TEACHERS’ COMPETENCES IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

 

   Teachers’ Competences in Innovation Management

 

DR.MEHMET BİREKUL*

 

 ABSTARCT

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of teachers in the province has reached the following conclusions on innovation management in Konya. Efficacy beliefs of teachers in the innovation management research results show significant differences by gender. Input management based on the type of school they work the teachers, there is a significant difference in organizational culture and structure size. Organizational culture and structure according to the seniority of the teachers, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. According to analysis by age it shows that the variable was not statistically significant. Innovation strategies according to their seniority teachers in the school organizational culture and structure, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. There was no significant difference in the number of teachers by students. Teachers in size according to the number of teachers in school management inputs are significant differences.

Keywords: Innovation, Innovation Management, Teacher

Özet

Konya ilinde öğretmenlerin yenilik yönetimine ilişkin yeterlik inançlarını belirlemeyi amaçlayan bu araştırmada şu sonuçlara ulaşılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda öğretmenlerin yenilik yönetimine ilişkin yeterlik inançları cinsiyete göre anlamlı bir farklılık göstermemektedir. Öğretmenlerin eğitim durumlarına göre girdi yönetimi, örgütsel kültür ve yapı, proje yönetimi boyutlarında anlamlı bir farklılık vardır. Öğretmenlerin çalıştıkları okul türlerine göre girdi yönetimi, örgütsel kültür ve yapı boyutlarında anlamlı bir farklılık vardır. Öğretmenlerin mesleki kıdemlerine göre örgütsel kültür ve yapı, proje yönetimi boyutlarında anlamlı bir farklılık vardır. Analiz sonuçlara göre yaş değişkenine göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmadığı görülmektedir. Öğretmenlerin okuldaki kıdemlerine göre yenilik stratejisi örgütsel kültür ve yapı, proje yönetimi boyutlarında anlamlı bir farklılık vardır. Öğretmenlerin öğrenci sayılarına göre anlamlı bir farklılık yoktur. Öğretmenlerin okullarındaki öğretmen sayılarına göre girdi yönetimi boyutunda anlamlı bir farklılık vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yenilik, Yenilik Yönetimi, Öğretmen

*Dr.Mehmet Birekul, PhD, Educational Sciences

Introduction

Innovation (innovation) Latin ‘innovatus’ derived from the origin of the word and as “social, cultural and the introduction of new methods in the regulatory environment” means (Elçi 2014: 4). Webster’s dictionary, innovation is “new and different result” defines (Tekin vd, 2003: 138). Turkish in the “innovation,” “renovation” is met with such words. A performance dimension that innovation can be used in two ways in the general sense. First, to respond to the organizational system of the R & D group or the needs of the age of the individuals making scientific breakthroughs in type, the implementation of new technology and the second, or the ones are used under the new conditions of the constraints of the technology for removing an efficient economic outcomes (Gülcü vd., 2004 : 71). Innovation management of internal and external business environment as well as the structure of disordered and complex to adapt to changes in order to perform administrative activities are under the control activities in motion a process of passing the innovation (Drucker, 2003: 120). Innovation management of all areas of the organization, directions, and covers the continuous and uninterrupted working interest in the organization, is a process that requires attention and effort (Bülbül, 2012: 159). As with any system, the education system also needs to change and innovation. Educational institutions are very large corporate service area. All layers and sections that make up the community stands to receive services from educational institutions.

Therefore, operability of training and qualification are in effect to provide services to the entire community. The broad perspective of social change innovation in education is the best approach to changing the attitudes of specific individuals (Göl and Bülbül, 2012: 99). When analyzing the contribution and innovation for innovation’s importance to education and training, to be addressed by a broad perspective of innovation will therefore be more efficient (Shapiro vd., 2007: 5). Schools, allowing for innovative thinkers and supporting them, the initiatives outside the mold and encourages the sharing of knowledge is innovative because of its flexible structure and process enough to allow generated Göl and Bülbül, 2012: 99).

The concept of innovation in education, given that the different education systems tried throughout the years, to say that patients with a starting date of training will not be wrong. In this respect, in particular opinions of teachers it is of great importance to innovation management.

 

Method

Model of research in this chapter; population and sampling, data collection methods, data collection tools and features, the collection of research data and analysis took place elucidations province.

 

Research Model

Konya Karatay, Meram and is a research survey model based on this research aimed to determine their views on the quantitative data relating to the efficacy of the teachers in the Selçuk district management innovation. Scan models that are currently or have in the past, which is aiming to describe the shape of a case study approach. Events of the research, individual or object, as in its attempt to define conditions and the (Karasar, 2005: 77).

 

Population and sample

Konya Karatay, Meram and Seljuk district (α = 3923) consists of teachers. Research was conducted on randomly selected samples. The power of the universe can represent the group on the sample of the research was to try to identify and simple random sampling technique was used. Including sampling Karatay Konya Meram and Seljuk working in the district (α = 3923), this universe consisting of teachers; (n = 350), 0.05 of a sample group will consist of teachers is considered significant and may represent the tolerance level of 5% (Balcı, 2004: 95).

Characteristics of the Research Sample

Survey of 350 teachers from the results obtained in the current questionnaire. Statistics on the demographics of this survey are included in the table below.

44.6% of the teachers, as shown in Table 1 below, women constitute 55.4% male teachers. Teachers education license of 63.1%, 33.4% and 3.4% of the graduate are the other teachers.

8.3% of pre-school type of school they work the teachers, 24.3% of primary schools, high schools constitute 33.1% of the secondary school and 34.3%.

Table 1. Table of Frequency Distribution of Teachers

Teacher	Frequency (f)	Percent (%)
Gender
Female	156	44,6
Male	194	55,4
Education
Under Graduate	221	63,1
Graduate	117	33,4
Other	12	3,4
School Type
Pre school	29	8,3
Primary school	85	24,3
Secondary School	116	33,1
High School	120	34,3
Seniority
0-5 years	72	20,6
6-10 Years	119	34,0
11-15 Years	73	20,9
16-20 Years	49	14,0
21 Year and over	37	10,6
Age
20-30 age	64	18,3
31-40 age	183	52,3
41-50 age	82	23,4
Age 51 and Over	21	6,0
Seniority in School
0-5 Years	210	60,0
6-10 Years	106	30,3
11 Years and Over	34	9,7
Number of Students in School
Betweeen 1-500	98	28,0
Betweeen 501-1000	166	47,4
1001 and Over	86	24,6
Number of Teachers in School
Between 1-30	70	20,0
Between 31-50	130	37,1
51 and Over	150	42,9
Total	350	100 (%)

 

20.6% of the seniority of teachers 0-5 years, 6-10 years of 34.0%, 20.9% of 11-15 years, 16-20 years and 10% to 14.0% and 6 to 21 years and above constitutes termination. 18.3% of teachers aged 20-30 years, 52.3% of 31-40 years, 41-50 constitute 23.4% and 6.0% are 51 years of age and older. 60.0% of the seniority of the teachers at school 0-5 years, 6-10 years and 30.3% of the 9.7% of those 11 years and above seniority. 28.0% of the number of students in schools where they worked between teachers 1-500, consists of students from the 47.4% and 24.6% in 1001 and over 501-1000. 20.0% of the number of teachers in the schools where they work between 1-30 teachers, between 42.9% and 37.1% of 31-50 constitute 51 and older teachers.

 

Data Collection Tool

Examined in order to benefit in the research and literature on the subject related theses, books, articles and other resources are scanned. References to all of the specified resource has been reached by researchers. The scale of teacher efficacy beliefs related to innovation management Bülbül (2011) was developed by. Name of the scale consists of 32 questions and four dimensions. AFA and CFA analysis was conducted by researchers applied before scale. According to the exploratory factor analysis, factor analysis may not be suitable for all data structures.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin for suitability for factor analysis of the data (KMO and Bartlett’s Tests) testing (KMO = 888, sigma = 000). KMO’s, and the Bartlett test were significantly higher than 60. Common factor variance (communalities) examined the tables, n = the value obtained in the analysis of 32 articles grouped under four factors that seem to be greater than 1.

This is a 68.9% variance explained that four factors for scale. The partners identified four factors related to material variances (communalities) are observed to vary between 0.549 and 0.818 while. Accordingly, the combination of four factors emerged as important factors in the analysis, it is seen that explains the majority of the total variance and the variance of the scale substance.

Article 32 of the matrix component of this general statement is observed to be between 0.482 and 824 of the first factor load values. This finding indicates that there is a general scale factor.

Table 2. Relating to Innovation Management Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs Scale (DFA)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Validity and Reliability Analysis Results

 

Item number	Variance of Common factors		Load Factor Values	After rotation Load Values				Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
				GYY	YS	OKY	PY
1	,552	0,482		,691				,941
2	,633	0,497		,713				,941
3	,605	0,537		,748				,941
4	,549	0,538		,693				,942
5	,665	0,559		,733				,941
6	,650	0,556			,728			,940
7	,732	0,566			,716			,940
8	,692	0,622			,787			,941
9	,703	0,637			,760			,941
10	,783	0,642			,796			,941
11	,755	0,658			,778			,941
12	,705	0,659				,753		,941
13	,783	0,679				,842		,942
14	,737	0,681				,799		,941
15	,663	0,686				,743		,941
16	,818	0,688				,845		,941
17	,656	0,703				,725		,941
18	,671	0,709					,789	,940
19	,681	0,718					,810	,939
20	,603	0,719					,747	,939
21	,735	0,725					,834	,939
22	,757	0,725					,850	,939
23	0,671	0,73					,807	,940
24	0,767	0,748					,855	,939
25	0,667	0,755					,806	,939
26	0,645	0,759					,794	,939
27	0,668	0,762					,792	,939
28	0,737	0,773					,845	,939
29	0,654	0,792					,804	,940
30	0,606	0,802					,777	,940
31	0,760	0,812					,850	,938
32	,754	0,824					,837	,938
Explained Variance Total=% 68,9 GYY=% 31,85 YS=%14,40 OKY=% 13,16 PY=% 9,51				Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)=,888 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square=9408,653 df=496 Sig=,000				Cronbach’s Alfa=,942 (32 item) GYY=,825 (5 item) YS=,920 (6 item)OKY=,925 (6 item) PY=,966 (15 item)

 

36.62% of the variance being caused by the first factor in the pre-rotation is another evidence of the existence of a common factor.

However, the care component of the four important factors to be more easily identified (rotated component matrix) is analyzed; Input Management 1-5 questions (GY), innovation strategy 6-11 questions (ANN), organizational culture and structure 12-17 questions (OKYAR) and project management 18-32 questions (PM), and it seems that they have high load values ​​at four factors .

Reliability, consistency between the responses of individuals defined as the test substance. Reliability, functionality that you want to measure the true extent of the test is related to the measure.

The correlation coefficient is calculated as a test of reliability (r) is used for the real extent of individual differences in order to interpret their test scores and how much is due to error factors. Efficacy beliefs of teachers and administrators to innovation management scale reliability coefficient (r =, 942) came in. Individuals rate of 94.2% of the observed differences in test scores between the rate of 5.8% could be said to reflect a real difference in error. The dimensions of the scale reliability coefficients in Table 2 are located. Kuder Richardson scale-20 (K-20) and Cronbach’s alpha (α) is generally considered sufficient reliability to the reliability of the results of the test scores of 70 and higher being. After these confirmatory factor analysis by researchers again (DFE) analysis was performed. P value is significant as shown in Table 3. \ df value is between 0 and 2 are a good fit. However, between 0 and 5 is acceptable adaptation value. Analysis results (\ df = 4.706) value is the value of acceptable compliance.

Table 3. Efficacy Beliefs Scale Regarding Teacher DFA Compliance Index of Innovation Management Analysis Results

 

Model		df	P	\df	GFI	SRMR	CFI	RMSEA
Independent Factors	2155,250	458	,000	4,70	,73	,06	,82	,10

 

The index is based on harmony Ruins (GFI) is a good fit value between 95 and 1.0. However, the values ​​from 90 to 95 are the values ​​fit is acceptable. The result of the analysis (GFI = 73) is a successful model and covariance for enough variables in the observed mean is calculated.

SRM is based on the remains still fit index values ​​between 0 and 05 is the best fit value. However, it is in compliance with acceptable values ​​between 05 and 10. The result of the analysis (SRM = 06) is a model for successful results. Independent model based on conformity index (CFI) with 1.0 to 97 is a good fit. However, between 95 and 97 values ​​are the values ​​of compliance is acceptable. It shows an increase of 1 closer to goodness. The result of the analysis (CFI = 82) is a model for successful results. Root mean square error of approximately (RMSEA) with 0, 05 is a good fit between. However, with 05 shows in 10 harmony between acceptable values. The result of the analysis (RMSEA = 10) is a successful outcome for the model.

 

Data Solution

Data collected through the scale, SPSS 22.0 for Windows software package and data were recorded and analyzed.

The difference between the two unbound sample mean to test whether significant “t test” is used (Büyüköztürk, 2005: 39).

Teacher of the “gender” t test was used to determine the difference.

One-way ANOVA for independent samples compared to more than two groups (ANOVA) are analyzed using. To understand that in many comparison tests between which groups the differences in conditions where there is a significant difference (post hoc test) was used LSD.

Teachers’ level of education, type of school, seniority, age, school employee, the number of students and number of teachers “Anova test was used to determine if na is a significant difference (Büyüköztürk, 2005: 48).

The correlation coefficient is used to interpret the find and the amount of correlation between two variables (r = -, with 30, 30 low correlation, r = -, 31 -, 69 moderate correlation, r = – 70 to – 1,0 high correlation) (Büyüköztürk, 2005: 32)  Regression analysis, two or more variables from one dependent variable relationship between them, with the distinction other independent variables describes the process to be explained by a mathematical equation of the relation between (Büyüköztürk, 2005: 91).  Significance of the research p <0.05 was taken as. The findings obtained from the analysis results were reviewed by converting the table according to the research question.

 

 

 

Results and Discussions

In this section, located on the efficacy of teachers in innovation management views on the findings and interpretations resulting from the analysis of data obtained through the survey.

. Opinions of teachers’ beliefs about the competency of innovation management; gender, education level, school type, seniority, age, school employee, the differences were analyzed according to whether or not the number of students and number of teachers.

Proficiency beliefs according to gender relating Innovation Management by Teachers Variable Results and Comments

Efficacy beliefs of teachers about innovation management are grouped according to gender and “two independent samples t-test” was applied. According to the gender variable t-test results in Table 4 it is located. The average teacher efficacy of innovation management is often close together.

Table 4. Table Test results according to gender t

Dimensions	Variable	N		ss	sd	t	p
Input Management	Female	156	3,0513	,71152	348	,749	,454
	Male	194	3,1062	,65694
Strategy of Innovation	Female	156	3,2468	,68178		,609	,543
	Male	194	3,2907	,66193
Organizational Culture and Structure	Female	156	3,2295	,66480		,587	,557
	Male	194	3,2716	,66960
Project Management	Female	156	3,1474	,58093		,874	,383
	Male	194	3,2026	,59178

* p <0.05 significance level statistically significant relationship

It is observed that no statistically significant difference between the averages. This analysis revealed regarding the significance of the t-value (p values) is greater than 5% of the degree shows that there’s a significant difference. Efficacy beliefs of teachers about innovation management is no significant difference by gender. In other words; The views of male and female teachers in the same direction in innovation management skills.

In justification, the qualifications of teachers in schools related to management innovation, to achieve the necessary external knowledge and innovation for all teachers in-service seminars, training etc. trifle understand the concept of innovation by participating in activities as a volunteer, we can tell the direction to be channeled to support the work of the school environment for the school’s innovation efforts.

 

Education Relating to Religion Teacher Qualifications relating to the Innovation Management Based on Variable Results and Comments

Efficacy beliefs regarding the management of teacher education innovation average according to state variables are presented in Table 5. When examining the average education level of teachers it is seen that there are differences between the groups.

Table 5. Average by Educational Status Variable

Dimensions	Variable	N		SS
Input Management	Undergraduate	221	3,03	0,63
	Graduate	117	3,14	0,75
	Other	12	3,52	0,82
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of Innovation	Undergraduate	221	3,22	0,64
	Graduate	117	3,35	0,71
	Other	12	3,42	0,81
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational Culture and Structure	Undergraduate	221	3,19	0,64
	Graduate	117	3,34	0,69
	Other	12	3,54	0,74
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	Undergraduate	221	3,11	0,57
	Graduate	117	3,27	0,61
	Other	12	3,46	0,55
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

However, education is one way analysis of variance of the difference between the mean of variables in terms of teachers to determine whether statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

Table 6 in terms of educational attainment variable is located means the difference between the average levels of teacher. The difference between the average input management based on these results (F = 523), organizational culture and structure (F = 3.259), project management (4,247) appear to be statistically significant.

According to the teachers’ input management education, organizational culture and structure, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, the teachers, the education variable input management, organizational culture and structure are different line of sight project management.

Table 6. Educational Attainment by Anova Table Variable Results

Dimensions	Source of variation	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Sum of squares	F	p	Difference
Input Management	Grup Arası	3,283	2	1,642	3,589	,029*	1,2
	Grup İçi	158,740	347	,457
	Toplam	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Grup Arası	1,618	2	,809	1,809	,165	–
	Grup İçi	155,161	347	,447
	Toplam	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Grup Arası	2,861	2	1,431	3,259	,040*	1,2
	Grup İçi	152,331	347	,439
	Toplam	155,192	349
Project Management	Between groups	2,871	2	1,435	4,247	,015*	1,2
	In group	117,290	347	,338
	Total	120,161	349

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

difference made to understand that due to the post hoc (LSD) input management in testing, organizational culture and structure, project management graduate degree subscales teachers can be said that with a graduate degree due to the teacher.

To input the management of teachers of private institutions around the school (professional associations, NGOs, etc.) try  to find support for the study of innovation in the school, organizational culture and structure is the need to emphasize the importance of welded innovative approach that works in schools, project management, one on the innovation management at school decisions taken by consensus and the adoption of a common understanding that it should be more sensitive and graduated top of this license and for reasons such as language and we can also say that should provide a common consensus. Even the emergence of differences of opinion in all three of these four dimensions of innovation management and will damage the school’s permanent or conciliatory approach to innovation to reach a solution.

Type of School Results and Comments Regarding Religion Teacher Qualifications relating to the Innovation Management by variable

The average variable according to the type of school the teachers efficacy beliefs related to innovation management are shown in Table 7. The average of the teacher is seen that there are differences between types of school groups analyzed.

Table 7. Average by School Type Variable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions	Variable	N		SS
Input Management	Pre school	29	3,11	0,76
	Primary School	85	2,95	0,58
	Secondary School	116	3,03	0,68
	High School	120	3,22	0,71
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of Innovation	Pre school	29	3,36	0,70
	Primary School	85	3,20	0,58
	Secondary School	116	3,21	0,65
	High School	120	3,36	0,74
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational Culture and Structure	Pre school	29	3,26	0,75
	Primary School	85	3,09	0,64
	Secondary School	116	3,21	0,58
	High School	120	3,41	0,71
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	Pre school	29	3,28	0,74
	Primary School	85	3,06	0,47
	Secondary School	116	3,14	0,51
	High School	120	3,27	0,67
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

 

However, one-way analysis of variance of the difference between the mean of teachers in school types to determine whether statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

Table 8 in terms of the variable type of school is situated meaning of the difference between the average level of teachers. The difference between the average input management based on these results (F = 2.866), organizational culture and structure (F = 4.170) seems to be statistically significant. Input management based on the type of school they work the teachers, there is a significant difference in organizational culture and structure size. In other words, teachers, school types in the input management, organizational culture and structure are different in size line.

Table 8. Anova by School Type Variable Table Results

 

Dimensions	Source of variation	Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input Management	Between group	3,929	3	1,310	2,866	,037*	2-4 3-4
	Within group	158,094	346	,457
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Between group	1,898	3	,633	1,414	,239	–
	Within group	154,880	346	,448
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Between group	5,415	3	1,805	4,170	,006*	2-4 3-4
	Within group	149,777	346	,433
	Total	155,192	349
Project Management	Between group	2,442	3	,814	2,393	,068	–
	Within group	117,719	346	,340
	Total	120,161	349
*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

This difference where you are made to understand that due to the post hoc (LSD) input management in the test, the teacher of high school and primary school teachers in the organizational culture and structure dimensions high school teachers and secondary school teachers can be said to arise from the group. Research shows that the right emotional context-from pre-school to college and reduced sense of ownership. There is a separate class of the class teachers working in primary schools. This class is required of all business and operations of these teachers.

Since junior high school teacher in class branch directory phase and high school stage, there is no class of the entire business and operations of these things that teachers do their job description is subject teachers. Therefore, input management, provision of tools and equipment that can be used in the innovation process; We can say that organizational culture and structure of the school itself and the innovation brought around to experience these problems as reasons for the positive contribution of understanding.

 

Competence relating to the Innovation Management by professional teachers Variable Severance Related to Religion Results and Comments

Efficacy variables based on the average seniority of the teachers related to innovation management are shown in Table 9. The teacher seems to be the average of the differences between the groups analyzed seniority.

Table 9. Average employment termination by the Professional Variable

 

Dimensions	Variable	N		SS
Input management	0-5 Years	72	2,96	0,60
	6-10 Years	119	3,03	0,63
	11-15 Years	73	3,12	0,69
	16-20 Years	49	3,16	0,79
	21 years and over	37	3,32	0,76
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of innovation	0-5 Years	72	3,20	0,66
	6-10 Years	119	3,22	0,66
	11-15 Years	73	3,33	0,68
	16-20 Years	49	3,23	0,71
	21 years and over	37	3,53	0,64
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational culture and Structure Project management	0-5 Years	72	3,09	0,59
	6-10 Years	119	3,23	0,62
	11-15 Years	73	3,30	0,68
	16-20 Years	49	3,29	0,71
	21 years and over	37	3,52	0,79
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	0-5 Years	72	3,07	0,53
	6-10 Years	119	3,10	0,55
	11-15 Years	73	3,25	0,56
	16-20 Years	49	3,26	0,61
	21 years and over	37	3,39	0,74
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

However, the difference between the average career of teachers in terms of seniority variable to determine whether a statistically significant one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. In terms of seniority variables in Table 10, located sense of the difference between the average level of teachers. Organizational culture and structure of the difference between average and based on these results (F = 2.866), project management (F = 2.879) seems to be statistically significant. Organizational culture and structure according to the seniority of the teachers, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, teacher, organizational culture and structure of professional seniority variable, it is different line of sight project management.

Table 10. Anova Results Table by occupational seniority Variable

 

 

 

 

 

Dimensions	Source of variation	Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input Management	Betweeen  Groups	3,880	4	,970	2,116	,078	–
	Within Groups	158,143	345	,458
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Betweeen  Groups	3,495	4	,874	1,967	,099	–
	Within Groups	153,284	345	,444
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Betweeen  Groups	4,992	4	1,248	2,866	,023*	1,5 2-5
	Within Groups	150,200	345	,435
	Total	155,192	349
Project Mangement	Betweeen  Groups	3,882	4	,970	2,879	,023*	1,5 2-5
	Within Groups	116,279	345	,337
	Total	120,161	349

 

This difference made to understand that stem from a post hoc (LSD), organizational culture and structure testing, project management, professional seniority in the lower size 0-5 years seniority with the teacher 6-10 of 21 years and could be said to arise from teachers with them.

In terms of seniority of teachers it is between 0-10 years compared to those with seniority of 21 years in teaching to have less manners and way of life is reflected in the understanding of innovation management.  Learning to innovation and supported and efforts, not supported (according to seniority), of deciding consensus in project management and failure to adopt a common approach, to adapt to environmental innovation in schools and environmentally seen as the integration of a tool, we can say that the reasons such as not be seen because of differences of opinion there.

Age Related to Efficacy Beliefs Regarding the variable of Innovation Management by Results and Comments Teachers

According to the average age of the efficacy variables related to innovation management Teachers are given in Table 11. The average of the teacher is seen that there may be differences between the age groups examined.

Table 11. Average age by Variable

Boyutlar	Variabla	N		SS
Input Management	20-30 age	64	3,00	0,57
	31-40 age	183	3,09	0,67
	41-50 age	82	3,16	0,78
	51 age and over	21	2,92	0,71
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of Innovation	20-30 age	64	3,24	0,65
	31-40 age	183	3,26	0,67
	41-50 age	82	3,32	0,69
	51 age and over	21	3,26	0,72
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational Culture and Structure	20-30 age	64	3,15	0,57
	31-40 age	183	3,26	0,63
	41-50 age	82	3,35	0,78
	51 age and over	21	3,07	0,77
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	20-30 age	64	3,11	0,51
	31-40 age	183	3,16	0,56
	41-50 age	82	3,28	0,69
	51 age and over	21	3,12	0,63
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

 

However, the difference between the average age of teachers in terms of variable one-way analysis of variance to determine whether statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

In terms of the age variable in Table 12, located sense of the difference between the average level of teachers. The difference between these averages is observed that according to the results to be statistically significant. So teachers can say no significant differences according to age.

Table 12. Age Anova Table by Variable Results

Dimensions	Source of variation	Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input Management	Betweeen  Groups	1,517	3	,506	1,090	,353	–
	Within Groups	160,506	346	,464
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Betweeen  Groups	,280	3	,093	,206	,892	–
	Within Groups	156,499	346	,452
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Betweeen  Groups	2,220	3	,740	1,674	,172	–
	Within Groups	152,972	346	,442
	Total	155,192	349
Project Management	Betweeen  Groups	1,201	3	,400	1,164	,323	–
	Within Groups	118,960	346	,344
	Total	120,161	349

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

In other words, the teachers, the views of management innovation in the age variable efficacy in the same direction.

Teachers, creative and meet with the innovative ideas of respect, innovation leading learning and efforts exerted to and to encourage innovation projects they have developed criteria for a common reasons as to develop understanding of how to measure the effectiveness and can say that they are partners in a coordination.

Variables related to employment by the School Teachers’ Qualifications Concerning Faith in Innovation Management Results and Comments

According to the average seniority of the efficacy variables related to innovation in school management of teachers it is given in Table 13. The average seniority of the teacher is seen that there are differences between groups in the schools examined.

Table 13. Average by the school to employment variables

 

Dimensions	Variable	N		SS
Input Management	0-5 Year	210	3,05	0,63
	6-10 year	106	3,10	0,74
	11 Year and over	34	3,22	0,77
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of Innovation	0-5 year	210	3,24	0,65
	6-10 Year	106	3,23	0,67
	11 Year and over	34	3,57	0,71
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational Culture and Structure	0-5 Year and over	210	3,19	0,62
	6-10 Year	106	3,27	0,68
	11 Year and over	34	3,58	0,82
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	0-5 Year	210	3,13	0,54
	6-10 Year	106	3,18	0,60
	11 Year and over	34	3,49	0,72
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

 

However, the difference between the average one-way analysis of variance in terms of seniority of the teachers at the school to determine whether the variable statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

In terms of seniority in the school variables in Table 14, located sense of the difference between the average level of teachers. The difference between the average and innovation strategy based on these results (F = 3.840), organizational culture and structure (F = 5.066), project management (5.723) seems to be statistically significant.

Innovation strategies according to their seniority teachers in the school organizational culture and structure, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, teachers, school innovation strategy in the seniority variable, organizational culture and structure is different according to the comments in project management.

Table 14. Anova by the school to employment Variable Table Results

Dimensions	Source of variation	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input Management	Betweeen  Groups	,958	2	,479	1,032	,358	–
	Within Groups	161,065	347	,464
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Betweeen  Groups	3,395	2	1,697	3,840	,022*	1-3 2-3
	Within Groups	153,384	347	,442
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Betweeen  Groups	4,403	2	2,201	5,066	,007*	1-3 2-3
	Within Groups	150,789	347	,435
	Total	155,192	349
Project management	Betweeen  Groups	3,837	2	1,919	5,723	,004*	1-3 2-3
	Within Groups	116,324	347	,335
	Toplam	120,161	349

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

The difference came from, is made to understand the post hoc (LSD) innovation strategy of testing, organizational culture and structure, project management, the year 6-10 with seniority of 0-5 years in school subscales teacher with 11 years and said to them stems from teachers with seniority in the school .

For failure to bring a positive contribution to the school and the environment in teachers’ innovation strategy, organizational culture and structure innovative ideas to adopt, adopt me, to be used in the process of innovation in project management tools, and selected sources, not elected, instance, stopping prepared for the results unpredictable of the innovation process at school, we can say that there were differences of opinion for reasons such as not to .

Number of students on their beliefs relating to the Innovation Management Competence by Teachers Variable Results and Comments

Average by teachers’ efficacy beliefs regarding the number of students in the innovation management variables are given in Table 15. Teachers seem to be the average of the differences between groups in the number of students examined

Table 16. Average Number of Students by Variable

Dimeansions	Variable	N		SS
Input Management	Between 1-500	98	3,05	0,72
	Between 501-1000	166	3,07	0,68
	1001 and over	86	3,14	0,64
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of Innovation	Between 1-500	98	3,24	0,71
	Between 501-1000	166	3,26	0,65
	1001 ve Üzeri	86	3,34	0,66
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational Culture and Structure	Between 1-500	98	3,29	0,66
	Between 501-1000	166	3,17	0,64
	1001 and over	86	3,37	0,71
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	Between 1-500	98	3,22	0,62
	Between 501-1000	166	3,12	0,52
	1001 and over	86	3,24	0,67
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

 

However, one-way analysis of variance in terms of the difference between the average number of students of teacher variables to determine whether or not statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

Table 17 variables in terms of the number of students, is located in the difference between the mean level of the average teacher. This is the difference between the average according to the results seem to be statistically significant.

Table 17. Anova Results Table by Variable Number of Students

 

Dimensions	Source of variation	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input management	Betweeen  Groups	,411	2	,206	,442	,643	–
	Within Groups	161,612	347	,466
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of innovation	Betweeen  Groups	,594	2	,297	,660	,518	–
	Within Groups	156,184	347	,450
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational culture and structure	Betweeen  Groups	2,462	2	1,231	2,797	,062	–
	Within Groups	152,730	347	,440
	Total	155,192	349
Project mamagement	Betweeen  Groups	,940	2	,470	1,368	,256	–
	Within Groups	119,221	347	,344
	Total	120,161	349

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

There was no significant difference in the number of teachers by students. In other words, the teachers, the same number of students in accordance with the opinion of the variable.

Teachers of the schools themselves strong ties creating the sense that they claim the school’s innovation enhancements, innovations in give ear to the voice of the school environment, whatever the reasons, the number of students as innovation altogether participate can say that they are in unity consensus.

Number of Teachers on their beliefs relating to the Innovation Management Competence by Teachers Variable Results and Comments

Efficacy beliefs of teachers about average compared to the number of teachers in innovation management variables are shown in Table 18. The average of the teacher is seen that there are differences between groups in the number of teachers is examined.

Table 18. Average Number of teachers by Variable

 

 

 

Dimensions	Variable	N		SS
Input management	Between 1-30	70	3,23	0,67
	Between 31-50	130	2,98	0,70
	51 and over	150	3,10	0,66
	Total	350	3,08	0,68
Strategy of innovation	Between 1-30	70	3,28	0,70
	Between 31-50	130	3,21	0,68
	51 and over	150	3,32	0,65
	Total	350	3,27	0,67
Organizational culture and structure	Between 1-30	70	3,36	0,67
	Between 31-50	130	3,21	0,64
	51 and over	150	3,24	0,69
	Total	350	3,25	0,67
Project Management	Between 1-30	70	3,29	0,61
	Between 31-50	130	3,11	0,54
	51 and over	150	3,19	0,61
	Total	350	3,18	0,59

 

However, one-way analysis of variance of the difference between the average number of teachers in terms of teacher variables to determine whether or not statistically significant (ANOVA) was performed.

Table 19 variables in terms of the number of teachers is situated meaning of the difference between the average level of teachers. The difference between the average input management based on these results (F = 3.230) seems to be statistically significant.

Öğretmenlerin okullarındaki öğretmen sayılarına göre girdi yönetimi boyutunda anlamlı bir farklılık vardır. Diğer bir ifadeyle öğretmenler, okulundaki öğretmen sayısı değişkeninde girdi yönetiminde görüşleri farklı doğrultudadır.

Tablo 20. Öğretmen Sayısı Değişkenine Göre Anova Tablosu Sonuçları

 

Dimensions	Source of variation	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Mesn of squares	F	P	Difference
Input Management	Betweeen  Groups	2,961	2	1,481	3,230	,041*	1-2
	Within Groups	159,061	347	,458
	Total	162,023	349
Strategy of Innovation	Betweeen  Groups	,799	2	,399	,888	,412	–
	Within Groups	155,980	347	,450
	Total	156,779	349
Organizational Culture and Structure	Betweeen  Groups	1,122	2	,561	1,263	,284	–
	Within Groups	154,070	347	,444
	Total	155,192	349
Project management	Betweeen  Groups	1,606	2	,803	2,350	,097	–
	Within Groups	118,555	347	,342
	Total	120,161	349

*p<0,05 significance level statistically significant relationship

To understand this difference stems made from a post hoc (LSD) test at school entry management, size 1-30 number of teachers can be said that due to the number of teachers with 31-50 teachers.

Teachers’ management inputs according to the number of teachers in schools, innovation outside of school matters (consultants, experts, academics, etc.) they can not take away support innovation activities that will contribute in the physical facilities in schools (meeting room, study room) was allocated, etc., differences of opinion for reasons such as failure could say they live .

Qualifying the procedure in terms of demographic variables of the Faith on teachers to Innovation Management

In this section, a qualifying inanca the demographic variables of teachers in innovation management (gender, education level, seniority, age) were analyzed with procedures terms.

Table 21. Predicting the Multiple Regression Analysis of Teacher Aide Innovation Competence Statement on the Management Beliefs

 

 

 

 

Variable	B	Standard Error	β	T	p	Binary    r	Partly  r
Fixed	2,852	,134	–	21,236	,000	–	–
Gender	,022	,058	,020	,381	,704	,046	,020
Education	,155	,051	,156	3,005	,003	,157	,160
Age	,128	,033	,291	3,914	,000	,180	,206
Severance	-,111	,052	-,160	-2,154	,032	,052	-,115
R= ,264		R2= ,070		F (4,345)= 6,452		p=,000

            Innovation Management of Teacher Efficacy Beliefs (dependent variable) Fixed

Results of the regression analysis predicting demographic variables of teacher efficacy beliefs related to innovation management are shown in Table 21. R represents the correlation between the value of the dependent variable arguments.

A higher this value between the change in the dependent variable argument or arguments that the dependent variable is a close relationship indicates that explain a significant portion.

Table 21 (R =, 264) is the dependent variable is a sign that there is a relationship between the independent variables can be positive and important numbers. R Square value of the variance in the dependent variable (the change) represents 0.7% of that released by the argument.

Standardized regression coefficient (β) based; the relative order of importance of the predictor variables on innovation management efficacy of teachers; age, seniority, education level and gender.

When the significance of the regression coefficients for the t-test results are analyzed only educational status, age and seniority of the teachers’ efficacy beliefs innovation management on important (significant) is seen as a predictor. Gender does not have a significant effect termination.

When  the predictor variable dependent (predicted) the bilateral and partial correlations between variables examined; teachers in a relationship in a positive and low levels of innovation management efficacy and gender (r = .05), It seems that teachers are positive and low level of a relationship between innovation management efficacy with education (r = – 16), teacher of innovation management with efficacy beliefs a relationship between low positive and age (r = 18) , teacher of innovation management competencies and positive relationship between low levels of seniority with their beliefs (r = .05)

Regression analysis predicted to be on the regression equation innovation management competence beliefs based on the results (mathematical models) are given below.

Innovation Management Efficacy Beliefs (Teacher) = 2,852, 022 * Gender 155 * Educational Level, 128 * Age – 111 * Severance

 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of the teachers regarding the management of innovation in Karatay Konya Konya, Meram and  the Selçuk district has reached the following conclusions. Characteristics of the study sample constitutes more than half of the teachers are male examined.

The general situation of education degree. The weight of the type of school they work the teacher elementary school, middle school and high school is. Seniority is six years and over. Zero to five years seniority in the school weight. A number of students and over five hundred. Teacher numbers are on top of one of the thirty. Efficacy beliefs of teachers about innovation management is no significant difference by gender. In other words; The views of male and female teachers in the same direction in innovation management skills.

In justification, the qualifications of teachers in schools for the management of innovation, information and all teachers have access to the necessary external service seminars for innovation, training, etc. trifle understand the concept of innovation by participating in activities as a volunteer, we can tell the direction to be channeled to support the work of the school environment for the school’s innovation efforts. According to the teachers’ input about  management education, organizational culture and structure, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, the teachers, the education variable input management, organizational culture and structure are different line of sight project management. In the analysis conducted to understand that this difference stems from; input management, organizational culture and structure, project management graduate degree in dimensions can be said that teachers with a master’s degree is due to the teachers. To input the management of teachers of private institutions around the school  (professional associations, NGOs, etc.) try to find support for the study of innovation in the school, organizational culture and structure is the need to emphasize the importance of welded innovative approach that works in schools, project management, one on the innovation   management at school decisions taken by consensus and co-understand.  This common approach should be adopted in this sensitive and behave more like the graduates of undergraduate and postgraduate reasons and also we can say that should provide a common consensus. Even the emergence of differences of opinion in all three of these four dimensions of innovation management and will damage the school’s permanent or conciliatory approach to innovation to reach a solution. Input management based on the type of school they work the teachers, there is a significant difference in organizational culture and structure size. In other words, teachers, school types in the input management, organizational culture and structure are different in size line of sight. Research shows that the right emotional context-from pre-school to college and reduced sense of ownership. There is a separate class of the class teachers working in primary schools. This class is required of all business and operations of these teachers.

Since junior high school teacher in class branch directory phase and high school stage, there is no class of the entire business and operations of these things that teachers do their job description is subject teachers. Therefore, input management, provision of tools and equipment that can be used in the innovation process; We can say that organizational culture and structure of the school itself and the innovation brought around to experience these problems as reasons for the positive contribution of understanding.

Organizational culture and structure according to the seniority of the teachers, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, teacher, organizational culture and to understand this difference stems from; organizational culture and structure, project management 0-5 years seniority in the lower size and seniority of the teacher with 6-10 years and 21 teachers who could be said to arise from them. In terms  of seniority of teachers it is between 0-10 years compared to those with seniority of 21 years in teaching to have less manners and way of life i Learning to innovation and supported and efforts, not supported (according to seniority), of deciding consensus in project management and failure to adopt a common approach, to adapt to environmental innovation in schools and environmentally seen as the integration of a tool, we can say that the reasons such as not be seen because of differences of opinion there.

According to analysis by age it shows that the variable was not statistically significant. So teachers can say no significant differences according to age. In other words, the teachers, the views of management innovation in the age variable efficacy in the same direction.

Teachers,  creative and meet with the innovative ideas of respect, innovation leading learning and efforts exerted to and to encourage innovation projects they have developed criteria for a common reasons as to develop understanding of how to measure the effectiveness and partners in a coordination.

Innovation strategies according to their seniority teachers in the school organizational culture and structure, there is a significant difference in the size of the project management. In other words, teachers, school innovation strategy in the seniority variable, organizational culture and structure are different line of sight project management.

To understand this difference stems from in the analysis; innovation strategy, organizational culture and structure, project management, employee dimension in schools with teachers who took 0-5 years to 6-10 years and over 11 years can be said to arise from teachers with seniority at the school.

It can be said  that the teachers innovation strategies in schools, for failure to bring a positive contribution to the environment, organizational culture and structure innovative ideas to adopt, to be used in the process of innovation in project management tools, and selected sources, selected failure, instance, stopping prepared for the results unpredictable of the innovation process at school, when he experienced differences of opinion for reasons such as failure.

There was no significant difference in the number of teachers by students. In other words, the teachers, the same number of students in accordance with the opinion of the variable. Teachers of the schools themselves strong ties creating the sense that they claim the school’s innovation enhancements, innovations in give ear to the voice of the school environment, whatever the reasons, the number of students as innovation altogether participate can say that they are in unity consensus.

Teachers in size according to the number of teachers in school management input is a significant difference. In other words, teachers are different in accordance with the opinion of management input variable number of teachers in schools. In the analysis conducted to understand that this difference stems from; inputs management in schools can be said that due to the size of the teachers in the number of teachers with 31-50 1-30 Number of teachers. Teachers’ management inputs according to the number of teachers in schools, innovation outside of school matters (consultants, experts, academics, etc.) they can not take away support innovation activities that will contribute in the physical facilities in schools (meeting room, study room) was allocated, etc., differences of opinion for reasons such as failure could say they live .

Below; gender, education level, type of school, job title, seniority, age, seniority in the school, the number of teachers number of students and the school in the school is located suggestions for variables.

-Teachers those courses on innovation management in schools, seminars, in-service can be trained.

Teachers are innovation-efficacy beliefs of school principals, district national education director of the provincial education ministry director or manager can be made on the basis of the central organization.

 

REFRENCES

Bülbül Tuncer, 2012. Okullarda Yenilik Yönetimi Ölçeği’nin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Cilt:12, Sayı:1, ss.157-175

Elçi Şirin, 2014. İnovasyon Rehberi: Kârlılık ve Rekabetin Elkitabı, Ankara: İnomer Yayınları

Göl Ezgi ve Bülbül Tuncer, 2012. İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticilerinin Yenilik Yönetimi Yeterliklerine İlişkin Öğretmen Algıları, Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 8, Sayı 2, Ağustos, ss.97-109

Gülcü Aslan, Tutar Hasan, Yeşilyurt Cavit, 2004. Sağlık Sektöründe Veri Zarflama Analizi Yöntemi İle Göreceli Verimlilik Analizi, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık

Shapiro Hanne, Jens Henrik Haahr and Ida Bayer (2007). Background Paper on Innovation and Education, The European Commission, DG Education & Culture in the context of a planned Green Paper on Innovation

Tekin Mahmut, Adem Öğüt, Hasan Kürşat Güleş, 2003. Değişim Çağında Teknoloji Yönetimi, Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım