Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
ISSN (Print): 1949-4270 - ISSN (Online): 1949-4289

Original article    |    Open Access
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(1) 50-76

The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Technological Leadership Behaviors of School Principals and Data-Driven Decision-Making

Mehmet Sabi̇r Çevi̇k & Emine Doğan

pp. 50 - 76   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.525.3

Publish Date: March 08, 2023  |   Number of Views: 388  |  Number of Download: 559

PDF Download

Abstract

The objective of this study is to contribute to the increasing database regarding the effects of school leadership on teachers’ data usage by investigating the relationship between the technological leadership behaviors of school principals and data-driven decision-making at their schools based on the mediating and moderating effects of the knowledge management variable. 408 teachers from 14 provinces of Turkey in the 2020-2021 academic year were included in the study. The School Principal Technological Leadership Competency Scale, the Knowledge Management Scale, and the Data-Driven Decision-Making in Schools Scale were used as data collection tools in this cross-sectional quantitative study. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and structural equation modeling (SEM) were used in data analysis. The study results demonstrate the school principals' practices of technological leadership, knowledge management at schools, and data-driven decision-making to be high. It has been found out in the study that knowledge management implementations play a mediating role in data-driven decision-making at schools by increasing the technological leadership competency levels of school principals, while not having a moderating effect on the relationship between technological leadership and data-driven decision-making. In addition, technological leadership and knowledge management have been identified to be significant and positive predictors of data-driven decision-making. Based on the study results, suggestions have been made to improve the technological leadership behaviors and knowledge management implementations of school principals at schools.

Keywords: Technological Leadership, Knowledge Management, Data-Driven Decision-Making, Mediating Effect, Moderating Effect

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Cevi̇k, M.S., & Dogan, E. (2023). The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Technological Leadership Behaviors of School Principals and Data-Driven Decision-Making. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(1), 50-76. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.525.3

Harvard
Cevi̇k, M. and Dogan, E. (2023). The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Technological Leadership Behaviors of School Principals and Data-Driven Decision-Making. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(1), pp. 50-76.

Chicago 16th edition
Cevi̇k, Mehmet Sabi̇r and Emine Dogan (2023). "The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Technological Leadership Behaviors of School Principals and Data-Driven Decision-Making". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (1):50-76. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.525.3

References
  1. Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Technology and school leadership, technology. Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390902992527 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Akçakaza, G. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında bilgi yönetimi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Sakarya University. [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Alawi, A. İ., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2),    22-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Almış, S. (2010). Eğitim yöneticilerinin bilgi yönetimine ilişkin yeterlikleri (Sinop ili örneği) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. On Dokuz Mayıs University. [Google Scholar]
  5. Analoui, B. D., Doloriert, C. H., & Sambrook, S. (2013). Leadership and knowledge management in UKICT organisations. Journal of Management Development, 32(1),4-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711311286892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empiricalin vestigation of prevalence and impact. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04269517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Bahar, E. (2011). Konaklama işletmelerinde bilgi yönetimi: Altyapı, uygulama ve karşılaşılan engeller. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 51-68. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barutçugil, İ. (2002). Bilgi yönetimi. Kariyer Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baybara, M. (2018). Devlet ve özel ilköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği rollerine ilişkin yeterlikleri (İstanbul ili, Bahçelievler ilçesi örneği) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. [Google Scholar]
  10. Benedetto, R. (2006). How do independent school leaders build the educational technology leadership capacity of the school? [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Drexel University. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bernhardt, V. L. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive school wideim provement. Eye on Education. [Google Scholar]
  12. Breiter, A., & Light, D. (2006). Data for school improvement: Factors forde signing effective information systems to support decision making in school. Educational Technology and Society, 9(3), 206-217. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buluç, B. (1998). Bilgi çağı ve örgütsel liderlik. Yeni Türkiye Dergisi, 4(20), 1205-1213. [Google Scholar]
  14. Buttram, J. L., & Farley-Ripple, E. N. (2016). The role of principals in Professional learning communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1039136 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  16. Byrd, J., & Eddy, C. (2010). An investigation of principals’ use of data in data driven decision-making and theimpact on student achievement. School Leadership Review, 5, 64-93. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çavaş, B. (2005). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri ile bütünleştirilmiş fen bilgisi öğrenme ortamı üzerine bir araştırma. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 21, 88-102. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14-18. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Knowledge management for school education. Springer.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Christman, J., Nelld, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Lui, R., Mitchell, C., & Travers, E. (2009). Making the most of inter in assessment data: Lessons from Philadelphia. Research for Action. [Google Scholar]
  21. Çınar, İ. (2002). Eğitim yöneticilerinin bilgi yönetimindeki yeterlikleri [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University. [Google Scholar]
  22. Çokluk, O., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  23. Copland, M. A., Knapp, M. S., & Swinnerton, J. A. (2009). Principal leadership, data, and school improvement. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley (Eds.), Handbook of data-base ddecision making in education (pp. 153-172). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  24. Curcio, S. T. (2016). NALB: No Administrator Left Behind: A qualitative study regarding administrators’ perceptions of technology integration [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Seton Hall University. [Google Scholar]
  25. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How highper forming school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]
  26. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dejear, M. L. (2016). A study of how culture, collaboration, and advocacy influence data-driven decision making at community colleges [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University. [Google Scholar]
  28. Demir, K. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında verilere dayalı karar verme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 15(59), 367-397. [Google Scholar]
  29. Demirsoy, S. (2016). Okul yöneticilerinin teknolojik liderlik yeterlikleri ile öğretmenlerin teknolojik pedagojik bilgi düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim University. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dickerson, J., Coleman, H., & Walser, T. M. (2008). Preparing school administrators to be technology leaders: Standards and strategies. Virginia Society for Technology in Education, 22(1), 1-6. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dilekçi, Ü., Nartgün, Ş. S., & Nartgün, Z. (2020). Okullarda veriye dayalı yönetim. Uluslarlarası Pegem Eğitim Kongresi,  (IPCEDU), 16-19 Eylül, Diyarbakır, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  32. Doğan, E. (2021). Okul yönetiminde veriye dayalı karar verme sürecinin yönetici görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University. [Google Scholar]
  33. Doğan, E., & Ottekin Demirbolat, A. (2021). Data-driven decision-making in schoolsscale: a study of validity and reliability.  International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 13(1), 507-523. [Google Scholar]
  34. Donate, M. J., & de Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Drake, T. A. (2015). How technology, strategic decision making, and school context influence principals’ use of a data warehouse: A latent class growth analysis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].Vanderbilt University. [Google Scholar]
  36. Duffy, P. F. (2000). Knowledge management: To be or not to be? Information Management Journal, 34(1), 64-74. [Google Scholar]
  37. Durnalı, M. (2018). Öğretmenlere göre okul müdürlerinin teknolojik liderlik davranışları ve bilgi yönetimini gerçekleştirme düzeyleri [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University. [Google Scholar]
  38. Epp, R. T. (2011). Data use in an era of accountability: A case study of data driven decision making in high performing middle schools in the Rio Grande Valley [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ergişi, K. (2005). Bilgi teknolojilerinin okulda etkin kullanımı ile ilgili okul yöneticilerinin teknolojik yeterliklerinin belirlenmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kırıkkale University. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fidan, N. (2007). Resmi ilköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin bilgi yönetimi araçlarını kullanma yeterlik düzeyine ilişkin bir araştırma [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Akdeniz University. [Google Scholar]
  41. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  42. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty‐first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310464648 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design & evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill. [Google Scholar]
  44. Gao, T., Chai, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). A review of knowledge management about theoretical conception and designing approaches. International Journal of Crowd Science, 2(1), 42-51. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCS-08-2017-0023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Glines-Kotecki, P. A. (2011). Building organizational capability: A study of knowledge management practices, reasons, and results [Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University. [Google Scholar]
  46. Golden, M. (2004). Technology's potential, promise for enhancing student learning. The Journal of Technological Horizons In Education, 31(12), 42-44. [Google Scholar]
  47. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2010). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analysing and understanding data. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gültekin, F. (2013). Ortaöğretim yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği-öz-yeterlik algıları [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Marmara University. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management's social dimension: Lessons from nucorsteel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-81. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hair, Jr. J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hayytov, D. (2013). Eğitim yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği yeterlik algıları ile öğretmenlerin teknolojiye yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişki [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi University. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hemmati, M. (2017). The relationship between information literacy and knowledge management among students and faculty members of Shiraz University. International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, 7(2), 372-377. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2015). Eğitim yönetimi-teori, araştırma ve uygulama. (S. Turan, Translation editor). Nobel Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  55. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700411 [Google Scholar]
  56. Huguet, A., Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. (2014). Building teachers' data - use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(52), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n52.2014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. İbili, H., & Özbaş, M. (2022). Investigating the effects of environmental factors upon the technological leadership competencies of school administrators. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(4), 1376-1392. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2022.470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the ‘data-driven’ mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. The Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2007.00099.x  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Irmak, M. (2015). İlkokul ve ortaokul öğretmenlerinin, yöneticilerinin “teknoloji liderliği” düzeylerine ilişkin algıları [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University. [Google Scholar]
  60. ISTE (2002). NETS for administrators 2002. http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForAdministrators/2002Standards/NETS_for_Admin istrators_2002_Standards.htm, 10/03/2022 tarihinde alındı. [Google Scholar]
  61. Johnson, T. (2015). Professional development effects on teachers' perceptions in analysing and using student data [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instruction alim provement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496-520. https://doi.org/10.1086/505057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Kianto, A., Vanhala, M., & Heilmann, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on job satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 621-636. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.  [Google Scholar]
  65. Kline, R. B. (2013). Assessing statistical a spects of test fairness with structural equation modelling. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(2-3), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.767624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  66. Lai, M., & McNaughton, S. (2016). The impact of data use professional development on student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 434-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.005  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Mandinach, E. (2012). A perfect time for data use: using data-driven decision-making to in form practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.011  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Mandinach, E. B., & Schildkamp, K. (2021). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  70. Mandinach, E. B., Honey, M., & Light, D. (2006). A theoretical framework for data-driven decision making. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.  [Google Scholar]
  71. Mandinach, E., & Gummer, E. (2013). A systemic view of implementing data literacy in educator preparation. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12459803 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  72. Marsh, D. D. (1992). Enhancing instructional leadership: Lessons from the California school leadership academy. Education and Urban Society, 24(3), 386-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124592024003006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  73. Marsh, J., Bertrand, M., & Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alterin structional practice: the mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-40. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mathews, C. V. F. (2002). Principals and data-drivendecision-making [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Virginia University. [Google Scholar]
  75. McCray, M. (2014). Data driven decision-making and principals’ perceptions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Mississippi State University. [Google Scholar]
  76. McLeod S., & Richardson, J. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 216-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100204 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. [Google Scholar]
  78. MEB (2012). Eğitimde FATİH Projesi web sayfası. http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/about.html adresinden erişilmiştir.  [Google Scholar]
  79. MEB (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. 2023_Eğitim Vizyonu.pdf (gmka.gov.tr) adresinden erişilmiştir.  [Google Scholar]
  80. Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., & Murray, A. (2006). Knowledge management and information technology: can theywork in perfect harmony? Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610670885 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  81. Ng, W. L. (2008). Transformational leadership and the integration of information and communications technology into teaching. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(1),   1-14. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v17i1.346 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  82. Ololube, N. P., Kpolovie, P. J., & Makewa, L. N. (2015). Handbook of research on enhancing teacher education with advanced instructional technologies. Information Science Reference. [Google Scholar]
  83. Özdemir, A. (2019). Öğretmen ve müdür algılarına göre okul müdürlerinin değişim yönetimi yeterlikleri ve liderlik stilleri [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University. [Google Scholar]
  84. Özgözgü, S. (2015). Eğitim örgütlerinde yöneticilerin liderlik davranışları, bilgi yönetimi ve örgüt kültürü ilişkisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ege University. [Google Scholar]
  85. Özsarıkamış, S. (2009). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin bilgi yönetimi yeterlikleri [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Abant İzzet Baysal University. [Google Scholar]
  86. Palacios, D., Gil, I., & Garrigos, F. (2009). The impact of knowledge management on innovation and entrepreneurship in the biotechnology and telecommunications industries. Small Business Economics, 32(3), 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9146-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  87. Park, V., & Datnow,  (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430903162541 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  88. Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). A bility grouping and differentiate dinstruction in an era of data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123, 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1086/689930 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  89. Petersen, J. L. (2007). Learning facts: The brave new world of data-informed instruction. Education Next, 7(1), 36-42. [Google Scholar]
  90. Petko, D., Prasse, D., & Cantieni, A. (2018). The interplay of school readiness and teacher readiness for educational technology integration: A structural equation model. Computers in the Schools, 35(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1428007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  91. Petrides, L. A., & Modine, T. R. (2003, March). Knowledge management in education: Defining the landscape (Monograph). Half Moon Bay, CA: Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education. [Google Scholar]
  92. Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Pearson [Google Scholar]
  93. Sakarya, M. (2006). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin bilgi yönetimindeki yeterlikleri [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Selçuk University. [Google Scholar]
  94. Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, whatpurposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 482-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  95. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering databased decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  96. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  97. Şimşek, M. Ş. (1999). Yönetim ve organizasyon. Nobel Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  98. Singh, S. K. (2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management: A study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884219 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  99. Slavit, D., Nelson, T., & Deuel, A. (2013). Teacher groups’ conceptions and uses of student-learning data. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112445517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  100. Srivastava, A. V., & Joshi, Y. (2018). Examiningthe role of technology leadership on knowledge sharing behaviour. International Journal of Knowledge Management 14(4):13-29. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJKM.2018100102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  101. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sun, J., Johnsın, B., & Przybylski, R. (2016). Leading with data: An increasingly important feature of school leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration, 44(3), 93-128. [Google Scholar]
  103. Suppiah, V., & Sandhu, M. S. (2011). Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462-477. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137439 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  104. Swan, G. (2009). Tools for data-driven decision making in teacher education: Designing a portal to conduct field observation inquiry. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 107-113. [Google Scholar]
  105. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariatestatistics. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  106. Taimalu, M., & Luik, P. (2019). The impact of beliefs and knowledge on the integration of technology among teacher educators: A path analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  107. Töremen, F., & Kolay, Y. (2003). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin sahip olması gereken yeterlikler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 160. [Google Scholar]
  108. Turan, S. (2020). COVID-19 sürecinde okul müdürlerinin teknolojik liderliği. Milli Eğitim, 49(1), 175-199. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.788133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  109. Ulukaya, F. (2015). Okul yöneticilerinin teknoloji liderliği öz-yeterlikleri ile eğitim öğretim işlerini gerçekleştirme düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki (Tokat ili örneği) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Gazi Osman Paşa University. [Google Scholar]
  110. Wu, P. (2009). Do were ally understand what we are talking about? A study examining the data literacy capacities and needs of school leaders [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California. [Google Scholar]
  111. Yavuz, S., & Coşkun, E. A. (2008). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin eğitimde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin tutum ve düşünceleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(34), 276-286. [Google Scholar]
  112. Young, C., McNamara, G., Brown, M., & O’Hara, J. (2018). Adopting and adapting: School leaders in the age of data-informed decision making. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(2), 133-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-018-9278-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Vol. 18 (1)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 1

March 2023

All Manuscript

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

Copyright © 2025 Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.