رابطه سواد دیجیتال و رهبری تحول آفرین با توسعه حرفه ای معلمان نقش میانجی خودکارآمدی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، مدرس دانشگاه فرهنگیان، پردیس شهید رجایی ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.

3 عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه فرهنگیان، پردیس شهید رجایی ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه و هدف: پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی رابطه سواد دیجیتال و رهبری تحول‌آفرین با توسعه حرفه‌ای معلمان با نقش میانجی خودکارآمدی انجام شد.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: این مطالعه از نظر هدف، کاربردی و از نظر روش، توصیفی از نوع همبستگی و مبتنی بر مدل معادلات ساختاری می‌باشد. جامعه آماری پژوهش، شامل تمامی معلمان مدارس دولتی شهر سیلوانا در سال تحصیلی 1401- 1402 بود که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری تصادفی طبقه‌ای تعداد 256 نفر براساس جدول مورگان به عنوان نمونه آماری جهت مطالعه انتخاب شدند. برای گردآوری داده‌ها از چهار پرسشنامه استاندارد رهبری تحول‌آفرین باس و آوولیو (۲۰۰۰)، خودکارآمدی شانن و موران (۲۰۰۲)، توسعه حرفه‌ای گودالی (۲۰۱۶) و سواد دیجیتال دانشگاه اوپن (۲۰۱۲) که تحت عنوان چک لیست ارزیابی سواد دیجیتال توسط دانشگاه اوپن ارائه شده بود، استفاده شد. داده‌های جمع‌آوری شده با استفاده از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون و مدل معادلات ساختاری در نرم افزارهای SPSS 24 و LISREL 8.8 تحلیل شدند.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌ها نشان داد اثر مستقیم سواد دیجیتال بر توسعه حرفه‌ای (56/0) و بر خودکارآمدی (49/0)، مثبت و معنی‌دار می‌باشد. اثر مستقیم رهبری تحول‌آفرین بر توسعه حرفه‌ای (63/0) و  بر خودکارآمدی (31/0)، مثبت و معنی‌دار می‌باشد. همچنین نتایج پژوهش، اثر غیرمستقیم و معنادار رهبری تحول‌آفرین (۱۱/۰) و سواد دیجیتال (۱۸/۰) بر توسعه حرفه‌ای معلمان را از طریق خودکارآمدی نشان داد.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان داد که مدیران مدارس با بهره‌گیری از سبک رهبری تحول‌آفرین و فراهم کردن زمینه‌ لازم برای فراگیری دانش دیجیتال می توانند نقش تعیین کننده ای در جهت افزایش خودکارآمدی و توسعه حرفه ای معلمان داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The relationship between Digital Literacy and Transformational Leadership with Teachers Professional Development, the mediating role of Self-Efficacy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Esmaeili 1
  • Mehdi Abdolahzadeh 2
  • Jafar Rajabzadeh 3
1 M.A in Educational Management, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University. Urmia. Iran.
2 PhD student in educational management, Lecturer, Farhangian University, Shahid Rajaei Campus, Urmia, Iran.
3 Faculty member of Farhangian University, Shahid Rajaei Campus, Urmia, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Objective: The present study was conducted with the aim of investigating the relationship between digital literacy and transformational leadership with the professional development of teachers with the mediating role of self-efficacy.
research methodology: This study is practical in terms of purpose and and descriptive-correlational in terms of method and based on structural equations. The statistical population included all the Public School teachers of Silvana city in the academic year of 2022-2023, using stratified random sampling method, 256 people were selected as a statistical sample for the study based on Morgan's table. To collect data from four standard questionnaires of transformational leadership Bass & Avolio (2000), self-efficacy Schannen & Moran (2002), professional development Godali (2016) and digital literacy (Open University 2012), which was provided by the Open University under the title of Digital Literacy Assessment Checklist was used. The collected data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and structural equation model by SPSS 24 and LISREL 8.8 software.
Findings: The findings showed that the direct effect of digital literacy on professional development (0.56) and on self-efficacy (0.49) is positive and significant. The direct effect of transformational leadership on professional development (0.63) and on self-efficacy (0.31) is positive and significant. Also, the research results showed the indirect and significant effect of transformational leadership (0.11) and digital literacy (0.18) on teachers' professional development through self-efficacy.
Conclusion: The results showed that School principals can play a decisive role in increasing the self-efficacy and professional development of teachers by taking advantage of the transformational leadership style and providing the necessary background for acquiring digital knowledge.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • digital literacy
  • transformational leadership
  • professional development
  • self-efficacy
Aazami, M. (2020). Analysis of Dimensions and Components Affecting the Commercialization of Knowledge Base Products in the Market. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 11(42), 141-154. [in Persian]. [DOI: 20.1001.1.22286853.1399.11.42.9.0]
Achi, A., Salinesi, C., & Viscusi, G. (2016). Innovation capacity and the role of information systems: a qualitative study. Journal of Management Research and Analysis, 3(4), 333–360. [DOI: 10.1080/23270012.2016.1239228]
Ahmad, S., Miskon, S., Alabdan, R., & Tlili, I. (2020). Towards sustainable textile and apparel industry: exploring the role of business intelligence systems in the era of industry 4.0. Sustainability, 12(7), e2632. [DOI: 10.3390/su12072632]
Alexander, A. T., & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: a competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 38–49. [DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.013]
Akbari, B., Kazazi, A., Manteghi, M., & Amiri, M. (2016). Presenting a Model for Successing in the Iranian Defense Technomart. Journal of Improvement Management, 10(1), 33-54. [in Persian] [https://www.behboodmodiriat.ir/article_42893.html]
Baldini, N. (2010). Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from Italy. Technovation, 30, 109–116. [DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.007]
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. The journal of technology transfer, 31, 175-188. [DOI: 10.1007/s10961-005-5029-z]
Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. (2002). Technology Transfer in United States Universities: A Survey and Statistical Analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 199–232.  [DOI: 10.1007/s00191-002-0105-0]
Chaudhry, K., & Dhingra, S. (2021). Modeling the critical success factors for business intelligence implementation: an ISM approach. International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, 12(2), 1–21. [DOI: 10.4018/IJBIR.20210701.oa3]
Chesbrough, H. (2020). To recover faster from COVID-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 410–413. [DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.04.010]
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77. [DOI: 10.1504/IJTG.2004.004551]
Guan, J. C., Mok, C. K., Yam, R. C. M., Chin, K. S., Pun, K. F. (2006). Technology transfer and innovation performance: evidence from Chinese firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 73(6), 666–678. [DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2005.05.009]
Hernández-Dionis, P., Pérez-Jorge, D., Curbelo-González, O., & Alegre de la Rosa, O. M. (2022). The coordinator of information and communication technologies: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), e42. [DOI: 10.3390/joitmc8010042]
Hmoud, H., Al-Adwan, A. S., Horani, O., Yaseen, H., & Al Zoubi, J. Z. (2023). Factors influencing business intelligence adoption by higher education institutions. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(3), e100111. [DOI: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100111]
Kamali, S. A., & Mohammadpour, M. (2014). An Analysis of the Role of Techno-Market in Creating and Strengthening Innovation in Organizations. Innovation Management Journal2(4), 27-52. [in Persian] [https://www.nowavari.ir/article_14666_en.html]
Kobicheva, A., Baranova, T., & Tokareva, E. (2020). The development of an interaction mechanism between universities and other innovation system actors: Its influence on university innovation activity effectiveness. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), e109. [DOI: 10.3390/joitmc6040109]
Liu, H., & Jiang, Y. (2001). Technology transfer from higher education institutions to industry in China: nature and implications. Technovation, 21(3), 175-188. [DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00045-6]
Liu, Z., & Stephens, V. (2019). Exploring innovation ecosystem from the perspective of sustainability: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), e48. [DOI: 10.3390/joitmc5030048]
Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology Transfer and Universities’spin-out Atrategies. Small Business Economics. 20, 185–200. [DOI: 10.1023/A:1022220216972]
Lockett A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, Capabilities, Risk Capital and the Creation of University Spin-Out Companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.006]
Markman, G., Phan. Balkin, D., & Gianiodis, P. (2005). Innovation speed: Transferring University Technology to Market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.007]
Mashayekh, M., Hamedinasab, S., Rasrtegar, A., & Talebi, S. (2020). Investigating the Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Enthusiasm in the Relationship between Academic Support and Students' virtual Entrepreneurship. Applied Educational Leadership1(2), 55-68. [in Persian] [https://www.behboodmodiriat.ir/article_42893.html?lang=en]
Miezaeifar, D. (2023). The mediating role of inspiration in the relationship betwee entrepreneurship education (Extracurricular, Curriculum) on the entrepreneurial mindset of students. Applied Educational Leadership4(4), 33-50. [in Persian] [DOI: 10.22098/ael.2023.13819.1354]
Oliver, A. L. & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implication for studying interorganizational networks, International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(4), 76–103. [DOI: 10.1080/00208825.1997.11656719]
O’Shea, R., Allen, T., & Chevalier, A. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Technology Transfer, and Spin-Off Performance of U.S. Universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011]
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007]
Rasmussen, E., & Jarl, B. O. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39, 602–612. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002]
Santoro, M., & Gopalakrishnan S. (2000). The institutionalization of knowledge transfer activities within industry-university collaborative ventures. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17, 299–319. [DOI: 10.1016/S0923-4748(00)00027-8]
Samadi, S., Kolahdooz, A., & Hoseini, S. R. (2007). Technomart, the Missing Link in Knowledg-based Economy. Roshd -e- Fanavari, 9(3), 1-10. [in Persian] [http://www.roshdefanavari.ir/en/Article/20249/FullText]
Scholten, E. (2006). The Early Growth of Academic Spin-Offs (Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University).
Shehadeh, M., Almohtaseb, A., Aldehayyat, J., & Abu-AlSondos, I. A. (2023). Digital transformation and competitive advantage in the service sector: a moderatedmediation model. Sustainability, 15(3), 2077. [DOI: 10.3390/su15032077]
Singh, A. (2019). Challenges in developing university-industry relationship: Quantitative evidence from higher education institutions in the UAE. Emerald Open Research, 1(10), 10. [DOI: 10.12688/emeraldopenres.12891.1]
Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., Chapple, W., & Lockett, A. (2008). Assessing the relative performance of university technology transfer in the US and UK: a stochastic distance function approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17, 719–731. [DOI: 10.1080/10438590701785769]
Sutopo, W., Astuti, R. W., & Suryandari, R. T. (2019). Accelerating a technology commercialization; with a discussion on the relation between technology transfer efficiency and open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 95-123. [DOI: 10.3390/joitmc5040095]
Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 343–363. [DOI: 10.1007/s10961-008-9097-8]
Tayebi, S. K., & Zamani, Z. (2023). Higher education and improvement of business environment: a case study of Iran and the selected Asian countries. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 23(1), 95-113. [in Persian] [https://journal.irphe.ac.ir/article_702919_en.html?lang=fa]
Vohara, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical Junctures in the Development of University High-Tech Spinout Companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175. [DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00107-0]
Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41, 62-74. [DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.003]
Yun, J. J., Zhao, X., Jung, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2020). The culture for Open Innovation dynamics. Sustainability, 12, e5076. [DOI: 10.3390/su12125076]
Yusuf, S. (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167-1174. [DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.011]