. People with a shared vision have a sense of responsibility and yearning for the task at hand. Teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning unit in modern organizations. Unless teams can learn, the organization cannot learn (Senge, 1990: 12). Team learning is a -3-

9 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas collective discipline that requires dialog and debate practices. Skilful teams and the creative learning process require the questioning of the presuppositions of the thinking process. Teams that have talented individuals with personal differences are stronger and more creative. The creative learning process depends on the alignment of people with a shared vision and personal mastery, and constantly improving their creative learning capacity. Systems thinking requires seeing the big picture, and is based on the presupposition that links all other disciplines to systems thinking. Instead of ineffective traditional problem solution methods, this kind of thinking encourages collective thinking, seeing the whole system that we belong to instead of isolated events, and unveiling the underlying reasons for problems. It is not possible for continuously evolving structures to renew themselves without learning. Organizations that can increase the quality of their products and services and thus can cope with change through learning are more likely to meet their aims than others. Therefore, all organizations must construct networks conducive to learning and adopt a culture that encourages it. Schools are expected to have high learning capacity. It is due to the services they provide and the qualities they have that schools must be learning organizations. In Turkey, many questionnaires have been used in the studies to determine the characteristics of the learning organizations (e.g. Yücel, 2007; Çelik, 2009; Aybar, 2011; Tolgay, 2010; Koç, 2006; Çandır, 2010). In these studies the dimensions and the item numbers used in questionnaires are not compatible with each other. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were not applied to these questionnaires. It is difficult to say that they are well applied scales for the questionnaires in which factor analysis were not applied. Development of a eligible and reliable scale of learning organization is needed to cover up this deficiency in the literature. In this study, it is aimed to develop a scale in accordance with Senge s (2000) organizational learning theory. For this purpose, by creating an item repository from the questionnaire items used by Güçlü and Türkoğlu, a scale development study was conducted. In point of fact, there is need for a scale that can measure the level at which elementary schools possess Senge s (2004) organizational learning disciplines. Method This is a scale development study conducted with 342 teachers working in nine secondary schools in the center of Elazığ, Turkey. Of these participants, 33,3% were female and 66,7% were male; 39,2% had 1-5 years of work experience, 23,4% had 6-10 years of experience, 20,2% had years of experience, 8,2% had years of experience, and 5% had 21 or more years of experience. Data were collected by using a questionnaie developed by Türkoğlu (2002) for his Master's degree and used in an article co-authored with Güçlü (2003). The original questionnaire had 42 items. Of these, items 1-5 focused on Personal mastery, 6-12 on Mental models, on Shared vision, on Systems thinking, and on Team Learning. The responses were graded from 5 to 1 in the following order: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Generally and Always. Results -4-

10 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(3); 1-12, 1 December, 2014 Exploratory Factor Analysis The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) conducted on Güçlü and Türkoğlu s (2003) 42-item questionnaire showed no meaningful relationship between the factors obtained and the dimensions of the original questionnaire. Owing to this, a two-stage method was utilized to obtain a five-dimensional scale, because of Senge s (2000) classification. In the first stage, items forming each dimension were taken as a scale in themselves (subscale) and subjected to EFA. In the analysis: (1) in order to ensure that each scale covered one single factor, the factor that explained the highest variance was kept and others were not included in the evaluation, and (2) The criteria for keeping a factor included an eigenvalue over 1,00 and having a minimum of three items. The analyses yielded the following data about the subscales. The Personal Mastery subscale includes five items and one factor. KMO =,709 ; Bartlett = 635,167 ; p<,05; item loadings,601,835. Items in the factor = 2,3,4,5 ; the amount of explained variance is 53,655%. The Mental Models subscale includes seven items and one factor. KMO =,889 ; Bartlett = 1123,226 ; p<,05; item loadings,393,696 ; the amount of explained variance is 58,817%. Having 11 items, the Shared Vision subscale yielded the following values: KMO =,924 ; Bartlett = 2777,115 ; p<,05; item loadings,481,862. These subscale consist of two factors; items in the first factor = 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 ; the amount of explained variance by the first factor is 41,331%. The amount of explained variance by the second factor = 28,817%. Items 13,14 and 15 in the second factor were removed from scale. The Systems Thinking subscale had nine items and one factor. KMO =,914 ; Bartlett = 1411,889 ; p<,05; item loadings,261,669 ; item 26 was removed from this dimension as it had a value below,35 (,216). The amount of explained variance by the factor is 59,405%. The 10-item Team Learning subscale has two factors. Item 41 was removed from the scale as it had very similar values in both factors (in factor 1=,582; in factor 2=,586), and factor analysis was rerun. The following values were obtained: KMO =,891 ; Bartlett = 1773,199 ; p<,05; item loads,484,827; number of factors 2 ; items in the first factor = 33,34,35,37,42; the amount of variance explained by the first factor is 35,847%. Items in the second factor = 36,38,39,40 ; the amount of variance explained by the second factor is 33,242%. As the items in factor 1 explained more variance, the items in factor 2 were removed from scale. In the second stage, the scales above (subscales) were considered to be the sub dimensions/factors of a single scale; the remaining items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis once again; and the following findings were obtained: KMO,964; Bartlett 7791,470; p<,05. Item loadings ranged between,502 and,791. This scale included five factors. The amount of explained variance by each factor was as follows: Factor one = 15,514, Factor two = 14,168, Factor three = 13,853, Factor four = 11,866, Factor five = 10,083. The amount of variance explained by all factors was 65,483%. The first factor includes seven items. All of these came from the Shared Vision dimension of Güçlü and Türkoğlu (2003) (items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22). This factor was thus named Shared Vision. The second factor has eight items. Of these, items 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 came from the -5-

11 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas Systems Thinking dimension of Güçlü and Türkoğlu (2003). While item 23 (Plans are actualized in my organization not after the emergence of problems, but before they come into being.) was originally in the Shared Vision dimension, item 42 (During teamwork, each member can hold their thoughts when necessary to understand other colleagues.) was in the Team Learning dimension. Considering their contents, these items were removed from the factor as they were covered by the dimensions in the original questionnaire, and the number of items in the factor was set at six. This factor was named Systems Thinking. There are seven items in the third factor. Of these, items 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were in Güçlü and Türkoğlu's (2003) Mental Models dimension. While item 2 in the factor (Individuals who want to develop themselves are valued in the organization.) was in the "Personal Mastery dimension of the original scale, item 31 (The lines of communication in the organization are open.) was in the Team Learning dimension. As these two items were thought to be more in line with the dimensions in the original questionnaire, they were removed from the factor and the number of items was set at five. The factor was named after Mental Models in the original scale. The fourth factor consists of five items. While four of these items (items 33, 34, 35 and 37) we in Güçlü and Türkoğlu's (2003) Team Learning dimension, item 32 (Individuals in the organization can see the whole rather than the pieces) is in the Systems Thinking dimension of the original questionnaire. As this item was congruent with Systems Thinking, the item was removed from the factor and the number of items was set at four. The factor was named after Team Learning in the original scale. There are four items in the fifth factor. Of these, items 3, 4 and 5 are in Güçlü and Türkoğlu's (2003) Personal Mastery dimension, while item 12 (Innovations for development are possible in the organization.) is in the Mental Models dimension of the original questionnaire. As this item was thought to be related to Personal Mastery, it was kept and the number of items in the factor was set at four. This factor was named Personal Mastery, similar to the original questionnaire. The resulting factor structure is given in Table 1. Table 1. Factor Analysis Results Item No Load Factor Values Shared Vision System Thinking Mental Models Team Learning Personal Mastery i19,813,102,166,220,217 i20,774,237,207,202,231 i18,718,228,269,150,335 i17,670,202,417,160,055 i21,625,350,159,152,141 i22,565,435,198,184,191 i16,536,282,443,282 -,015 i29,314,654,153,205,011 i27,233,592,312,225,302 i28,227,571,365,124,247 i25,325,523,240,319,308 i24,384,512,062,247,244 i30,255,463,419,363,242 i7,290,211,744,153,066 i8,228,160,667,191,287 i6,093,094,655,215,013 i9,273,398,469,233,117 i10,395,420,468,140,255 i33,216,112,160,776,163 i34,213,274,243,728,266 i35,232,363,246,622,308-6-

12 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(3); 1-12, 1 December, 2014 i37,209,382,395,564,139 i4,165,256,220,150,770 i5,152,101 -,057,204,749 i3,291,265,406,151,623 i12,345,258,373,253,475 Table 1 shows that the scale is composed of five factors. The shared vision factor consists of seven items, the systems thinking factor consists of six items, the mental models factor consists of five items, the team learning factor consists of four factors, and the personal mastery factor consists also of four items. Confirmatory Factor Analysis The data obtained from the 342 valid surveys were analysed, and the reliability and eligibility of the scale were investigated. Jackson (2003) and Kline (2005) state that the ratio of cases to free parameters should be 10:1 in order to conduct a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In addition, Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) recommend that sample size should be a minimum 200 in order to use multivariate statistical techniques. The sample size of the study is, therefore, sufficient according to both the recommendation of Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) (n>200) and the criteria set by Jackson (2003) and Kline (2005) (26 x 10 = 260 < 342). First stage CFA was conducted with the help of an Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) package program in order to test the five factor structure of the scale after exploratory analysis. When confirmatory factor analysis was made, fitness values for each factor in the scale were first separately evaluated. Following this, fitness values for the entire scale were tested. First stage CFA results are presented in Figure 2. e6,39,79 e5 i29,63,53,73 e4 i28,78,61 e3 i27,78,62,65 e2 e1 e11 e10 e9 e8 e7 e16 e15 e14 e13 e12 e17,63,42,49,77,72,75,55,62,51,55,54,27 i30 i25 i24 i21 i20 i19 i18 i17 i10 i9 i8 i7 i6 i33,86,74,73,52,70,88,85,79,71,74,62 e20 i37,79,76,87 e19 i35,86,74 e18 i34,69,47 e24 e23 e22 e21,57,29,63,71 i12 i5 i4 i3,79,84,75,54 System Thinking Sharing Vision Mental Models Team Learning Personal Mastery,80,79,78,75,79,68,87,75,86,83 Figure 1. First Stage CFA Results The values obtained after removing items 16 and 22 from the Shared Vision factor in order -7-

13 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas to obtain better fitness values from first stage confirmatory factor analysis were statistically meaningful. The fitness values of this model are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Fitness Values as a Result of First Stage Confirmatory Factor Analysis Factors x 2 /df GFI AGFI CFI NFI TLI RMSEA SRMR System Thinking 3,26,973,938,977,968,962,081,031 Shared Vision 3,02,983,949,991,986,981,077,017 Mental Models 2,50,985,956,987,979,975,066,026 Team Learning 4,91,987,933,989,987,968,107,018 Personal Mastery 8,73,977,887,971,968,913,151,031 General Model 2,24,881,852,942,901,934,060,046 References Arbuckle (2007), Şimşek (2007), Sümer (2000), MacCallum and Hong (1997), MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara (1996), Bentler (1990), MacCallum and Hong (1997), Hu and Bentler (1999). The fitness values of the Scale of Organizational Learning were as follows: x 2 /df=2,24; GFI=,881; AGFI=,852; CFI=,942; NFI=,901; TLI=,934; RMSEA=,060 and SRMR=,046. This is an acceptable level of fitness. After first stage CFA made for the Scale of Organizational Learning, second stage CFA was conducted to identify the effects of the factors in the scale of organizational learning. Its results are displayed in Figure 2. e6,62 i30,39,79 e5 i29,63,53,73 e4 i28,78,61 e3 i27,79,62,68 e2 i25 e1,46 i24,49 e11 i21,78,70 e10 i20,88,72,85 e9 i19,86,74 e8 i18,74,55 e7 i17,62 e16 i10,51,79 e15 i9,71,55,74 e14 i8,73,54 e13 i7,53,28 e12 i6,63 e20 i37,80,77,87 e19 i35,86,75 e18 i34,74,54 e17 i33,53 e24 i12,73,28,53 e23 i5,79,63 e22 i4,78,61 e21 i3 e25 System thinking e26 Shared Vision e27 Mental Models e28 Team Learning e29 Personal Mastery,95,69,83,77,65,91,88,80,97,83 Organizational Learning Figure 2. Second Stage CFA Results According to the second stage confirmatory factor analysis results, all factors in the scale have a positive and meaningful effect on organizational learning. The highest effect on organizational learning is made by the Systems Thinking factor (r=,97). This is followed by Mental Models (r=,91), Team Learning (r=,88), Shared Vision (r=,83) and Personal Mastery (r=,80), respectively. Table 3 shows the fitness values obtained with second stage confirmatory factor analysis. Table 3. Fitness Values as a Result of Second Stage Confirmatory Factor Analysis x 2 /df GFI AGFI CFI NFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Organizational Learning 2,24,880,854,941,899,934,060,047-8-

14 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(3); 1-12, 1 December, 2014 Table 3 shows that the fitness values obtained after second stage confirmatory factor analysis are acceptable (x 2 /df=2,24; GFI=,880; AGFI=,854; CFI=,941; NFI=,899; TLI=,934; RMSEA=,060 ve SRMR=,047). Table 4 shows the mean values, standard deviation, Cronbach Alpha values and the relationships between factors in the Organizational Learning Scale. Table 4. Cronbach Alpha Values and Correlations between Factors of the Organizational Learning Scale Factors System Thinking (,87) 2. Shared Vision 730** (,90) 3. Mental Models 731** 685** (,83) 4. Team Learning 757** 619** 672** (,88) 5. Personal Mastery,699**,640**,625**,635** (,82) **p<,01 Table 4 shows a positive and meaningful relationship between the factors of the Scale of Organizational Learning. In addition, the reliability coefficients were as follows for the factors: Systems Thinking,87; Shared Vision,90; Mental models,83; Team Learning,88 and Personal Mastery,82. Results and Discussion Organizational learning involves the discovery of information; its dissemination within the organization; internal processes and those that are used in improving external adaptation (Yukl, 2009). During this process, a constant increase is ensured in the amount of knowledge systematically constructed by individuals within the organization, thus making this knowledge an inherent part of its knowledge system (García-Morales, Jiménez- Barrionuevo and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). It is obvious that schools value knowledge even more than other organizations. The learning of schools is crucial both from an organizational perspective and for their knowledge production and dissemination functions. Inspired by the need for an instrument to measure the learning skills of Turkish schools, this study implemented Güçlü and Türkoğlu s (2003) 42-item questionnaire on 342 teachers. The data obtained were primarily subjected to EFA, which failed to yield statistically meaningful results. Upon this, each dimension in the Güçlü and Türkoğlu s (2003) questionnaire was considered to be an independent scale (subscale) and EFA was conducted, which yielded meaningful results. Then, all independent subscales were considered to be the dimensions/factors of a single scale once again, and all remaining items were subjected to EFA. As a result, six items in the scale were placed under different factors than was the case in the original questionnaire. The analysis of the statements in the items showed that five of these items were in line with the dimensions in the original questionnaire, and the remaining one with the dimension here. Accordingly, the scale consisted of five factors and 26 items. The data obtained from the EFA was subjected to the CFA and goodness of fit values were low. In order to reach better fitness values two of the items in the ''Shared Vision Dimension'' were removed from the scale. As a result, first and second stage CFA findings pointed to good fitness values. The CFA led to a five-factor and 24-item scale with high fitness values. In sum, the "Scale of Learning School" aiming to identify the learning capacities of schools -9-

15 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas and obtained by conducting EFA and CFA is an eligible and reliable measurement tool. References Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H. ve Günsel, A. (2009). Bilgi yönetimi ve öğrenen örgütler [Knowledge management and learning organizations]. Ankara: Eflatun. Alas, R., and Vadi, M. (2006). The Impact of Organisational Culture on Organisational Learning and Attitudes Concerning Change from An Institutional Perspective. Int. J. Strategic Change Management. 1(1/2), Arbuckle, J.L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user s guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, p Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, September- October, Argryis, C. (1996). Prologue: toward a comprehensive theory of management. Bertrand Moingeon and Amy Edmondson (Ed.). A Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage. California: SAGE Publications Ltd., s Argyris, C. and Schön D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Aybar, S. (2011). Analysis of the relationship between enterprises learning organizations and business efficiency: An application that hotel enterprises. Unpublished Master Thesis, İstanbul Ticaret University, Institute of Social Sciences. Aydın, İ. (2012). Öğretimde denetim örgütler [Supervision in teaching]. Ankara: PEGEM A. Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş AMOS uygulamaları [Introduction to structural equation modeling: AMOS applications]. İstanbul: Ezgi. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H.W. and White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), Çalkavur, E. (2009). Öğrenen organizasyon yolculuğu uygulamaları [Ride the learning organization]. İstanbul: Remzi. Çandır, R. (201). High school teachers' perceptions towards organizational learning level. Unpublished Master Thesis, Pamukkale University, Institute of Social Sciences.. Çelik, V. (2009). The effects of organizational learning capacity and innovativeness on firm performance. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gebze Institute of High Technology. DiBella, A.J., Nevis E.C. and Gould, J. M. (1996a). Organizational learning style as a core capability. In B. Moingeon and A. Edmondson (Eds). A Organizational learning and competitive advantage. (pp: 38-56). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: / n3 DiBella A, Nevis E, Gould J. (1996b). Understanding organizational learning capability. Journal of Management Studies, 33, Eren, E. (1998). Örgütsel davranış ve yönetim psikolojisi. İstanbul: İstanbul İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları. García-Morales, V.J, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management Retrieved from (11 May 2013). Gökmen Kavak, D. (2007). Determining job satisfaction and quality of life status of the midwives and nurses working at Dr. Zekai Tahir Burak Woman Health and Research Hospital. Unpublished Master Thesis, Ankara University, Institute of Health Sciences. Güçlü, N. and Türkoğlu, H. (2003). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan yönetici ve öğretmenlerin öğrenen organizasyona ilişkin algıları [The perceptions of teachers and administrators elementary school on the learning organization]. Turkish Educational Sciences 1(2), Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (2010). Educational Administration Theory, Research and Practice (Trans. Ed. Turan, S.). Ankara: Nobel. -10-

16 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(3); 1-12, 1 December, 2014 Hu, L. & Bentler, M. (999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizations Science, 2(1), Jackson, D. L. (2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, Karahan, A., and Yılmaz, H. (2010). Örgütsel öğrenme, personel güçlendirme ve takım performansı arasındaki ilişkilerin analiz edilmesi: sağlık sektöründe bir araştırma. [Analyze the relationship between organizational learning, empowerment and team performance: a study in the health sector]. Balikesir University Journal of Social Sciences. 13(2), Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Press. Koç, Ö. (2006). Effects of motivation in learning organization and a company research. Unpublished Master Thesis, İnönü University, Institute of Social Sciences. Kolb, A.Y. and Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory version 3.1. Experience Based Learning Systems. Retrieved: Levitt, B. and March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology. 14, MacCallum, R. C., and Hong, S. (1997). Power analysis in covariance structure modelling using GFI and AGFE. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(2), MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), Nayır, S. (2010). A research analysing the relationship between corporate culture and organizational learning process. Unpublished Master Thesis, Beykent University, Institute of Social Sciences. Oltra, V., and Vivas-Lo pez, S. (2013). Boosting organizational learning through team-based talent management: what is the evidence from large Spanish firms? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (9), Özgen, H., Kılıç, K.C. ve Karademir, B. (2004). Öğrenmenin kurumsallaşmasında toplam kalite yönetimi yaklaşımı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(2), Senge, P. M. (2000). Beşinci Disiplin (Trans. İldeniz, A.; Doğukan, A.). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi publish. Senge, P. M. (2004). The fifth dicipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning-the key to management innovatio. MIT Sloan. Management Review. 30(3), Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (5), Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks. Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishing. Tohidi, H., and Jabbari, M.M. (2012). Presenting structural equation model for measuring organizational learning capability. Procedia Technology, 1, Tolgay, F. (2010). Learning organization and a practice. Unpublished Master Thesis, Bahçeşehir University, Institute of Social Sciences. Töremen, F. (2001). Öğrenen okul. Ankara: Nobel. Türkoğlu, H. (2002). The Perception of the primary education school director's and teacher's regarding the learning organization (sample of Ankara province). Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences. Uysal, R. (2008). The perfection of primary school teacher about organization learning. Unpublished Master Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Educational Sciences. Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, Yücel, İ. (2007). Learning organizations and organizational culture). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Atatürk University Institute of Social Sciences. -11-

17 A Scale Development Study for Learning Schools Z. Demirtas Appendix: The Learning Organization Scale New Previous No No Personal Mastery There is an encouraging atmosphere in the organization for self development Print documents are available in the organization for self development Events such as seminars and panels are organized in the organization for self development Innovations for development are possible in the organization. Mental Models 5 6. I can expose my ideas comfortably to the people around me I feel valued in the organization Any issue can be questioned in the organization My colleagues' words and deeds are consistent I believe that the organization will be successful in the future. Shared Vision The aims of the organization are right The aims of the organization increase my work motivation The aims of the organization are in line with my personal aims The plans of the organization are in line with my personal plans I would be willing to work here for long years to achieve the aims of the organization. System Thinking My personal efforts contribute to the solutions of problems in the organization Problems in the organization are solved permanently The organization aims to invent the future instead of reacting to the present Tasks at the organization are completed without serious delays My colleagues are active participants who shape their own reality, not reactive individuals Detailed work is undertaken in the organization to get to the bottom of problems. Team Learning Meetings are held with colleagues to achieve the aims of the organization There is an atmosphere conducive to teamwork in the organization Activities in the organization are actualized through teamwork The environment in the organization supports dialog during teamwork. -12-

18 Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE) Vol. 4(3), pp , December, 2014 Available online at Lecturers Views On Experiences Of A Post Graduate Honours Research Module Implemented Curriculum Article history Received: Received in revised form: Accepted: Simon Bheki. Khoza 1 Discipline of Curriculum Studies & Educational Technology, School of Education, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa This article reflects on lecturers views on their experiences in teaching a post graduate module as part of the Honours curriculum. The notion of the intended and the implemented curriculum is explored in light of the lecturers views on their experiences during the implementation of this module. All except one of the six lecturers taught this module the previous year with relative success but most expressed concern about the implemented curriculum that took a surprising Technology in Education format for lecturers and students. Six lecturers' reflective reports, observation, module outline analysis and interview provided the data to gain an understanding of their experiences. An analysis of the reports identified common patterns and themes through the use of The Tree Three Rings Theory within the process of guided analysis. A major finding was that the module was driven by Technology in Education which was not a major part of the intended curriculum. It is also recommended that when Technology in Education is intended as part of the implemented curriculum, provision be made for training and support for lecturers and students to increase the digital footprint amongst all lecturers. Key words: educational technology, implemented curriculum, intended curriculum, technology in education, technology of education, The Tree Three Rings Theory. Introduction This article is concern with the use of hard-ware (HW) and soft-ware (SW) resources also known as technology in education (TIE) in driving a post graduate honours module (curriculum) at a South African university (Bachelor of Education Honours B.Ed Hnrs). TIE is any resource that one can see and touch (examples are computers, laptops, data projectors, computer software, transparencies, articles, search engines, websites, Learning Management Systems and others). A resource is any person or thing that communicates learning (Khoza, 2012, p. 75). If a curriculum is driven by TIE the curriculum concentrates on aims/objectives that are formulated according to lecturers intentions. As a result, TIE promotes the teacher-centred approach (behaviourism) in education. According to Harden (2002a), aims/objectives were useful when education was driven 1 Address: Private Bag X03, Ashwood, khozas@ukzn.ac.za Phone: +27(0) Mobile: +27(0) Fax: +27(0)