Examining the Relationship between Participation and Academic Emphasis Based on the Views of School Principals

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between participation and academic emphasis in schools based on the views of school principals. The research group consisted of 828 Turkish school principals who participated in the 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey. Within the scope of the research, the School Leadership Scale was used to determine the approaches of school principals to the participation of teachers, the Participation Among Stakeholders Scale was utilized to determine their views of stakeholder participation, and the Academic Pressure Scale was applied to determine the academic emphasis of the schools. In order to determine the participation level, the School Leadership Scale and Participation Among Stakeholders Scale were combined in path analysis. In the analysis of the data, t-tests, ANOVA, and LSD tests were used as post hoc tests, and Pearson correlation analysis and path analysis were performed. As a result of the research, it was determined that school principals’ views were close to high levels regarding teacher and stakeholder participation and they were at high levels regarding academic emphasis. Significant positive correlations were observed between teacher participation, stakeholder participation, and academic emphasis, and school principals’ views on participation were found to be significant predictors of academic emphasis.

Keywords

• teacher participation
• stakeholder participation
• academic emphasis
• school principals

References

1. Arslan, Y. (2018). The approaches of private school administrators to parental involvement process and the school-parent disagreements in this process. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Kocaeli.
2. Baş, S. E. (2019). Participation of teachers in school administration within the scope of decision making process: The sample of Atakum,Samsun. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Ankara.
3. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–45.
4. Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Buluç, B. (2009). The Relationship between Bureaucratic School Structure and Leadership Styles of School Principals in Primary Schools. Education and Science, 34(152), 71-86
6. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 351-393.
7. Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., Sammons, P. and Teddlie, C. (eds.). Routledge ınternational handbook of educational effectiveness and ımprovement research: research, policy, and practice. Routledge, Abingdon; New York, NY.
8. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

9. Croft, J. (2015) Collaborative overreach: why collaboration probably ısn’t key to the next phase of school reform. Research Report, No. 7, The Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Ehadducation Ltd., Westminster, London.
10. Cummings, C., Dyson, A., Muijs, D., Papps, I., Pearson, D., Raffo, C., Tiplady, L., Todd, L., & Crowther, D. (2007). Evaluation of the Full Service Extended Schools Initiative: Final Report. DfES Research Report, No. 852, University of Manchester, Manchester.
11. Çağlar, Ç. (2013). The Effect of Schools' Academic Optimism Level on Teachers' Organizational Commitment. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 9(1), 260-273.
12. Çakır, E. (2017). Evaluation of the opinions of principals intended for parental participation in middle schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University, Institute of Education Sciences, Konya.
13. Goddard, R. D. (1998). The effects of collective teacher efficacy on student achievement in urban public elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(10), 3702.
14. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure and effect on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
15. Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683–702.
16. Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17.
17. Grubb, W., & Flessa, F. (2006). A job too big for one: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518-550.
18. Hadfield, M., & Chapman, C. (2009). Leading school-based networks. Routledge: London, UK.
19. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
20. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95-110.
21. Harris, A. (2014), Distributed Leadership Matters: Perspectives, Practicalities, and Potential. Corwin, Thousand Oaks, CA.
22. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2004). School Improvement through teacher leadership. Open University Press, Ballmoor, Buckinghamshire.
23. Hooper, D. & Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. (2007). Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6.
24. Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23(2), 88–103.
25. Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23(2), 88–103.
26. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Hoy, W. K., & Sabo, D. J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
28. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership, 9: 184–208.
29. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes (pp. 135–156). Greenwich, CN: Information Age.
31. Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences.Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
32. McGuigan, L., & Hoy, W. (2006). Principal leadership: creating a culture of academic optimism to ımprove achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.
33. MoNE. (2015). Pre-school and primary education institutions standards guidebook.
34. OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris
35. OECD. (2018). Teaching And Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. OECD Education Working Paper No. 187.
36. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 Technical Report.
37. Phillips, M. (1997). What makes schools effective: A comparison of the relationships of communal climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 633–662.
38. Reynolds, D., & D. Muijs. (2016). Leading effective pedagogy. In Harris, A., & Jones, M. (eds.), Leading futures: global perspectives on educational leadership, Sage Publications India, New Delhi.
39. Sergiovanni, T., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M., & Fowler, F. (2009). Educational Governance and Administration. Pearson, Boston, MA.
40. Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
41. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
42. Tepe, N. (2018). An analysis of the relationship between enabling school structure, academic optimism and school effectiviness. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
43. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
44. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
45. Yıldız, B., & Akbaşlı, S., (2018). Investigation of school administrative aspect in academic achievement of primary school students (ilkokul öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarının arttırılmasında okul yönetimi boyutunun incelenmesi). International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(34), 2406-2424.
46. Yılmaz, E., & Yıldırım, A. (2017). Study of the academic optimism levels of the teachers in terms of certain variables. Jounal of Haman Sciences, 14(2). 1215-1224.
47. Yüner, B., & Burgaz, B. (2019). Evaluation of the relationship between school governance and school climate. Education and Science, 44(199), 373-390.