BibTex RIS Cite

Virtual Communication and Organization for Promoting Quality Leadership and Open Government in Schools/Okullarda Kalite, Liderlik ve Açık Yönetimi Teşvik için Sanal İletişim ve Organizasyon

Year 2014, , 61 - 75, 28.04.2014

Esteban Vã¡zquez-cano

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.04339

Abstract

This paper shows a piece of research in which parents, students, teachers and educational supervisors' opinions about virtual management and open government at schools are analyzed. Nowadays virtual communication through computers or mobile digital devices is a common activity developed by any citizen. In this current Information and Communication Society context, school communities need institutional support based on interactive tools that are operative in this digital context. Parents should be informed and participate constantly about the progress of their children but they also must be involved in the knowledge of tasks, exercises and activities that are performed in the classroom and school. Through a quantitative and qualitative methodology we analyze educational communities' opinions about main virtual tools to improve communication, administrative tasks, and academic activities in order to enhance educational institutions quality. We have reached remarkable results, such as: school organization, communication among all members of school communities, educational programming, along with teaching functions can be significantly improved with the use of institutional interactive networks that include communicative functions and school management in a virtualized way. Digital communication and management of the school through networks makes educational communities (families, teachers and students) to be integrated in a more productive and beneficial way at the school. It is remarkable parents' feelings of being integrated in a true community in which they can participate through different communication channels. They consider themselves as active members of the educational institution where they can participate in its functioning through polls, surveys and monitor their children educational progress from an active parents' role.
Keywords: Networking, School communities, School organization, Virtual communication, Collaborative virtual environments.


Genişletilmiş Özet

Problem: Bu makalede, okullardaki sanal ve açık yönetim hakkında veliler, öğrenciler, öğretmenler ve eğitim denetçilerinin görüşleri analiz edilmiştir. Günümüzde sanal iletişim, bilgisayar veya mobil dijital cihazlar üzerinden herkes tarafından kullanılmaktadır. Mevcut Bilgi ve İletişim Toplumu bağlamında okul toplulukları da dijital ortamlarda çalışan interaktif araçlara dayalı kurumsal desteğe ihtiyaç duymaktadır. Bu yolla, ebeveynler çocuklarının gelişimi hakkında sürekli bilgilendirilebilmekte ve okuldaki aktivitelerden haberdar olabilmekte ve okul ve sınıf ortamında gerçekleştirilen görevler, alıştırmalar ve diğer aktivitelere bu yolla dahil olabilmektedirler.
Yöntem: Bu çalışmada nicel ve nitel veri toplamak suretiyle, eğitim kurumlarının kalitesini geliştirmeye yönelik iletişim, idari görevler ve akademik aktiviteleri iyileştirmek için kullanılabilecek temel sanal araçlar hakkında eğitim toplumlarının fikirleri analiz edilmiştir. Bu alan çalışması, farklı sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik bağlamı ile Toledo (İspanya) ilindeki yüz okulda 2012 boyunca yürütülmüştür. Veri toplama için, bir yandan anket, etnografik görüşme ve katılımcı gözlem kullanılırken diğer yandan aktif bir katılımcı olarak sosyal ağ içeriğini ve operasyonu gözlemleme kullanılmıştır. Bu teknikler birbirini tamamlayıcı işleve sahiptir.
Bulgular: Çalışmanın sonucunda anlaşılmıştır ki; okul örgütü ve okul toplumu arasındaki dijital iletişim yani okul yönetiminin interaktif ağı kullanması, eğitim-öğretim programlarının kalitesine katkı sağlamaktadır. Dijital iletişim ve ağlar yoluyla okul yönetimi eğitim topluluklarını (aileler, öğretmenler ve öğrenciler) okul için daha verimli ve yararlı hale getirmektedir. Farklı iletişim kanallarından okuldaki topluluğa ulaşabilmek ve bu yolla uyum sağlamak ebeveynlerin duygularına olumlu yansımaktadır. Onlar kendilerini eğitim kurumunun aktif üyeleri olarak değerlendirmekte ve anketler, araştırmalar yoluyla işlevsel olmakta ve aktif bir ebeveyn olarak çocuklarının eğitimsel ilerlemelerini izleyebilmektedirler.
Öneriler: Okullar eğitim topluluğunun tüm üyelerini sürece dahil edebilmek için sanal iletişimi uygulamalı ve beslemelidir. Okul örgütünün geliştirilmesi ve akademik okul yönetiminde zaman ve enerji tasarrufu için BİT okula entegre edilmelidir. Bu yolla, görevler, sınavlar, devamsızlıklar, testler ve çocuklarının egzersiz durumuyla ilgili bilgiler güncel tutulabilir. Dijital bülten veya e-posta mesajları aracılığıyla okul veya çocukları hakkında bilgi sahibi olmalarına izin verilebilir. Evde akademik faaliyetlerin artırılması veya takviye edilmesi kolaylaştırılabilir. Okulu yönetmek için interaktif bir ağın oluşturulması gerçekleştirilebilir. Böylece okul ve ilgilileri sürekli ilietişimde olmak suretiyle sorun çözücü hale gelebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ağ, Okul toplulukları, Okul örgütü, Sanal iletişim, İşbirlikçi sanal ortamlar.

Keywords

Networking School communities School organization Virtual communication Collaborative virtual environments

References

  • Archambault, L. K. Wetzel, T. S. Foulger, & Williams, M.K. (2010). Professional Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy with 21st Century Tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 21-34.
  • Baker, P., & Ward, A. (2002). Bridging temporal and spatial ‘gaps’: The role of information and communication technologies in defining communities. Information, Communication & Society, 5(2), 207-224.
  • Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1989).Theory, method, knowledge and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 230-252). New York: McMillan.
  • Blanchard, A., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The Experienced "Sense" of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 65-79.
  • Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy.Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179-183.
  • Clark, J. (2001). Stimulating collaboration and discussion learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2),119-124.
  • Coleman, J. (1991). Policy perspectives: Parental involvement in education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (1991). Families in school: State strategies and policies to improve family involvement in education. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.
  • Fulk, J., & DeSanctis G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organ.Sci, 6(4), 337-349
  • Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How New Technologies Have (and Have Not) Changed Teaching and Learning in Schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54.
  • Harms, C., Niederhauser, D., Davis, N., Roblyer, M., & Gilbert, S. (2006). Educating educators for virtual schooling: Communicating roles and responsibilities. Electronic Journal of Communication, 16(1/2), 17-24.
  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988). The Action Research Planner. Melbourne: Deakin University.
  • Kollock P., & Smith M. A. (1996). Communities in Cyberspace. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  • Jones, C. (2004). The conditions of learning in networks. Lausanne: Kaleidoscope CSCL SIG.
  • Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students' experiences with social software tools. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia,15(3), 245-265.
  • Lieblein, E. (2000). Critical factors for successful delivery of online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 3(3),161-174.
  • Lowry, P., Roberts, T., Romano, N., Jr., Cheney, P., & Hightower, R. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication. Small Group Research, 37(6), 631-661.
  • Murray, C. (2008). Schools and social networking: Fear or education? Synergy Perspectives: Local, 6(1), 8-12.
  • Preece, J. (2000). Online communities. Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: Wiley.
  • Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Online Communities: Focusing on Sociability and Usability. In J. Jacko and A. Sears, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 596-620). Mahwah: NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.
  • Reich, R. (1991). The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism. New York: Knopf.
  • Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T.D. Cook & C.S. Reichardt (Eds.).Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
  • Toprakçı, E. (2006). Perceptions Related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) by Managers and Teachers in the Primary and Secondary Schools (The example of Sivas), EJER. 24, 1- 19.
  • Vázquez-Cano, E. (2013). Open government and e-leadership in schools mediated by ICT. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(1), 11-41.
  • Vázquez-Cano, E., & Sevillano García, M.ªL. (2013). ICT strategies and tools for the improvement of instructional supervision. The Virtual Supervision. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 77-87.
  • Wellman, B. (1997). An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wellman, B. S., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. In P. Kollock and M Smith. Berkeley, Communities in Cyberspace. Berkeley , CA : Univ. Calif. Press.
  • Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998).What are the perceived benefits of participating in a computer mediated communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students? Computers and Education, 30(3/4), 259-269.
  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: The key to a knowledge strategy, knowledge directions. The Journal of the Institute for Knowledge Management, 1, 48-93.
  • Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Educational Research. New York: Routledge and Kegan Peter.
  • Young, J., Birtolo, P., & McElman, R. (2009). Virtual success: Transforming education through online learning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(5), 12-17.

Year 2014, , 61 - 75, 28.04.2014

Esteban Vã¡zquez-cano

https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.04339

Abstract

References

  • Archambault, L. K. Wetzel, T. S. Foulger, & Williams, M.K. (2010). Professional Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy with 21st Century Tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 21-34.
  • Baker, P., & Ward, A. (2002). Bridging temporal and spatial ‘gaps’: The role of information and communication technologies in defining communities. Information, Communication & Society, 5(2), 207-224.
  • Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1989).Theory, method, knowledge and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 230-252). New York: McMillan.
  • Blanchard, A., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The Experienced "Sense" of a Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35(1), 65-79.
  • Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy.Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179-183.
  • Clark, J. (2001). Stimulating collaboration and discussion learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2),119-124.
  • Coleman, J. (1991). Policy perspectives: Parental involvement in education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (1991). Families in school: State strategies and policies to improve family involvement in education. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(1), 21-34.
  • Fulk, J., & DeSanctis G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms. Organ.Sci, 6(4), 337-349
  • Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How New Technologies Have (and Have Not) Changed Teaching and Learning in Schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54.
  • Harms, C., Niederhauser, D., Davis, N., Roblyer, M., & Gilbert, S. (2006). Educating educators for virtual schooling: Communicating roles and responsibilities. Electronic Journal of Communication, 16(1/2), 17-24.
  • Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.) (1988). The Action Research Planner. Melbourne: Deakin University.
  • Kollock P., & Smith M. A. (1996). Communities in Cyberspace. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  • Jones, C. (2004). The conditions of learning in networks. Lausanne: Kaleidoscope CSCL SIG.
  • Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students' experiences with social software tools. New Review of Hypermedia & Multimedia,15(3), 245-265.
  • Lieblein, E. (2000). Critical factors for successful delivery of online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 3(3),161-174.
  • Lowry, P., Roberts, T., Romano, N., Jr., Cheney, P., & Hightower, R. (2006). The impact of group size and social presence on small-group communication. Small Group Research, 37(6), 631-661.
  • Murray, C. (2008). Schools and social networking: Fear or education? Synergy Perspectives: Local, 6(1), 8-12.
  • Preece, J. (2000). Online communities. Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester: Wiley.
  • Preece, J., & Maloney-Krichmar, D. (2003). Online Communities: Focusing on Sociability and Usability. In J. Jacko and A. Sears, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 596-620). Mahwah: NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.
  • Reich, R. (1991). The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism. New York: Knopf.
  • Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T.D. Cook & C.S. Reichardt (Eds.).Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
  • Toprakçı, E. (2006). Perceptions Related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) by Managers and Teachers in the Primary and Secondary Schools (The example of Sivas), EJER. 24, 1- 19.
  • Vázquez-Cano, E. (2013). Open government and e-leadership in schools mediated by ICT. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(1), 11-41.
  • Vázquez-Cano, E., & Sevillano García, M.ªL. (2013). ICT strategies and tools for the improvement of instructional supervision. The Virtual Supervision. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 77-87.
  • Wellman, B. (1997). An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wellman, B. S., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. In P. Kollock and M Smith. Berkeley, Communities in Cyberspace. Berkeley , CA : Univ. Calif. Press.
  • Wilson, T., & Whitelock, D. (1998).What are the perceived benefits of participating in a computer mediated communication (CMC) environment for distance learning computer science students? Computers and Education, 30(3/4), 259-269.
  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: The key to a knowledge strategy, knowledge directions. The Journal of the Institute for Knowledge Management, 1, 48-93.
  • Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Educational Research. New York: Routledge and Kegan Peter.
  • Young, J., Birtolo, P., & McElman, R. (2009). Virtual success: Transforming education through online learning. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(5), 12-17.
There are 35 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language en;tr
Journal Section Educational Sciences and Sciences of Field Education
Authors

Esteban Vã¡zquez-cano

Publication Date April 28, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014

Cite

APA Vã¡zquez-cano, E. (2014). Virtual Communication and Organization for Promoting Quality Leadership and Open Government in Schools/Okullarda Kalite, Liderlik ve Açık Yönetimi Teşvik için Sanal İletişim ve Organizasyon. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.19160/e-ijer.04339

Creative Commons Lisansı
This journal uses a CC BY-NC-SA license.


editor@e-ijer.com                http://www.e-ijer.com    Address: Ege University Faculty of Education İzmir/Türkiye