. . 2012 ... ... ... . ... " ". "" . . . "" . . : . Declaration The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or qualification. : Student's Name : : Signature: : Date : : 1 2 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 : 12 13 37 48 53 : 56 57 57 57 59 61 62 63 64 65 : 66 67 69 79 : 81 82 86 92 94 96 96 101 105 (Abstract) B )1( 58 )2( 59 )3( 63 )4( . 68 )5( ) ( ) =3.4( 69 )6( " " . 70 )7( " " . 71 )8( . 72 )9( . 74 )10( " " . 75 )11( " " . 76 )12( 77 )13( . 78 )14( . 79 )1( 106 )2\-( ) (. 107 )3( 116 )4( 117 )5( 118 )6( 119 )7\-( 120 )8\-( 125 . : ( . )1607( )343() 21.3(% . )0.96( (SPSS) "" . : 1. )3.64.( : . 2. )3.40( )3.40( )03.40( . 3. )= 0.05 ( . . 4. )= 0.05 ( . 5. )= 0.05 ( . 6. : . . . : : . : . . :. : . : : . . : . . 1 . . . . . . . 2 : . . . . . (Torrance, 1958) . . 3 ) 2006.( Peter Senge) ( :Organizational Learning 1990 : . : . : ":" - -) Senge,1990.( . : . " ")2002 ( : !... ) 2009.( 4 )2011 3 (" : . " 2000"" "" - . ) 2000.( 2002 "" . 5 . "" ) 2002.( . . . : 6 ) 2003.( . . " " : " " : 1. 2. ) : ( 3. 7 : : 1. . 2. ) : ( . 3. . : " :)" 2006.( : 1. . 8 2. . 3. . 4. . : : 1. ) = 0.05( =3.40. 2. ) = 0.05( . 3. ) = 0.05( . 9 4. ) = 0.05( . 5. ) = 0.05( . 6. ) = 0.05( . 7. ) = 0.05( . : 1. :. 2. : . 3. : 2011 - 2012. 4. :. 10 : : . . ). 2007.( : : . : ::5:4:3:2 :. :)1967 ( : 1. : . 2. : . 11 3. : . : . 12 . . - . 13 : : : )( . : " ) " 199616- 17(. . (Laguardian, 2009). 14 . )( . ) 2002(. : "" 7-8 . . . .7-824 )Glob, 1986(. 15 )2002( ) 2007 .( )2009(: . )2007: ( . . 16 : . : : . . . ) 2005.( . 17 (Mackenzie, 2010). : 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 18 5. . 6. . 7. ) 2010.( : . ) 2009.( : 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 19 5. ) 2006.( )2007 (: 1. . 2. . . 3. "Learning is fun" ) ( . : . 4. . 20 . . )2000( : ... . .. )2006 (: 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 5. . 6. . : 21 . . . . : "" . . . . ) 2002.( 22 ) 2007.( : 1. : . )vision( ) 2009(. 2. . . . . 3. . 4. 23 . . . 5. ) 2007.( 6. . 7. . . 8. . . 9. 24 ) 2010(. : : : ) 2000.( : 1. . 2. . 3. . 25 4. . 5. . 6. . 7. ) 2009)( 2007.( : : )2002( : 1. . 26 2. . 3. . : 1. :. . . 2. : . . . 3. : . . ) 2009 .( - . 27 ) 2003.( : :Instructional Designer:The Collaborator : The Coordinator:The Trainer :The Facilitator :E- Moderator:Online - Negotiator ) 2009.( :: . . ) 2002(. .: 1. . 28 2. . 3. . 4. . 5. . 6. . 7. . 8. . 9. . 10. . 11. ) 2009( ) 2000(. . . ) 2002.( 29 : :" : ." . . ) 2003.( : 1. ) (. . 2. . 3. . 30 4. . 5. ) 2010(. : : . .. ) 2002(. . : 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 31 5. ) 2000.( 6. . : 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 5. . 6. . 7. ) 2006.( 32 : ) 2007 () 2006 ( : E- Mail . Massaging & Chat . E- Presentations: (CD) ) 2006.( : 33 . . . . ) 2005.( : )1983 ( " : A Nation At Risk''. .: . 34 . . . ) 2007.( . . : . . 35 . . . ) ( . ) 2010.( : . . )2020.( 36 (Tek, 2010). ) 2005. ( " " . . : :Constructive Teaching :Mastery Learning 37 \ :Science process skills :Thinking skills and metacognition :Student centered learning :Self- directed, self-paced, and accessed learning :Use of information and communication technology(Tek, 2010). ) 2010.( : . . : )2011(" ." . 38 :: . : . .: (SWOT Analysis: Strength: , Weakness, Opportunities, Threats): )() 10( .: : . )2010 ( " " . .( )267 ( . : 39 : . . )2009("...." . : . . )2009(") " (." :. .: . . . 40 . )2009 ( " .": . . . . : )15(% . )160 ( )32()16()84()42( .: )( )83.9 . (% : 41 . . )2009(" ". . .: . . - : . . )2009(" "." : : Organizational Learning)( . : .. ) : 42 .. ( . )2009 ( " ." . . . )1538 ( )175 ( )1363 ( . : . : . ) ( 43 . )2007(": ." . : . )1100( . : . : .)7 ( : . )17(: . )2007 ( " ." 44 . )( )() ( . )2006 ( " ." : .)Delphi ( .)20 ( . . : 45 . . . . . . . ) 2006(" " . . .: 1. .2. 3 . 4 . . .: . . . 46 . . )2003 ( " ." ) ( . .)193 ( )123 ()70 ( . : . . )2002 (" ." . 47 . : . . . : . . . . . . )1998("". . ) ( . : 48 . . . : )Wang, 2011(" ." . . . )741(: . . . . 49 ) Shropshire, 2011("." . : . . . .. ) () .( . ) (. . . . )Cambridge, 2011(": " . : . : .: 50 .: . . . )Larose, 2009(" ." ) 1994 ( )700()4( . )2001( . 1998- 2004)3970(. : . . 51 . -)Skerlavaj, 2008 ( " ." . ) :(Knowledge Transfer . :(Organizational Learning) . : . . )Peter, 2006("." ) 18 ( : : 52 )2015(. . : . :. -)Brian, 2005("." :: .:.: . : . ) Fredric, 2000(" : 1989-1999." ) 1989-1999( ) .( : . . 53 :. . )Senge, 1990 (" : ." ( MIT ) 1961 . : .: . . : 1. : )Shropshire, 2011( )Cambridge, 2011( )2009.( 54 )Skerlavaj, 2008()2002 ( )1998 ()Senge, 1990 .( )2009 () Brian, 2005 ()2003 .( )Wang, 2011 ()2011 ()2009.( )2009 ( )2007(. - - . 2. . . )Delphi( (SWOT). 3. 55 )2009( )2007.( ) 2009( )Wang, 2011 ( )Fredric, 2000.( : . . 4. : ) ( . 5. . . . 56 _ _ 57 . : . : )1607 (2011/2012)6.( : )404 (25 % 13.4.%)350( 21.3%)7( )343 ()1 ( ).( 58 )1:()( )( )( 1. 138 35 27 8 14.8% 2. 40 10 8 2 3.7% 3. 86 23 19 4 7.4% 4. 128 35 32 3 5.6% 5. 70 18 18 - - 6. 83 21 20 1 1.9% 7. 156 39 38 1 1.9% 8. 76 19 19 - - 9. 21 6 5 1 1.9% 10. 181 45 38 7 12.9% 11. 39 10 9 1 1.9% 12. 65 17 16 1 1.9% 13. 123 31 27 4 7.4% 14. 128 32 21 11 20.3% 15. 177 39 32 7 12.8% 16. 96 24 21 3 5.6% 1607 404 350 54 100% )1( )25(% )( )20.3%- 1.9(% )54 (13.4 %. 59 )2 (. )2( : % 180 52.5 163 47.5 255 74.3 88 25.7 5 131 38.2 5-10 96 28.0 )( 10 116 33.8 205 59.8 138 40.2 115 33.5 228 66.5 180 52.5 65 19.0 98 28.5 343 100.0 : : - . - . - . - . 60 - : 1. . 2. )2007( )2009( )2000( )2009( )2009( (Cambridgeshire, 2011) (Shropshire County council, 2011) : :. :)73 ()5 ( 1-18 19- 32 33-47 48-59 60-73 )5()4 ()3 ( . 61 : . : )17 ( - - - -)1 .( : )2\ ( :- - - - . ) ( : . :1 4 7 10 18 20 44 51,53. 24 :2 16 17 18 24 25 26 27 34 54 55 56 57 58 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73. 62 5 :19 23 24 50 52 . 24 : . )2\(. : Cronbach s Alpha )3 (. )3:( 1 18 0.80 2 14 0.91 3 15 0.93 4 12 0.95 5 14 0.94 73 0.96 )2 ( )0.80 - 0.96 (. 63 : : - )3.( - . - )4 .( )5 .( )8\-(. - )404 ( 27\2\ 2012 7\4\2012)350 ()7 ( )343 ( . - )(SPSS. 64 - . : : -: - :) :( - :) :( - :)55 - 10 10( - :) :( - :) :( - :) :.( - : . 65 : )(SPSS: 1. . 2. " ")One Sample T-test( . 3. " ")(Independent T-test . 4. )One-Way ANOVA( . 5. ) Cronbach s Alpha(. 6. . 66 : : : 67 :: . :) =-\ =0,8 ( )4.21 = ( )3.41-4.20 = ( )2.61-3.40 = ( ) 1.81-2.60 = ( ) 1.81 = ( . )4 (. 68 )4:( . 1 1 4.05 0.40 2 3 3.90 0.54 3 4 3.54 0.69 4 5 3.32 0.95 5 2 3.22 0.65 3.64 0.51 )4 ( )3.64 ( )0.51( )3.22-4.05( . )4.05 ()0.40( )3.90 ()0.54( )3.54 ()0.69( )3.32 ( )0.95( )3.22 ()0.51.( 69 : : 1 .: ) = 0.05( =3.40. )()One Sample T- test()3.40( )5( . )5:( ) ( ) =3.40( )( 4.05 0.40 30.487 0.0001* 3.22 0.65 5.160 0.0001* 3.90 0.54 16.912 0.0001* 3.54 0.69 3.693 0.0001* 3.32 0.95 1.589 0.113 3.64 0.51 8.613 0.0001* *) = 0.05()342.( )5 ( )3.40( )3.40 ( 70 )3.40( . 2 . : ) = 0.05( . "")Independent T- test ()6 (. )6 :(" " . )=180( )=163( 4.01 0.37 4.10 0.42 2.002 0.046* 3.13 0.60 3.32 0.68 2.752 0.006* 3.85 0.55 3.94 0.53 1.621 0.106 3.48 0.69 3.64 0.69 1.744 0.082 3.26 0.92 3.39 0.98 1.279 0.202 3.58 0.48 3.70 0.53 2.274 0.024* *) = 0.05()341.( )6 ( )= 0.05 ( 71 . )6() = 0.05( . 2 .: ) = 0.05( . "")Independent T- test ()7 (. )7:("" . )=255( )=88( 4.01 0.39 4.17 0.41 3.159 0.002* 3.22 0.66 3.21 0.61 0.204 0.839 3.87 0.54 3.98 0.54 1.716 0.087 3.54 0.69 3.53 0.70 0.112 0.911 3.31 0.93 3.33 1.00 0.181 0.856 3.62 0.51 3.68 0.49 0.969 0.333 *) = 0.05(. )7( )= 0.05 ( 72 . 3 .: )= 0.05 ( . )One-Way ANOVA( )8 ()9 (. )8:( 5 131 4.08 0.40 5 -10 96 4.02 0.37 10 116 4.05 0.41 5 131 3.18 0.66 5 -10 96 3.20 0.63 10 116 3.27 0.64 5 131 3.91 0.57 5 -10 96 3.84 0.51 10 116 3.93 0.54 73 5 131 3.54 0.72 5 -10 96 3.49 0.72 10 116 3.58 0.65 5 131 3.35 1.01 5 -10 96 3.30 0.88 10 116 3.31 0.94 5 131 3.64 0.54 5 -10 96 3.60 0.48 10 116 3.66 0.50 )8 ( )4,08-3,18 ()1,01-0,37.( 74 )9:( F 0.149 2 0.074 53.664 340 .158 53.813 342 0.471 0.625 0.539 2 0.269 142.364 340 0.419 142.902 342 0.643 0.526 0.445 2 0.223 100.061 340 0.294 100.506 342 0.757 0.470 0.419 2 0.210 164.339 340 0.483 164.758 342 0.434 0.648 0.157 2 0.079 307.451 340 0.904 307.608 342 0.087 0.917 0.169 2 0.084 87.395 340 0.257 87.563 342 0.328 0.721 *) = 0.05( )9 ()= 0.05 . 75 4 .: )= 0.05 ( . "")Independent T- test ()10 (. )10:("" . )=205( )=138( 4.06 0.41 4.04 0.38 0.394 0.694 3.22 0.67 3.22 0.61 0.026 0.979 3.88 0.54 3.92 0.54 0.653 0.514 3.52 0.70 3.57 0.68 0.666 0.506 3.31 0.96 3.33 0.93 0.252 0.801 3.63 0.51 3.65 0.50 0.315 0.753 *) = 0.05()341.( )10()= 0.05 ( . 76 5 .: )= 0.05 ( . "")Independent T- test ()11 (. )11:("" . )=115( )=228( 4.09 0.39 4.03 0.40 1.353 0.177 3.27 0.68 3.20 0.63 0.934 0.351 3.92 0.55 3.88 0.54 0.549 0.584 3.53 0.74 3.54 0.67 0.192 0.848 3.27 1.02 3.34 0.91 0.688 0.492 3.65 0.55 3.63 0.54 0.320 0.749 *) = 0.05()341.( )11 ()= 0.05 ( . 77 6 .: )= 0.05 ( . )One-Way ANOVA( )12 ()13 (. )12:( . 180 4.07 0.40 65 4.03 0.35 98 4.03 0.43 180 3.20 0.65 65 3.25 0.62 98 3.24 0.67 180 3.91 0.56 65 3.91 0.53 98 3.86 0.52 180 3.50 0.72 65 3.68 0.60 98 3.51 0.69 180 3.25 0.96 65 3.46 0.90 98 3.36 0.95 180 3.62 0.51 65 3.69 0.48 98 3.63 0.51 78 )12 ( )4,07-3,22 ()0,96-0,35.( )13 :( . F 0.169 2 0.085 53.643 340 0.158 53.813 342 0.536 0.586 0.148 2 0.074 142.755 340 0.420 142.902 342 0.176 0.839 0.213 2 0.106 100.293 340 0.295 100.506 342 0.361 0.697 1.541 2 0.770 163.218 340 0.480 164.758 342 1.605 0.202 2.270 2 1.135 305.338 340 0.898 307.608 342 1.264 0.284 0.209 2 0.104 87.355 340 0.257 87.563 342 0.406 0.667 *) = 0.05(. 79 )13 ( )= 0.05 ( . :: )14 ( )237 ()527 ( )19 ()14 ( . )14:( 1. 130 24,7% 2. 70 13,3% 3. 45 8,5% 4. 43 8,1% 80 5. )( 39 7,4% 6. 31 5,9% 7. 26 4,6% 8. 22 4,2% 9. 17 3,2% 10. 17 3,2% 11. 16 3,1% 12. 16 3,1% 13. 15 2,9% 14. 14 2,8% 15. 9 1,7% 16. 7 1,3% 17. 6 1,2% 18. 2 0,4% 19. )( 2 0,4% 527 100% )14( . 81 82 . : : )4 ( ) 3.64 ( )0.51( . . . )4:( 83 :)8\( )4.05()0.40.( )2.23-3.98()0.74- 1.65 ( . :.)8\( )3.90( )1.05( . :.)8\( )3.54( )70(%. )2009( .)3(": ")3.88(. 84 )2011:(95%35.9% )410( )10-17 (70,7 %200695 %2009. . :.)8\( )3.32()0.95( . ) :63:66: 67: )( 68 : 72 : 73 : ( . :.)8\( )3.22()0.65( . . 85 . ) :23: 24: LCD) (25: ( )2.96()59.2.(% ) :26: 27: 28: ()2.62()52.4(% . )2003( )2009( )2009( (Larose, 2009) )83.(% )2006 ()2007 ( .(Wang, 2011) )( )89(% . 86 :: 1. : ) = 0.05( =3.40. =3,40 . )5 ( )3.40( 68 %. )5 ()3.40 ( . . 87 2. : ) = 0.05( . )6 ( )= 0.05 ( . )6 () = 0.05 ( .: . )2007 ( . )1992 ( 88 ) = 0.05( . )2007 ( .(Larose, 2009) . )2006 ()2009 ( ) = 0.05(. :)2006 ()2010 .( 3. : ) = 0.05 ( . )7 ( : - . . . 89 . )2006 ()2010 ( . )2003 ()2007 ((Wang, 2011) . 4. : ) = 0.05( . )8 ()9( . . . )2010 ( 10. 90 )2007 ((Larose, 2009) 5 .)2003 ( )2009 ( 10. 5. : ) = 0.05 ( . )10 ()= 0.05 ( . : . . )2007 ()2009 ( . 91 6. : ) = 0.05 ( . )15 ()= 0.05 ( . . . )1998 ()2002 ((Peter, 2006) . 7. : ) = 0.05( . )13()14( )= 0.05 ( . . 92 :: )14( . )14()24.7(%)527( . )2007( . : )14()13.3(% . ):2325()7\.( 93 )14( )8.1(% . : )45()527()8.5(%)14.( ) 7\.() 2011( .)239( )45,3 (%: :)(. . . )(.)94( )17.8 (%. : . . . . . . . )98 ()18.6 (%. 94 :. . . )47 ( )8.9 (%. . . :: : 1. . 2. . . 3. . 4. . 95 5. :. . 6. . . 96 :: ) .2009(. . . ) .2002.( . . ) .2007(. . . ) .2009.( . . ) .2002(.. . ) .2000.(. . ) .2010.( . . 97 .) .2010.(. 17,2-57. ) .2003 .(. . .) .2006(. . . ) .2011.( . . ) .2006.( . . ) .2007( . . .) .2006.(. . ) .2010 .( . . ) .2009(.)"( ." . ) .2006.( . . 98 ) .2009(. ."" " "25-262009 .. ) .2002.( . 2002 . ) .2009.( . . ) .2000(.) (. ) .2009(. . . ) .2003.( . . . ) .2009 .( . . ) .2007(. :. . 99 ) .2009.(" " . . ) .2002.( . ) .2009.(.... . . .)2007(. . . ) .2009.( . . ) .2012 .(http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/ ) .2007.(. 160:153-183. ) .2002.(. . ) .2011.( . . 100 ) .2007.( . . ) .1993(. . . ) .2005(.. . ) .2006.( . . ) .1998.( . . ) .2000.( . ) .2002.( . ) .2002(. : . 776 . . 101 .) .2011.( . )( 25)5( 2011. ) .2009.( .2. ) .1996.( .2-5 . :: Besten, Den. Horton, Olga. Adey, John. Kraftl, Peter. (2011) Claiming Events of School (re)design: Materialising the Promise of Building Schools for the Future. Social and Cultural Geography, Feb2011, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p9-26, 18p, 2. Brian, C. (2005). Leading the School of the Future. This paper was addressed in a presentation and workshops in the leadership festival of international networking for educational transformation Chile in. Cambridgeshire (2011) Vision of Education: School of the Future. www.cambridgshire.gov.UK Easterby-Smith,M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D (2000).Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 783 796. http://www.cambridgshire.gov.UK 102 Fredric, M. L. (2000). The School of Future of the University of Sao Paulo: 1989-1999 What Was Learned and What Was not. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education TOJDE, ISSN 1302-6488 Vol: Frost, R. Holden, G. (2008). Student Voice and Future schools: building partnership for student participation. Improving Schools` SAGE Publication. Vol: 11 no.:1 March 2008. P-p: 83-95. Golub, J. (1986). Facing the Future: Issues in Education and Schooling. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, USA. Hofman, W. Hofman, R. (2011) Smart Management in Effective Schools: Effective Management Configurations in General and Vocational Education in the Netherlands. Educational Administration Quarterly; Oct2011, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p-p: 620-645, 26p. Laguardian, A. (2009). Necessary Educational Reform for the 2Ist Century: The Future of Public Schools in our Democracy. Urban Rev (2009)41:352-368. Larose, F. Morin, M. Grenon, V. Hasni, A. (2009). The Impact of Pre- service Field Training Sessions on the Probability of Future Teachers using ICT in school. European Journal of Teachers Education Vol. 32, No.3, August 2009, 289-303. 103 Mackenzie, A. (2010). Australian Waste Wise Schools Program: Its Past, Present, and Future. The Journal of Environmental Education, 41,165-178. Moore, Kathleen. (2011). "Schools of the Future" Initiative in California. Centre for Effective Learning Environments; Sep2011, Vol. 2011 Issue 5-8, Special section p1-4, 4p. Myung, J. Loeb, S. Horng, E. (2011). Identifying Talent for Future School Leadership in the Absence of Formal Succession Management Programs. Educational Administration Quarterly; April 2011, Vol. 47 p-p: 695-727. Peter, C. (2006). Essential Questions for the Future School. Specialist schools and academies trust, London, 2006, p-p1-54. Senge, P. (1990). System Thinking and Organizational Learning: Acting Locally and Thinking Globally in the Orgnaizatin of the Future. Paper presented at the confrance on "Transforming Orgnizations", Sloan School of Management, MIT, 29-31 May1990. Shropshire County council (2011). Vision for the School of the Future. Shropshire County council website. Skerlavaj, M. Dimovski, V. and Pahor, M.: faculty of social sciences, Uneversity of Ljubljana, Slovania. (2008). Intra- Organizational learning Network within Knowledge intensive Learning Environment. Interactive Learning Environment Vol.28, No.1 March 2010, 39-63. 104 Tek, E. Ruthven, K. (2010). The distinctiveness and Effectiveness of Science teaching in the Malaysian "Smart School". Research in Science and Technological Education, Vol.28, No. 1, April 2010, 25 -41. Torrance, P. (1958). Talent and Education: Present Status and Future Directions. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA. Wang, H. Tseng, J. Yen, Y. Huang, I. (2011). University Staff Evaluation System, Organizational learning, and Organizational Identification in Taiwan .Social Behavior and Personality. 2011, 39(1).43-54. 105 106 ) 1( 1. .. . 2. . .. . 3. .. . 4. .. . 5. .. . 6. .. . 7. . .. . 8. .. . 9. .. . 10. .. -. 11. .. . 12. .. -. 13. . .. - . 14. .. - . 15. .. . 16. .. -. 17. . . . . * : 107 ) 2\( ) ( \\ :" ". . : : )(. 1. : 2. : 3. ) (: 55-1010 4. : 5. : 6. : ____________________________________________________________________ : ) 2007(. : . 108 : )(: : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. : 14. . 15. 16. . 17. . 18. . 19. . 20. 109 21. . 22. . 23. . 24. . : 25. . 26. . 27. . 28. . 29. . 30. . 31. . 32. . 33. . 34. . 35. . : 36. . 37. . 38. . 110 39. . 40. . 41. . 42. . 43. . 44. . 45. . : 46. . 47. . 48. . 49. . 50. . 51. . 52. . : ) ( .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. 111 ) 2\( ) ( )1( :")2( ". . : . : : )(. 1. : 2. : 3. ) (: 55-10 10 4. : 5. : 6. : )1( : ) 2007.( )2( : . 112 : )(: :. 1. . 2. . 3. . . 1. . 2. . 3. . 4. . 5. . 6. . 7. . 8. . 9. . 10. . 11. . 12. . 13. . 14. ) .( 113 :. 15. . 16. . 17. . 18. . 19. . 20. LCD) .(... 21. . 22. . 23. . 24. . 25. . 26. . 27. . 28. . : . 29. . 30. . 31. . 32. . 33. . 34. . 35. . 114 36. . 37. . 38. . 39. . 40. . 41. . 42. . 43. . : 44. . 45. . 46. . 47. . 48. . 49. . 50. . 51. . 52. . 53. . 54. . 55. . :. 56. . 57. . 58. . 59. . 60. . 115 61. . 62. . 63. ) (. 64. . 65. . 66. . 67. . 68. . 69. . : ) ( .............................................................................................. ............................................................................................ 116 ) 3( 117 ) 4( 118 ) 5( 119 ) 6( 2012/2011 21 128 39 123 177 76 138 181 70 96 65 40 128 86 83 156 1607 *15\4\ 2012: 335=ID?aspx.ShowArticle/ps.gov.mohe.www://http 120 ) 7\( . 1 3 . 4.52 0.58 2 13 . 4.52 0.55 3 16 . 4.44 0.53 4 14 . 4.42 0.59 5 17 . 4.41 0.53 6 11 . 4.39 0.58 7 7 . 4.36 0.53 8 4 . 4.35 0.56 9 5 . 4.24 0.57 10 12 . 4.20 0.54 11 15 . 4.17 0.65 12 18 ) .( 4.10 0.79 13 6 . 3.99 0.66 14 10 . 3.98 0.74 15 1 . 3.91 1.41 16 8 . 3.55 1.07 17 2 . 3.15 1.65 18 9 . 2.23 1.23 4.05 0.40 121 ) 7\( . 1 32 . 3.85 0.65 2 22 . 3.81 0.66 3 19 . 3.80 0.75 4 30 . 3.75 0.71 5 20 . 3.69 0.72 6 29 . 3.66 0.79 7 24 LCD) .(... 3.55 0.98 8 31 . 2.92 1.12 9 28 . 2.85 1.05 10 21 . 2.84 1.19 11 26 . 2.72 1.01 12 23 . 2.69 1.18 13 25 . 2.64 1.13 14 27 . 2.29 1.09 3.22 0.65 122 ) 7\( . 1 36 . 4.20 0.69 2 43 . 4.08 0.70 3 33 . 4.06 0.65 4 34 . 4.06 0.63 5 37 . 4.02 0.70 6 41 . 4.00 0.69 7 47 . 3.96 0.70 8 35 . 3.89 0.71 9 39 . 3.89 0.87 10 38 . 3.87 0.77 11 46 . 3.80 0.71 12 44 . 3.76 0.75 13 45 . 3.71 0.77 14 42 . 3.62 0.94 15 40 ) .( 3.51 1.05 3.90 0.54 123 ) 7\( . 1 50 . 3.88 0.79 2 57 . 3.74 0.75 3 49 . 3.70 0.83 4 58 . 3.68 0.80 5 51 . 3.63 0.97 6 53 . 3.56 0.82 7 48 . 3.53 0.90 8 59 . 3.50 0.92 9 56 . 3.43 0.87 10 55 . 3.41 0.86 11 54 . 3.38 0.89 12 52 . 3.03 1.02 3.54 0.69 124 ) 7\( . 1 70 . 3.99 0.91 2 69 . 3.86 1.03 3 61 . 3.75 1.07 4 71 . 3.72 1.09 5 60 . 3.70 0.96 6 62 . 3.70 1.10 7 65 . 3.56 1.18 8 64 . 3.43 1.14 9 73 . 3.17 1.37 10 63 . 3.15 1.39 11 67 ) .( 3.05 1.40 12 68 . 2.60 1.57 13 66 . 2.53 1.50 14 72 . 2.24 1.52 3.32 0.95 125 ) 8\( - 126 ) 8\( - 127 ) 8\( - 128 ) 8\( - 129 ) 8\( - 130 ) 8\( - 131 ) 8( - 132 ) 8\( 133 ) 8\( - 134 ) 8\( 135 ) 8\( 136 ) 8\( - 137 ) 8\( 138 ) 8\( 139 ) 8\( 140 ) 8\( - An-Najah National University Faculty of Graduate Studies The Degree of Availability of Future Schools` Characteristics: Principals' Perspective at the West Bank Government Schools Prepared by Sonia Ahmad Ali Aboalsoud Supervised by Dr. Hassan Tayyem This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Educational Administration, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An- Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine. 2012 B The Degree of Availability of Future Schools` Characteristics: Principals' Perspective at the West Bank Government Schools Prepared by Sonia Ahmad Ali Aboalsoud Supervised by Dr. Hassan Tayyem Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine The Degree of Availability of Future Schools` Characteristics: Principals' Perspective at the West Bank Government Schools. In addition, the study tries to know the effects of the study`s variables of (gender, qualification, experience, school`s level, specialization, and governorate.) The study population consisted of all principals at the public schools in the West Bank. They were (1607) principals. The study sample consisted of (343) principals, approximately (21. 3%) of the study community. To achieve the goals of the study, the researcher prepared a questionnaire based on literature and related studies. The questionnaire validity was achieved by the referees. The reliability coefficient was computed by Cronbach- Alpha equation. The reliability coefficient of Availability Future Schools` Characteristics was (0. 96). Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) with T-test and ANOVA. The study revealed the following results: 1. The degree of availability of future schools' characteristics: principals' perspective at the West Bank government schools, the total degree for all the study domains reached (3.64) and it is described as a high degree. The order of the domains of the questioner is as follows: future C school principal characteristics, the future school curriculum characteristics, the future school student characteristics, then future school building characteristics, lastly future school teacher characteristics. 2. There were statistically significant differences on the level ( =0.05) in the degree of availability of future schools` characteristics: principals' perspective at the West Bank government schools, compared with accepted standard in education (3. 40) in favor of the total degree for all the study domains, in addition to future school principal, student, and curriculum domains. There were statistically significant differences in future schools` characteristics in favor of accepted standard in education (3. 40) in the domain of future school teacher. There were no statistically significant differences in the domain of future school building. 3. There were statistically significant differences on the level ( =0.05) in the total degree for all the study domains, future school principal characteristics domain, and future school teacher characteristics due to gender in favor of female. But there were no statistically significant differences on the level ( =0.05) in the degree of availability of future schools` characteristics: principals' perspective at the West Bank government schools due to the variable of gender on the domain of future school curriculum characteristics, future school student characteristics, and future school building characteristics. 4. There were no statistically significant differences on the level ( =0.05) in the degree of availability of future schools` characteristics: principals' perspective at the West Bank government schools due to the variable of qualification on all study domains, except for the domain of D future school principal characteristics in favor of graduated studies principals. 5. There were no differences that are statistically significant on the level ( =0.05) in the degree of availability of future schools` characteristics: principals' perspective at the West Bank government schools due to the variables of gender, qualification, experience, school`s level, Specialization, and governorate on all study domains. 6. The largest frequent problems which face the availability of future schools` characteristics were declared by the principles as follows: Economic issues and the shortness of school budgets. Lack of training and qualification of teachers to use technology in education. Problem of schools` building in terms of size and infrastructure. On the light of these findings, the researcher made the following recommendations; First: The need to connect schools with the world wide web so as to enable the school principal, the teacher, and the student from getting benefit from and be contacted through the future school. Second: The importance of conducting studies and researches by the teachers for self improvement and promoting their qualifications as well as promoting the surrounding community. To add, school principals should be encouraged to fulfill their higher education to raise their academic level besides improving their leading skills. Third: Focusing on employing the electronic capabilities in presenting and teaching the curriculum. E Forth: The need to pay attention to teach the students other languages through the curriculum. The aim is to facilitate coping with the global development. Fifth: The necessity of reviewing schools' infrastructure besides creating the features of future school; such as: central heating and cooling, electronic fire alarm, improving the material circumstances for education. Sixth: Conducting more studies and researches in relation to this study and measuring other relevant aspects. Further, other studies and investigations should be carried out in an attempt to tackle the challenges presented by school principals. 1 This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.win2pdf.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only. This page will not be added after purchasing Win2PDF. http://www.win2pdf.com