261 Karsantık, İ. (2021). Teachers' perceptions of readiness for change and innovation management in their schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(1). 261-287. Received : 25.10.2020 Revised version received : 27.11.2020 Accepted : 30.11.2020 TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF READINESS FOR CHANGE AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN THEIR SCHOOLS Research article İsmail Karsantık 0000-0002-0279-7397. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University ismailkarsantik@gmail.com Biodata: İsmail Karsantık received his PhD in Educational Administration and Supervision. He is currently teaching in Department of Educational Sciences at Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey. His research interests include leadership, academic culture, change management and innovation. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. mailto:ismailkarsantik@gmail.com http://orcid.org/xxxx Karsantık 262 TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF READINESS FOR CHANGE AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT IN THEIR SCHOOLS İsmail Karsantık ismailkarsantik@gmail.com Abstract The purpose of the study was to describe teachers’ readiness for change and teachers’ perceptions of innovation management in their schools as well as to analyze the relationship between them. The study adopted survey model of the descriptive research design. The participants were composed of 104 primary school teachers who were selected using convenient sampling method in Zeytinburnu district of Istanbul in 2019-2020 school year. The data were collected via ‘Readiness for Change Scale’ developed by Kondakçı, Zayim and Çalışkan (2013), and ‘Scale for Innovation Management at School’ developed by Bülbül (2012). In the analysis of the obtained data, quantitative data analysis techniques were utilized. The results revealed that the participant teachers’ perceptions of readiness for innovation in terms of the functioning of change and innovation process were positive, and these perceptions of readiness were depended on school administrators’ abilities of innovation management. As a consequence, it was recommended that school administrators develop themselves in terms of those matters. Keywords: Teacher perception, organizational change, innovation management, readiness for change 1. Introduction There has been an ongoing change in such areas as social, cultural, economic and technological implications in life. Considering the pace and importance, change is also needed in every educational organization in order to keep up with advancements regarding educational practices. Administrators, therefore, aim to ensure the existence of the organization by constantly providing changes that meet the needs and adapt to the environment (Güçlü & Şehitoğlu, 2006, p. 240). When the change that comes into play with external or internal dynamics is classified, it might be said that about changes in structure, technology, and people (Robbins & Coulter, 2016, p. 200). Changes related to the structure include authority relations, coordination of mechanisms, redesign of work and control area; technological changes include business processes, business methods and hardware and changes regarding people are counted as attitudes, expectations, perceptions and behaviors (Robbins & Coulter, 2016, p. 200). These changes in the organization might be thought to be developing in an environment-related manner and have been accelerated with globalization. Depending on the situation, it can be said that the survival of organizations depends on their dynamism. Innovation might be included in the process of change intertwined with globalization. In this sense, innovation management has different dimensions (Adams, Bessant & Phelps, 2006). In order to ensure the management of innovation Göl and Bülbül (2012, p. 98) mention four dimensions: input management, innovation strategy, organizational culture and structure and project management. It is emphasized that the input management consists of human, financial and physical resources. The innovation strategy includes the role of innovation, the use of technology, management of performance improvement (Çetin, Erol ve Karaduman, 2017), and solution of problems in the innovation process. Additionally, organizational culture includes openness in terms of organizational climate and structure. Finally, project management includes project selection, implementation, and evaluation. The organization is expected to be mailto:ismailkarsantik@gmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 263 ready for change so that the manager can ensure innovation in the organization. Göl and Bülbül (2012) emphasize three dimensions regarding readiness for innovation: intention, cognitive and affective. Intention dimension includes adoption to change and achieving it while cognitive dimension refers to perceiving change as refreshing and useful. Finally, affective dimension includes negative emotions and anxiety. 2. Change and Innovation Change is the differentiation of something in a certain period of time (Erdoğan, 2002, p. 9). Demirtaş (2012, p. 19) defines change as a constant part of societies and phenomenon affecting development, innovation, reform, and people. Innovation is knowledge-based product, service, technological advancement and sharing of process-oriented information (Göl & Bülbül, 2012, s. 98). Damanpour (1987, p. 676) defines innovation as a means of change in the structure, processes and outputs of an organization which help adaption to society. Although change and innovation are similar, they actually have different content and functions. While change occurs as planned or unplanned, innovation proceeds in a planned way. Change is bi-directional which has positive and negative side, and its positive side is continuous involving innovation and development. Innovation is a form of discontinuous change. Therefore, all innovations made in the organizational sense are the product of change. However, it cannot be said that change is always regarded as innovation (Osborne & Brown, 2005). 2.1. Change and Innovation Process Initiating change process neither indicates implementing it successfully nor ensures its sustainability. In the process of change proposed by Levin (1998), the current situation must be resolved. Robbins and Coulter (2016) state that the way to achieve this is to increase the driving forces that direct the behaviors away from the current situation. Thereafter, it is necessary to move to the new state, by reducing the limiting forces that stemming from the current situation and prevent advancement. Finally, it is needed to make change sustainable. For this reason, combining the first two steps, namely balancing the driving, and limiting forces is necessary (Robbins & Coulter, 2016, p. 203). Thus, effective change is achieved in the organization. Initiation of the innovation process depends on the need for it. Necessity of innovation is mostly determined according to the problem experienced by the organization (Top, 2011). Drucker (2004, p. 70) indicates innovation process in several stages. Firstly, ideas are created based on the needs identified and resources available. Secondly, analyzes are performed for expenditure in the process of innovation. In order to adopt innovation, organization employees are informed about innovation. During the implementation of innovation plan, measurements are made and the state of adoption and creating a value is followed, and reorganizations are performed in order to establish innovation by taking the measurement results into consideration. Factors regarding resistance to change and innovation include uncertainty, anxieties toward personal or organizational loss, habits, and individuals that are not ready for change and innovation (Robbins & Coulter, 2016, p. 206; Demirtaş, 2012, p. 22; Robbins, 1990, p 456). The solutions to eliminate this situation is seen as ensuring that the individuals of the organization participate in the decision making process regarding change and innovation, informing about the process and giving feedback about the implementation of innovation plan, strengthening the communication in the process of change and innovation, and honoring those who strive for the healthy progress of this process (Robbins & Coulter, 2016, p. 206). Karsantık 264 2.2. Change and Innovation in Schools Education becomes dysfunctional when there is no change according to need of time (Erdoğan, 2002, p. 7). To sustain advancements in terms of the future of the country and society, educational institutions should be open to change and innovation processes, as the education creates inputs for other organizations. Individuals and institutions can benefit from models developed for the healthy functioning of change in educational organizations (Güçlü & Şehitoğlu, 2006, p. 250-251). Adams and Spencer (1988) propose one of these models called personal change model. Consisting of seven stages, personal change model includes supporting change and innovation in order to eliminate the problems in the system and recover individuals and organizations from major changes. 1. Destabilizing and losing focus: Change begins with the loss of existing balance and brings uncertainty. 2. Minimizing the impact: Reducing the negative impact of uncertainty that starts with change on individuals. In particular, the negative impact on those who prefer to go back and maintain previous practices should be reduced. 3. Questioning self-worth: People begin to question themselves with the effect of change. As the self-questioning progress, uncertainties due to change decrease. 4. Letting go of the past: For effective progress in change, it is required that both changes should be accepted and previous practices should be abandoned. 5. Testing the new situation: Innovation that comes with change brings emotions such as enthusiasm, as well as evaluating new practices. 6. Searching for meaning: Practitioners of change try to understand the benefits this process for them, their relationships and professions. 7. Integrating the experience: Individuals implement innovation with the effect of change on themselves. As seen in personal change model, in terms of educational institutions, the teachers' readiness for change is considered important for the effective functioning of the process. While the readiness that constitutes the first step of change depends on the information and guidance of school administrators, it also prevents the resistance against change by adoption of it (Self & Schraeder, 2009, p. 173). In addition, adopting to change both facilitates the change process and ensures achieving it successfully and permanently (Kondakçı, Zayim & Çalışkan, 2010, p. 159). The competencies of school administrators in innovation management are also considered important in ensuring the sustainability of innovation in schools. As methods of supporting and encouraging innovations may not be sufficient, school administrators should also have innovation management competencies, to ensure the adoption and implementation of it. These competencies also enable to benefit from innovation effectively (Göl & Bülbül, 2012, p. 98-99). Based on this framework, the purpose of the research is to reveal the relationship between teachers' perceptions about the readiness of change and the school administrators' innovation management competencies. To this end, following research questions were addressed: 1. Does teachers' readiness for change differ significantly in terms of gender, type of institution, duration of employment in the current institution, years of experience in the profession and degree of education? International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 265 2. Do teachers' perceptions of innovation management differ significantly in terms of gender, type of institution, duration of employment in the current institution, years of experience in the profession, and degree of education? 3. Is there a significant relationship between teachers' readiness for change and the school administrators' perception of innovation management? 3. Method In the study, descriptive research design and survey method were used. Since the relationship between the teachers' readiness for change and the perceptions of teachers about the school administrators' ability to manage innovation were aimed to examine, the study was designed through correlational model based on quantitative data. Correlational models are used to reveal the relationship between two or more variables (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2011). In the study, gender, type of institution, duration of employment in the current institution, years of experience in the profession and degree of education were considered as independent variables while teachers' readiness for change and the perceptions of teachers about the school administrators' ability to manage innovation were dependent variables. 3.1. Participants The main participants of the study were 104 primary school teachers who were selected via convenience sampling method. In the study, initially, the Readiness for Change Scale and the Scale for Innovation Management at schools were administered to 150 primary school teachers teaching in Istanbul province in 2018-2019 school year providing them with necessary explanation regarding the research. On eliminating missing values and outliers, the data obtained from 104 participants were considered for the data analysis. Among the participant teachers, 76 (%73,1) of them were females and 28 (%26,9) were males. Besides, 70 (%67,3) of the participants had bachelor’s degree while 30 (%28,8) of them had MA degrees and 4 (%3,8) had PhD degrees. Participants were also employed in different types of institutions, 100 (%96,2) of which was public while 4 (%3,8) were private school. As the years of experience in the profession was taken into consideration, 16 (%15,4) of the participants had 1-5 years of experience while 24 (%23,1) of them had 6-10, 30 (%28,8) of them had 11-15, 14 (%13,5) of them had 16-20 and 20 (%19,2) of them had 21 and above. Duration of employment in the current institution was also thought to be important in terms readiness for change and perceiving innovation management abilities of school administrators. 48 (%46,2) of the participants had 1-3 years of experience in the current institution they employed while 26 (%25) were 4-6, 6 (%5,8) were 7-9, 6 (%5,8) were 10-12, 8 (%7,7) were 13-15, and 10 (%9,6) were 15 and above. 3.2. Data Collection Instruments To collect the data of the study, the “Readiness for Change” scale developed by Kondakçı, Zayim and Çalışkan (2013) and the “Scale for Innovation Management in Schools” developed by Bülbül (2012) were administered. “Intention, cognitive, emotion” factors and twelve items constitute readiness for change scale. Cronbach alpha values were found at the levels of .90, .87 and .75, respectively, to be ready for change in intention, cognitive and emotion sub- dimensions (Kondakçı, Zayim & Çalışkan, 2013). 32 items and input management, organizational culture and structure, innovation strategy and project management factors constituted Innovation Management in Schools scale. Cronbach Alfa internal consistency coefficients of Innovation Management in Schools scale was calculated as .96 (Bülbül, 2012). In the present study, the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient was found as .76 regarding Readiness for Change Scale, and .98 for the Innovation Management in Schools Scale. Karsantık 266 3.3. Data Analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS software. Firstly, the results of Kolmogorov Smirnov test were conducted in order to analyze normality of the scales. Results of Kolmogorov- Smirnov test analysis for Readiness for Change scale (K-S(Z)=.061; p >.05) and Innovation Management in Schools scale (K-S(Z)=.075 p >.05) showed that both scales had normal distribution. Additionally, Skewness and Kurtosis values which were between -1 and +1, was considered as normal distribution of data set (George & Mallery, 2003, p. 98). Beside descriptive statistics including mean (�̅�) and standard deviation (sd) values, independent group t-test, One Way ANOVA and LSD post-hoc tests for determining the significant group were employed. Significance was declared at the p < 0.05 level. To determine the relationship between readiness for change and innovation management in schools Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) was computed. 4. Findings In this section, findings are presented by addressing research questions, respectively. The findings regarding normality of the data distribution on the readiness of teachers for change and the innovation management in schools are given in Table 1. Table 1. Results for K-S(Z) normality test on the readiness for change and the innovation management in schools Values Readiness for Change Innovation Management in Schools Sd 104 104 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .061 .075 P .20 .18 As shown in Table 1, since p> 0.05 and the data of both scales are normally distributed, t Test and One-Way ANOVA were employed for the relevant data. Table 2. Independent group t test results to determine whether teacher readiness for change differentiates according to gender Factors Groups Sd SEM* Test Cognitive Female 76 16,13 2,714 ,311 3,04 102 ,003 Male 28 14,28 2,813 ,531 Intention Female 76 18,87 3,184 ,365 2,44 102 ,016 Male 28 17,07 3,681 ,695 Emotion Female 76 5,23 2,084 ,239 -1,61 39, 5 ,115 Male 28 6,14 2,690 ,508 Total Female 76 40,23 4,408 ,505 2,71 102 ,008 Male 28 37,50 5,000 ,944 *SEM=Standard Error of the Mean As seen in Table 2, independent group t test results demonstrate that mean scores of cognitive (t=3,04; p<.05) and intention (t=2,44; p<.05) factors besides total score (t=2,70; p<.05) of the scale differs significantly according to the gender groups. N x t t Sd p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 267 Table 3. Independent group t test results to determine whether innovation management in schools differentiates according to gender Factors Groups Sd SEM Test Input Management Female 76 16,8421 5,05187 ,57949 ,613 102 ,541 Male 28 16,1429 5,44137 1,02832 Innovation Strategy Female 76 20,0263 5,14062 ,58967 1,560 38,487 ,127 Male 28 17,7857 6,93011 1,30967 Organizational Culture and Structure Female 76 19,6579 5,45173 ,62536 ,012 102 ,990 Male 28 19,6429 6,20164 1,17200 Project Management Female 76 47,9474 12,91190 1,48110 ,640 39,486 ,526 Male 28 45,7143 16,71738 3,15929 Total Female 76 104,4737 26,77585 3,07140 ,724 39,803 ,473 Male 28 99,2857 34,24839 6,47234 As seen in Table 3, independent group t test results show that scores of innovation management in schools do not differ significantly according to the groups of gender variable in terms of mean scores of input management (t=.613; p>.05), innovation strategy (t=1.56; p>.05), organizational culture and structure (t=.012; p>.05), project management (t=.640; p>.05) factors and total score (t=.724; p<.05) of the scale. Table 4. Independent group t test results to determine whether readiness for change differentiates according to the type of institution Factors Groups Sd SEM Test Cognitive Public 100 15,58 2,82 ,282 -,97 102 ,331 Private 4 17,00 3,46 1,73 Intention Public 100 18,24 3,36 ,336 - 2,20 102 ,030 Private 4 22,00 2,30 1,15 Emotion Public 100 5,54 2,30 ,230 1,32 102 ,188 Private 4 4,00 1,15 ,577 Total Public 100 39,36 4,68 ,468 - 1,525 102 ,130 Private 4 43,00 4,61 2,30 As seen in Table 4, independent group t test results display that mean scores of readiness for change do not differ significantly according to the type of institution variable in terms of cognitive factor (t=-.97; p>.05), emotion factor (t=1.36; p>.05) and total score (t=-1.52; p>.05) of the scale. However, intention factor (t=-2.207; p<.05) seems to differ according to the type of institution. It is understood that the significant difference obtained from the findings is in favor of the private institution. N x t t Sd p N x t t Sd p Karsantık 268 Table 5. Independent group t test results to determine whether innovation management in schools differentiates according to the type of institution Factors Group s Sd SEM Test Input Management Public 100 16,68 4,99 ,49 ,146 3,07 ,893 Private 4 16,00 9,23 4,61 Innovation Strategy Public 100 19,48 5,47 ,54 ,255 3,05 ,815 Private 4 18,00 11,57 5,73 Organizati onal Culture and Structure Public 100 19,70 5,33 ,53 ,197 3,04 ,856 Private 4 18,50 12,12 6,06 Project Management Public 100 47,48 13,72 1,37 ,486 102 ,628 Private 4 44,00 21,93 10,96 Total Public 100 103,30 27,84 2,78 ,248 3,06 ,820 Private 4 96,50 54,84 27,42 As seen in Table 5, independent group t test results demonstrate that mean scores of innovation management in schools do not differ significantly according to the type of institution variable groups in terms of mean scores of input management (t=146; p>.05), innovation strategy (t=255; p>.05), organizational culture and structure (t=197; p>.05), project management (t=486; p>.05) factors and total score (t=248; p>.05) of the scale. N x t t Sd p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 269 Table 6. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether readiness for change differentiate according to the duration of employment in the current institution *SOV=Source of Variation **SS=Sum of Squares ***MS=Mean Squares As seen in Table 6, One Way ANOVA test results display that mean scores of readiness for change do not differ significantly according to the duration of employment in the current institution variable groups in terms of mean scores of intention (F=1.049; .394), emotion (F=.561; .730), cognitive (F=1.245; .294) factors and total score (F=1.373; .241) of the scale. , and Sd Values ANOVA Results Factors Groups Sd SOV* SS** MS *** Intention 1-3 48 18,20 3,42 Between Groups 60,58 5 12,1 1 ,39 4-6 26 18,92 3,40 Within Groups 1132, 02 98 11,5 7-9 6 19,66 4,22 Total 1192, 61 103 10-12 6 17,33 2,25 13-15 8 19,50 3,07 15 + 10 16,80 3,48 Total 104 18,38 3,40 Emotion 1-3 48 5,45 2,08 Between Groups 14,96 5 2,9 ,5 ,73 4-6 26 5,07 2,24 Within Groups 522,99 98 5,3 7-9 6 6,00 2,36 Total 537,96 103 10-12 6 5,66 2,73 13-15 8 5,25 2,65 15 + 10 6,40 2,95 Total 104 5,48 2,28 Cognitive 1-3 48 15,45 2,65 Between Groups 49,95 5 9,9 1,2 ,29 4-6 26 15,92 2,89 Within Groups 786,16 98 8,0 7-9 6 16,00 3,57 Total 836,11 103 10-12 6 15,00 3,22 13-15 8 17,50 3,07 15 + 10 14,40 2,63 Total 104 15,63 2,84 Total 1-3 48 39,12 4,59 Between Groups 149,67 5 29,9 1,3 ,24 4-6 26 39,92 5,54 Within Groups 2136,32 98 21,7 7-9 6 41,66 4,92 Total 2286,00 103 10-12 6 38,00 3,09 13-15 8 42,25 3,41 15 + 10 37,60 3,68 Total 104 39,50 4,71 f x N x Sd F p Karsantık 270 Table 7. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether innovation management in schools differentiate according to the duration of employment in the current institution , and Sd Values ANOVA Results Factors Groups Sd SOV SS MS Input Mangement 1-3 48 16,7 4,50 Between Groups 466,8 5 93,3 4 ,002 4-6 26 19,0 4,05 Within Groups 2256,7 98 23,0 7-9 6 13,3 6,59 Total 2723,5 103 10-12 6 11,0 6,26 13-15 8 14,0 7,44 15 + 10 17,6 3,16 Total 104 16,6 5,14 Innovation Strategy 1-3 48 19,1 4,81 Between Groups 744,8 5 148,9 5,5 ,000 4-6 26 22,3 5,57 Within Groups 2636,5 98 26,9 7-9 6 15,0 5,44 Total 3381,3 103 10-12 6 11,6 6,59 13-15 8 18,5 6,43 15 + 10 21,4 3,56 Total 104 19,4 5,72 Organization al Culture and Structure 1-3 48 19,9 4,97 Between Groups 374,5 5 74,9 2,5 ,033 4-6 26 22,0 5,02 Within Groups 2893,0 98 29,5 7-9 6 15,3 4,13 Total 3267,5 103 10-12 6 17,0 9,07 13-15 8 19,0 6,80 15 + 10 17,0 5,53 Total 104 19,6 5,63 Project Management 1-3 48 48,5 12,31 Between Groups 3297,1 5 659,4 3,8 ,003 4-6 26 53,3 12,60 Within Groups 16854,4 98 171,9 7-9 6 33,3 15,70 Total 20151,5 103 10-12 6 35,0 19,61 13-15 8 42,7 13,82 15 + 10 45,4 11,86 Total 104 47,3 13,98 Total 1-3 48 104,3 25,29 Between Groups 14420,7 5 2884,1 3,9 ,003 4-6 26 116,6 25,36 Within Groups 71570,6 98 730,3 7-9 6 77,0 31,15 Total 85991,3 103 10-12 6 74,6 40,59 13-15 8 94,2 34,17 15 + 10 101,4 21,46 Total 104 103,0 28,89 As seen in Table 7, One Way ANOVA test results show that mean scores of innovation management in schools differ significantly according to the duration of employment in the f x N x Sd F p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 271 current institution variable groups in terms of mean scores of input management (F=4,054; .002), innovation strategy (F=5,537; .000), organizational culture and structure (F=2,537; .033), project management (F=3,834; .003) factors and total score (F=1.373; .241) of the scale. LSD post-hoc test was used to determine from which group this difference emerged. Table 8. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the duration of employment in the current institution in terms of input management factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM 1-3 4-6 -2,25000 1,16852 ,057 7-9 3,41667 2,07791 ,103 10-12 5,75000 2,07791 ,007 13-15 2,75000 1,83255 ,137 15 + -,85000 1,66809 ,612 4-6 1-3 2,25000 1,16852 ,057 7-9 5,66667 2,17340 ,011 10-12 8,00000 2,17340 ,000 13-15 5,00000 1,94015 ,011 15 + 1,40000 1,78563 ,435 7-9 1-3 -3,41667 2,07791 ,103 4-6 -5,66667 2,17340 ,011 10-12 2,33333 2,77055 ,402 13-15 -,66667 2,59161 ,798 15 + -4,26667 2,47806 ,088 10-12 1-3 -5,75000 2,07791 ,007 4-6 -8,00000 2,17340 ,000 7-9 -2,33333 2,77055 ,402 13-15 -3,00000 2,59161 ,250 15 + -6,60000 2,47806 ,009 13-15 1-3 -2,75000 1,83255 ,137 4-6 -5,00000 1,94015 ,011 7-9 ,66667 2,59161 ,798 10-12 3,00000 2,59161 ,250 15 + -3,60000 2,27624 ,117 15 + 1-3 ,85000 1,66809 ,612 4-6 -1,40000 1,78563 ,435 7-9 4,26667 2,47806 ,088 10-12 6,60000 2,47806 ,009 13-15 3,60000 2,27624 ,117 As seen in Table 8, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between 1-3 and 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 1-3 year of employment (p<.01), between 4-6 and 7-9, 10-12 and 13-15 year of employment groups in favor of 4-6 year of employment (p<.01), between 10-12 and 15 and above year of employment groups in favor of 10-12 year of employment (p<.01). ji xx  p Karsantık 272 Table 9. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the duration of employment in the current institution in terms of innovation strategy factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM 1-3 4-6 -3,18269 1,26302 ,013 7-9 4,12500 2,24597 ,069 10-12 7,45833 2,24597 ,001 13-15 ,62500 1,98076 ,753 15 + -2,27500 1,80300 ,210 4-6 1-3 3,18269 1,26302 ,013 7-9 7,30769 2,34917 ,002 10-12 10,64103 2,34917 ,000 13-15 3,80769 2,09706 ,072 15 + ,90769 1,93004 ,639 7-9 1-3 -4,12500 2,24597 ,069 4-6 -7,30769 2,34917 ,002 10-12 3,33333 2,99462 ,268 13-15 -3,50000 2,80121 ,214 15 + -6,40000 2,67847 ,019 10-12 1-3 -7,45833 2,24597 ,001 4-6 -10,64103 2,34917 ,000 7-9 -3,33333 2,99462 ,268 13-15 -6,83333 2,80121 ,017 15 + -9,73333 2,67847 ,000 13-15 1-3 -,62500 1,98076 ,753 4-6 -3,80769 2,09706 ,072 7-9 3,50000 2,80121 ,214 10-12 6,83333 2,80121 ,017 15 + -2,90000 2,46033 ,241 15 + 1-3 2,27500 1,80300 ,210 4-6 -,90769 1,93004 ,639 7-9 6,40000 2,67847 ,019 10-12 9,73333 2,67847 ,000 13-15 2,90000 2,46033 ,241 As seen in Table 9, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between 1-3 and 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 1-3 year of employment (p<.01), between 4-6 and 7-9, 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 4-6 year of employment (p<.01), between 13-15 and 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 13-15 year of employment (p<.01), between 15 and above and 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 15 and above year of employment (p<.01). ji xx  p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 273 Table 10. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the duration of employment in the current institution in terms of organizational culture and structure factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM 1-3 4-6 -2,08333 1,32303 ,119 7-9 4,58333 2,35267 ,054 10-12 2,91667 2,35267 ,218 13-15 ,91667 2,07486 ,660 15 + 2,91667 1,88866 ,126 4-6 1-3 2,08333 1,32303 ,119 7-9 6,66667 2,46079 ,008 10-12 5,00000 2,46079 ,045 13-15 3,00000 2,19669 ,175 15 + 5,00000 2,02174 ,015 7-9 1-3 -4,58333 2,35267 ,054 4-6 -6,66667 2,46079 ,008 10-12 -1,66667 3,13690 ,596 13-15 -3,66667 2,93430 ,214 15 + -1,66667 2,80573 ,554 10-12 1-3 -2,91667 2,35267 ,218 4-6 -5,00000 2,46079 ,045 7-9 1,66667 3,13690 ,596 13-15 -2,00000 2,93430 ,497 15 + ,00000 2,80573 1,000 13-15 1-3 -,91667 2,07486 ,660 4-6 -3,00000 2,19669 ,175 7-9 3,66667 2,93430 ,214 10-12 2,00000 2,93430 ,497 15 + 2,00000 2,57723 ,440 15 + 1-3 -2,91667 1,88866 ,126 4-6 -5,00000 2,02174 ,015 7-9 1,66667 2,80573 ,554 10-12 ,00000 2,80573 1,000 13-15 -2,00000 2,57723 ,440 As seen in Table 10, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between 4-6 and 7-9, 10-12, 15 and above year of employment groups in favor of 4- 6 year of employment (p<.05). ji xx  p Karsantık 274 Table 11. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the duration of employment in the current institution in terms of project management factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM 1-3 4-6 -4,72436 3,19340 ,142 7-9 15,25000 5,67865 ,009 10-12 13,58333 5,67865 ,019 13-15 5,83333 5,00809 ,247 15 + 3,18333 4,55866 ,487 4-6 1-3 4,72436 3,19340 ,142 7-9 19,97436 5,93959 ,001 10-12 18,30769 5,93959 ,003 13-15 10,55769 5,30215 ,049 15 + 7,90769 4,87987 ,108 7-9 1-3 -15,25000 5,67865 ,009 4-6 -19,97436 5,93959 ,001 10-12 -1,66667 7,57153 ,826 13-15 -9,41667 7,08252 ,187 15 + -12,06667 6,77218 ,078 10-12 1-3 -13,58333 5,67865 ,019 4-6 -18,30769 5,93959 ,003 7-9 1,66667 7,57153 ,826 13-15 -7,75000 7,08252 ,277 15 + -10,40000 6,77218 ,128 13-15 1-3 -5,83333 5,00809 ,247 4-6 -10,55769 5,30215 ,049 7-9 9,41667 7,08252 ,187 10-12 7,75000 7,08252 ,277 15 + -2,65000 6,22064 ,671 15 + 1-3 -3,18333 4,55866 ,487 4-6 -7,90769 4,87987 ,108 7-9 12,06667 6,77218 ,078 10-12 10,40000 6,77218 ,128 13-15 2,65000 6,22064 ,671 As seen in Table 11, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between 1-3 and 7-9, 10-12 year of employment groups in favor of 1-3 year of employment (p<.05), between 4-6 and 7-9, 10-12, 15 and above year of employment groups in favor of 4-6 years of employment (p<.05). ji xx  p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 275 Table 12. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether readiness for change differentiate according to the years of experience in the profession , and sd values Anova results Factors Groups Sd SOV SS MS Intention 1-5 16 17,12 2,33 Between Groups 141,0 4 35,2 3,31 ,013 6-10 24 19,66 2,68 Within Groups 1051,5 99 10,6 11-15 30 19,26 3,75 Total 1192,6 103 16-20 14 16,57 4,66 21+ 20 17,80 2,41 Total 104 18,38 3,40 Emotion 1-5 16 5,37 1,99 Between Groups 41,8 4 10,4 2,08 ,088 6-10 24 4,58 1,41 Within Groups 496,1 99 5,0 11-15 30 5,66 2,53 Total 537,9 103 16-20 14 6,71 2,64 21+ 20 5,50 2,43 Total 104 5,48 2,28 Cognitive 1-5 16 15,00 3,09 Between Groups 22,9 4 5,7 ,698 ,595 6-10 24 16,33 2,86 Within Groups 813,1 99 8,2 11-15 30 15,80 3,08 Total 836,1 103 16-20 14 15,28 2,75 21+ 20 15,30 2,34 Total 104 15,63 2,84 Total 1-5 16 37,50 5,77 Between Groups 166,0 4 41,5 1,93 ,110 6-10 24 40,58 4,55 Within Groups 2119,9 99 21,4 11-15 30 40,73 4,55 Total 2286,0 103 16-20 14 38,57 4,79 21+ 20 38,60 3,56 Total 104 39,50 4,71 As seen in Table 12, One Way ANOVA test results show that mean scores of readiness for change differ significantly according to the years of experience in the profession variable in terms of mean scores of intention factor (F=3.319; .013) while emotion (F=2.088; .088), cognitive (F=.698; .595), and total mean score (F=1.939; .110) of the scale do not differ significantly. LSD post-hoc test was used to determine from which group this difference emerged. f x N x Sd F p Karsantık 276 Table 13. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the years of experience in the profession in terms of intention factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM 1-5 6-10 -2,54167 1,05188 ,018 11-15 -2,14167 1,00893 ,036 16-20 ,55357 1,19272 ,644 21+ -,67500 1,09315 ,538 6-10 1-5 2,54167 1,05188 ,018 11-15 ,40000 ,89255 ,655 16-20 3,09524 1,09604 ,006 21+ 1,86667 ,98675 ,061 11-15 1-5 2,14167 1,00893 ,036 6-10 -,40000 ,89255 ,655 16-20 2,69524 1,05488 ,012 21+ 1,46667 ,94083 ,122 16-20 1-5 -,55357 1,19272 ,644 6-10 -3,09524 1,09604 ,006 11-15 -2,69524 1,05488 ,012 21+ -1,22857 1,13570 ,282 21+ 1-5 ,67500 1,09315 ,538 6-10 -1,86667 ,98675 ,061 11-15 -1,46667 ,94083 ,122 16-20 1,22857 1,13570 ,282 As seen in Table 13, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between 6-10 and 1-5, 16-20 year of experience in profession groups in favor of 6- 10 year of experience in profession (p<.05), between 11-15 and 1-5, 16-20 year of experience in profession groups in favor of 11-15 year of experience in profession (p<.05). ji xx  p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 277 Table 14. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether innovation management in schools differentiate according to the years of experience in the profession , and Sd Values ANOVA Results Factors Groups Sd SOV SS MS Input Management 1-5 16 15,3 3,89 Between Groups 86,9 4 21,7 ,816 ,51 6-10 24 15,8 5,18 Within Groups 2636,6 99 26,6 11-15 30 16,8 6,29 Total 2723,5 103 16-20 14 18,2 2,86 21+ 20 17,2 5,30 Total 104 16,6 5,14 Innovation Strategy 1-5 16 16,6 5,13 Between Groups 213,9 4 53,4 1,672 ,16 6-10 24 19,0 4,31 Within Groups 3167,4 99 31,9 11-15 30 19,8 7,02 Total 3381,3 103 16-20 14 21,7 2,52 21+ 20 20,0 6,60 Total 104 19,4 5,72 Organizational Culture and Structure 1-5 16 18,3 4,50 Between Groups 139,8 4 34,9 1,107 ,35 6-10 24 21,0 5,36 Within Groups 3127,6 99 31,5 11-15 30 19,2 6,82 Total 3267,5 103 16-20 14 18,0 5,05 21 + 20 20,7 5,02 Total 104 19,6 5,63 Project Management 1-5 16 46,1 12,88 Between Groups 122,0 4 30,5 ,151 ,96 6-10 24 47,8 13,44 Within Groups 20029,4 99 202,3 11-15 30 46,4 15,20 Total 20151,5 103 16-20 14 47,1 11,42 21+ 20 49,2 16,18 Total 104 47,3 13,98 Total 1-5 16 96,5 24,22 Between Groups 1100,1 4 275,0 ,321 ,86 6-10 24 103,7 27,24 Within Groups 84891,2 99 857,4 11-15 30 102,4 34,30 Total 85991,3 103 16-20 14 105,1 19,75 21+ 20 107,1 32,30 Total 104 103,0 28,89 As seen in Table 14, One Way ANOVA test results show that mean scores of innovation management in schools do not differ significantly according to the years of experience in the profession variable in terms of mean scores of input management (F=.816; .518), innovation f x N x Sd F p Karsantık 278 strategy (F=1,672; .163), organizational culture and structure (F=1,107; .358), project management (F=.151 .962) and total mean score (F=.321; .863) of the scale. Table 15. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether readiness for innovation differentiate according to the degree of education , and Sd Values ANOVA Results Factors Groups Sd SOV SS MS Cognitive BA 70 15,6 2,8 Between Groups 6,8 2 3,4 ,417 ,660 MA 30 15,8 2,8 Within Groups 829,2 101 8,2 PhD 4 14,5 2,8 Total 836,1 103 Total 104 15,6 2,8 Intention BA 70 18,0 3,4 Between Groups 19,1 2 9,5 ,823 ,442 MA 30 19,0 3,2 Within Groups 1173,4 101 11,6 PhD 4 19,0 4,6 Total 1192,6 103 Total 104 18,3 3,4 Emotion BA 70 5,8 2,4 Between Groups 48,5 2 24,2 5,010 ,008 MA 30 4,4 1,5 Within Groups 489,4 101 4,8 PhD 4 7,0 1,1 Total 537,9 103 Total 104 5,4 2,2 Total BA 70 39,5 4,1 Between Groups 4,848 2 2,4 ,107 ,898 MA 30 39,3 5,7 Within Groups 2281,1 101 22,5 PhD 4 40,5 6,3 Total 2286,0 103 Total 104 39,5 4,7 As seen in Table 15, One Way ANOVA test results show that mean scores of readiness for change differ significantly according to the degree of education variable in terms of mean scores of emotion factor (F=5.010; .008) while cognitive (F=.417; .660), intention (F=.823; .442), and total mean score (F=.107; .898) of the scale do not differ significantly. LSD post- hoc test was used to determine from which group this difference emerged. f x N x Sd F p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 279 Table 16. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the degree of education in terms of emotion factor Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM Emotion BA MA 1,36190 ,48036 ,006 PhD -1,17143 1,13165 ,303 MA BA -1,36190 ,48036 ,006 PhD -2,53333 1,17172 ,033 PhD BA 1,17143 1,13165 ,303 MA 2,53333 1,17172 ,033 As seen in Table 16, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified between bachelor’s degree group and MA group which is in favor of bachelor’s degree (p<.01), between MA and PhD group in favor of PhD (p<.05). Table 17. One-way ANOVA test results to determine whether innovation management in schools differentiate according to the degree of education , and Sd Values ANOVA Results Factors Groups Sd SOV SS MS Input Management BA 70 15,4 5,0 Between Groups 371,2 2 185,6 7,9 ,001 MA 30 18,8 4,3 Within Groups 2352,2 101 23,2 PhD 4 22,0 ,0 Total 2723,5 103 Total 104 16,6 5,1 Innovation Strategy BA 70 18,5 5,6 Between Groups 324,4 2 162,2 5,3 ,006 MA 30 20,5 5,3 Within Groups 3056,9 101 30,2 PhD 4 27,0 ,0 Total 3381,3 103 Total 104 19,4 5,7 Organizational Culture and Structure BA 70 18,4 5,4 Between Groups 374,9 2 187,4 6,5 ,002 MA 30 21,6 5,4 Within Groups 2892,5 101 28,6 PhD 4 26,0 1,1 Total 3267,5 103 Total 104 19,6 5,6 Project Management BA 70 44,4 13,6 Between Groups 2366,7 2 1183,3 6,7 ,002 MA 30 52,0 12,8 Within Groups 17784,8 101 176,0 PhD 4 64,0 3,4 Total 20151,5 103 Total 104 47,3 13,9 Total BA 70 96,7 28,0 Between Groups 10899,0 2 5449,5 7,3 ,001 MA 30 113,0 26,7 Within Groups 75092,3 101 743,4 PhD 4 139,0 4,6 Total 85991,3 103 Total 104 103,0 28,8 ji xx  p f x N x Sd F p Karsantık 280 As seen in Table 17, One Way ANOVA test results show that mean scores of innovation management in schools differ significantly according to the degree of education variable in terms of mean scores of input management (F=7.971; .001), innovation strategy (F=5.360; .006), organizational culture and structure (F=6.546; .002), project management (F=6.720; .002) and total mean score (F=7.330; .001) of the scale. LSD post-hoc test was used to determine from which group this difference emerged. Table 18. LSD post-hoc test results to determine differentiated groups according to the degree of education in terms of innovation management in school Groups (i) Groups (j) SEM Input Management BA MA -3,46667 1,05311 ,001 PhD -6,60000 2,48096 ,009 MA BA 3,46667 1,05311 ,001 PhD -3,13333 2,56881 ,225 PhD BA 6,60000 2,48096 ,009 MA 3,13333 2,56881 ,225 Innovation Strategy BA MA -2,01905 1,20053 ,096 PhD -8,48571 2,82827 ,003 MA BA 2,01905 1,20053 ,096 PhD -6,46667 2,92841 ,029 PhD BA 8,48571 2,82827 ,003 MA 6,46667 2,92841 ,029 Organizational Culture and Structure BA MA -3,14286 1,16781 ,008 PhD -7,54286 2,75117 ,007 MA BA 3,14286 1,16781 ,008 PhD -4,40000 2,84859 ,126 PhD BA 7,54286 2,75117 ,007 MA 4,40000 2,84859 ,126 Project Management BA MA -7,60000 2,89570 ,010 PhD - 19,60000 6,82183 ,005 MA BA 7,60000 2,89570 ,010 PhD - 12,00000 7,06338 ,092 PhD BA 19,60000 6,82183 ,005 MA 12,00000 7,06338 ,092 As seen in Table 18, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified regarding input management between MA and Bachelor’s Degree in favor of MA group (p<.05), between MA and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.05), between Bachelor’s Degree and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.05). LSD post-hoc test results also display that significant differences were identified regarding innovation strategy between MA and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.05), between bachelor’s degree and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.05). Additionally, LSD post-hoc test results indicate that significant differences were identified regarding organizational culture and structure between MA and bachelor’s degree in favor of MA group (p<.01), between bachelor’s degree and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.05). ji xx  p International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 281 Finally, LSD post-hoc test results show that significant differences were identified regarding project management between MA and bachelor’s degree in favor of MA group (p<.05), between bachelor’s degree and PhD in favor of PhD group (p<.01). Table 19. The result of Pearson product moment correlation test to determine the relationship between the readiness for change and innovation management in schools Innovation Strategy Organizati onal culture and structure Project manage ment Cognitive Intention Emotion Innovati on Manage ment in Schools Readiness for Change Innovation Strategy 1 Organizational culture and structure ,815** 1 ,000 104 Project management ,872** ,913** 1 ,000 ,000 104 104 Cognitive ,344** ,321** ,333** 1 ,000 ,001 ,001 104 104 104 Intention ,347** ,314** ,284** ,770** 1 ,000 ,001 ,004 ,000 104 104 104 104 Emotion -,148 -,215* ,170 -,593** -,638** 1 ,135 ,029 ,085 ,000 ,000 104 104 104 104 104 Innovation Management in Schools ,934** ,938** ,978** ,318** ,298** - ,190 1 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,002 ,054 104 104 104 104 104 104 Readiness for Change ,387** ,317** ,324** ,873** ,878** -,335** ,316** 1 ,000 ,001 ,001 ,000 ,000 ,001 ,001 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 Cohen (1988) suggests that r value is low if it is .1-.3, medium as .3-.5 and large as .5-.1.0. As it is seen in Table 19, there is a strong, positive and significant relationship between innovation strategy and organizational culture and structure (r=,815), project management (r=,872), and innovation management in schools (r=,934) while medium level, positive and significant relationship found between cognitive factor (r=,344), intention factor (r=,347), and readiness for change (r=,387). Organizational culture and structure also has strong, positive and significant relationship with project management (r=,913) and innovation management in schools whereas medium level, positive and significant relationship found between organizational culture and structure cognitive factor (r=,321), intention factor (r=,314), and readiness for change (r=,317). Additionally, project management has strong, positive and significant relationship with innovation management in schools (r=,978) while it has medium level, positive and significant relationship between cognitive factor (r=,333), and readiness for change (r=,324). Cognitive factor has strong, positive and significant relationship with intention factor (r=,770), and readiness for change (r=,873) while it has medium level, positive and significant relationship with innovation management in schools (r=,318). Emotion factor has medium level, negative and significant relationship with readiness for change (r=-,335). It is can also be seen that there is medium level, negative and significant relationship between Karsantık 282 Organizational culture and structure and emotion (r=-,215), emotion factor and cognitive factor (r=-,593), intention factor (r=-638). Finally, there is a medium level, positive and significant relationship between readiness for change and innovation management in schools. 5. Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations Innovation is essential to the survival or improvement of individuals, organizations, and nations in a constantly changing global knowledge economy (Hodgson, 2012). In order to play an active role in the implementation of current education policies, teachers must ensure their professional development. For this reason, higher education institutions are expected to train teachers who are able to fulfill demands of 21st century (Kropff, 2014). Innovation procedures and activities are seen as part of development and growth by several countries beside integrating it to national strategies. Thus, educational innovations are essential for societies. Within this context, the purpose of the current study was to investigate relationship between teachers’ readiness for innovation and their perception towards innovation management skills of administrators. Several studies are implemented regarding change with different perspectives (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Bouckenooghe & Devos, 2007; Piderit, 2000; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). The results of the study show that whereas teachers’ readiness for innovation differs significantly according to the gender, there is no significant difference in terms of type of institution, duration of employment in the current institution, years of experience in the profession and degree of education. Readiness for innovation of teachers do not also differ significantly in terms of years of experience in the profession, gender, degree of education, and in-service training in several studies (Levent, 2016; Cenker & Macaroğlu Akgül, 2011; Helvacı & Kıcıroğlu, 2010; Kurşunoğlu & Tanriöğen, 2006). According to teachers' perceptions of innovation management in schools, there is no significant difference in terms of gender, type of institution and years of experience in the profession which is consistent with the findings of the previous studies regarding gender (Awamleh, 1994; Jolles, McBeath, Carnochan & Austin, 2016; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Göl & Bülbül, 2012; Demir Başaran & Keleş, 2015), type of institution (Aslan, Beycioğlu & Konan, 2008; Canlı, Demirtaş & Özer, 2015), and years of experience (Göl & Bülbül, 2012; Bayrakçı & Eraslan, 2014; Demir Başaran & Keleş, 2015; Boydak-Ozan & Karabatak, 2013; Top, 2011). The results of the study show that teachers' perceptions of innovation management in schools differentiate in terms of degree of education. Fullan (2002) states that teachers who continue their professional development on management of innovation in schools are able to manage innovation more effectively. Goff, Goldring, Guthrie and Bickman (2014) also imply that school managers who care and provide professional development for teachers, are more successful on adaptation to innovation Moreover, Ersöz (2009) highlights degree of education in the study focusing on European Innovation Indicators (UII) report in which degree of education is taken as an indicator for investigating innovation process. UN, UNESCO, UNICEF, ILO and the World Bank define and support education as the most fundamental human right (Patrinos & Psacharapoulos, 2011). The leaders are supposed to have intellectual knowledge, strong intelligence, broad vision and solid personality that can prepare the organization for the future (Durna, 2002, 180). Adair (2008) also suggests several requirements for innovation management including innovation strategy, consistency of management decisions, a long-term perspective, sensitivity to innovation, taking risk, appropriate organizational structure and culture for innovation. In the study, it is found that there is a positive and significant relationship between teachers' readiness for change and the school administrators’ perception of innovation management in schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 283 School administrators, playing an important role on teachers' readiness for change, need to be conscious about preparing teachers for change. Teachers who become conscious about innovation may support the organization in order to provide the necessary changes. Walker (2003) notes that in prescriptions for innovation, it is essential to manage initiatives of innovation and organization managers have important role on embedding innovative values and norms such as risk taking and creating culture. Moreover, there are various models for management of innovation process including structure, task, technology, culture, strategy, power distribution, and control system (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985; Gassmann, 2006; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Buganza, Chiaroni, Colombo & Frattini, 2011). From this point of view, management of innovation becomes critical in terms of readiness for it. The results of the study have several implications both teachers and administrators. School administrators are suggested to use effective communication for teachers’ adoption of innovation. Since management of innovation is a demanding process, school administrators may enroll in in-service programs to enhance management skills. Teachers are practitioners of innovation in education institutions. To enhance their readiness for innovation, teachers may be encouraged to continue their professional development through receiving graduate education. Also, their awareness of innovation may be increased by providing opportunities such as workshops, in-service programs, and scientific conferences. Karsantık 284 References Adair, J. E. (2008). The best of John Adair on leadership and management. Thorogood Publishing. Adams, J. D. & Spencer, S. A. (1988). People in transition. Training & Development Journal, 42(10), 61-64. https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA7037253&sid=googleScholar&v=2 .1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00410861&p=AONE&sw=w Adams, R., Bessant, J. & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G. & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601 Aslan, M., Beycioğlu, K. & Konan, N. (2008). Principals’ openness to change in Malatya, Turkey. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12(8), 1-14. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.958.5740&rep=rep1&type= pdf Awamleh, N. I. A. (1994). Managerial innovation in the civil service in Jordan: A field study. Journal of Management Development, 13(9), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719410072099 Bayrakçı, M. & Eraslan, F. (2014). Ortaöğretim okul yöneticilerinin inovasyon yeterlilikleri. [Innovation competence of high school administrators]. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty -SUJEF, 28, 96-135. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article- file/115886 Bouckenooghe, D. & Devos, G. (2007). Psychological change climate as a catalyst of readiness for change: A dominance analysis (Report No. 07/483). Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Boydak-Ozan, M. & Karabatak, S. (2013). Ortaöğretim okul yöneticilerinin yenilik yönetimine yaklaşımları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar. [Secondary school administrators' approaches to innovation management and encountered problems]. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 258-273. https://iojes.net/?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=IOJES_940.pdf&key=4116 3 Buganza, T., Chiaroni, D., Colombo, G. A. & Frattini, F. (2011). Organisational implications of open innovation: An analysis of inter‐industry patterns. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 423–455. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003210 Bülbül, T. (2012). Okullarda yenilik yönetimi ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Developing a scale for innovation management at schools: A study of validity and reliability]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 157-175. https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/okullarda-yenilik-yonetimi-olcegi- toad.pdf Canlı, S., Demirtaş, H. & Özer, N. (2015). Okul yöneticilerinin değişime yönelik eğilimleri. [School administrators’ tendencies towards change]. Elementary Education Online, 14(2), 634-646. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/viewFile/1296/1152 https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA7037253&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00410861&p=AONE&sw=w https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA7037253&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00410861&p=AONE&sw=w https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00119.x https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.958.5740&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.958.5740&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719410072099 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/115886 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/115886 https://iojes.net/?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=IOJES_940.pdf&key=41163 https://iojes.net/?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=IOJES_940.pdf&key=41163 https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003210 https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/okullarda-yenilik-yonetimi-olcegi-toad.pdf https://toad.halileksi.net/sites/default/files/pdf/okullarda-yenilik-yonetimi-olcegi-toad.pdf http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/viewFile/1296/1152 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 285 Cenker, B. & Macaroğlu Akgül, E. (2011). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin, okulda değişim yönetiminin gerçekleştirilmesine bakış açılarının incelenmesi [Investigation of elementary school teachers' understandings on change management in schools]. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 1(1), 6-14. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/suje/issue/20627/219935 Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2011). Research methods, design and analysis (11th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Routledge. Cetin, M. O., Erol, I., & Karaduman, P. (2017). The opinions of school administrators on the teacher performance evaluation. Bialystok: E-BWN. Dahlander, L. & Gann, D. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39, 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 Damanpour, F. (1987). The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: Impact of organizational factors. Journal of Management, 13(4), 675-688. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300408 Damanpour, F. & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers 1. British journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x Demir-Basaran, S. & Keles, S. (2015). Yenilikçi kimdir? Öğretmenlerin yenilikçilik düzeylerinin ı̇ncelenmesi [Who is innovative? Examination of teachers' innovativeness level]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 106-118. http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/1776-published.pdf Demirtaş, H. (2012). İlköğretim okullarının değişime açıklığı. [Primary schools’ openness to change]. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 18-34. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review, 82(6), 58-63. https://hbr.org/2004/06/what-makes-an-effective-executive Durna, U. (2002). Yenilik yönetimi [Innovation management]. Ankara: Nobel Publishing Erdoğan, İ. (2002). Eğitimde değişim yönetimi. [Change management in education] Ankara: Pegem Publishing. Ersöz, F. (2009). Avrupa inovasyon göstergeleri (EIS) ışığında Türkiye’nin konumu. [The status of Turkey in light of the indicators of EU innovation (EIS)]. ITU Journal, 6(1), 3- 16. http://itudergi.itu.edu.tr/index.php/itudergisi_b/article/viewFile/1087/1080 Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-21. http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396053050.pdf Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an agenda. R&D Management, 36, 223‐228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00437.x George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Goff, P. J., Guthrie, E., Goldring, E. & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682-704. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=cpre_policybri efs https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/suje/issue/20627/219935 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300408 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/yonetim/icerik/makaleler/1776-published.pdf http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/ https://hbr.org/2004/06/what-makes-an-effective-executive http://itudergi.itu.edu.tr/index.php/itudergisi_b/article/viewFile/1087/1080 http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396053050.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00437.x https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=cpre_policybriefs https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=cpre_policybriefs Karsantık 286 Göl, E. & Bülbül, T. (2012). İlköğretim okulu yöneticilerinin yenilik yönetimi yeterliklerine ilişkin öğretmen algıları [The perceptions of the teachers regarding the innovation management efficacies of the primary school administrators]. Mersin University Journal of The Faculty of Education, 8(2), 97-109. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article- file/160835 Güçlü, N. & Şehitoğlu, E. T. (2006). Örgütsel değişim yönetimi [Organizational change management]. Atatürk University Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 13, 240-254. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/31502 Helvacı, M. A. & Kıcıroğlu, B. (2010). İlköğretim okullarının değişime hazır bulunuşluk düzeyleri (Uşak ili örneği) [The readiness level of basic education schools for change (Uşak Case)]. Journal of Academic Perspective, 21, 1-30. http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423868201.pdf Hodgson, N. (2012). ‘The only answer is innovation’: Europe, policy, and the big society. Journal of Philosophy of Education,46(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9752.2012.00877.x Kondakçı, Y., Zayim, M. & Çalışkan, Ö. (2010). Okul yöneticilerinin değişime hazır olma tutumlarının okulun öğretim düzeyi, yöneticilerin deneyimi ve okul büyüklüğü bağlamında incelenmesi [Investigating school administrators’ readiness to change in relation to teaching level of the school, experiences of the administrators, and the size of the school]. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11(2), 155-175. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/92268 Kondakçı, Y., Zayim, M. & Çalışkan, Ö. (2013). Değişime hazır olma ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [Development and validation of readiness for change scale]. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 23‐35. http://ilkogretim- online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/viewFile/1427/1283 Kropff, M. J. (2014). Tertiary education: A prerequisite to meet global challenges. Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture (RUFORM), 8(9), 1- 4. https://ruforum.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/tertiary-education-a-prerequisite-to-meet- global-challenges/ Kurşunoğlu, A. & Tanrıöğen, A. (2006). Primary school teachers 'attitudes about organizational change. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 20(20), 13-22. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114728 Levent, F. (2016). Öğretmenlerin değişime hazır olma durumlarının farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [An investigation of the readiness of teachers for change based upon various variables]. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 43, 117 134. http://dspace.marmara.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11424/6045/10.15285-ebd.09059- 217777.pdf?sequence=1 Levin, J. S. (1998). Making sense of organizational change. New Directions for Community Colleges, 102, 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.10205 Lewin, A. Y. (1998). Introduction—Jazz improvisation as a metaphor for organization theory. Organization Science, 9(5), 539-539. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.539 Osborne S. P. & Brown K. (2005). Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge Publishing. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/160835 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/160835 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/31502 http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423868201.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00877.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00877.x https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/92268 http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/viewFile/1427/1283 http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/index.php/io/article/viewFile/1427/1283 https://ruforum.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/tertiary-education-a-prerequisite-to-meet-global-challenges/ https://ruforum.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/tertiary-education-a-prerequisite-to-meet-global-challenges/ https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114728 http://dspace.marmara.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11424/6045/10.15285-ebd.09059-217777.pdf?sequence=1 http://dspace.marmara.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11424/6045/10.15285-ebd.09059-217777.pdf?sequence=1 https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.10205 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.539 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(1), 261-287. 287 Patrinos, H. A., & Psacharopoulos, G. (2011). Education: past, present and future global challenges. The World Bank. Perez Jolles, M., McBeath, B., Carnochan, S. & Austin, M. J. (2016). Factors associated with managerial innovation in public human service organizations. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40(4), 421-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1184208 Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P. & Austin, J. T. (1997). Understanding and managing cynicism about organizational change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 11(1), 48-59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4165371.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A842d4eeebd420ea 4ab05e9a55a2e3b86 Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. (2016). Management (13th. Ed.). Essex, England: Pearson. Robbins. P. R. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, design, and applications (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Inc. Englevvood Cliffs. NJ. Self, D. R. & Schraeder, M. (2009). Enhancing the success of organizational change: Matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 30(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910935765 Top, M. Z. (2011). İlköğretim okul yöneticilerinin yenilik yönetimine ilişkin tutumlarının incelenmesi [A study on primary school principals' attitudes toward innovatıon management]. (Unpublished master's thesis). Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, İstanbul. Tushman, M. L. & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Greenwich: Jai Press. Walker R. M. (2003). Evidence on the management of public services innovation. Public Money & Management, 23, 93-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2003.10874830 Wanberg, C. R. & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132. https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018- 10/Wanberg%20and%20Banas%2C%202000.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1184208 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4165371.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A842d4eeebd420ea4ab05e9a55a2e3b86 https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4165371.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A842d4eeebd420ea4ab05e9a55a2e3b86 https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910935765 https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2003.10874830 https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018-10/Wanberg%20and%20Banas%2C%202000.pdf https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/2018-10/Wanberg%20and%20Banas%2C%202000.pdf