İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Müdür Desteği Algıları ile Kolektif Sorumluluk Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişki: Karma Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı ilköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin müdür desteği algıları ile kolektif sorumluluk düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek, müdür desteği ile kolektif sorumluluğa ilişkin görüşlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmada, nicel ve nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin beraber yürütüldüğü karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın nicel örneklemini, basit seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilen 256 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Nitel çalışma grubunu maksimum çeşitlilik yöntemine göre belirlenen 19 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Araştırmanın nicel bulguları, okul müdürlerinin öğretmenleri destekledikleri, okul müdürlerinin araçsal desteği diğer destek türlerine göre daha fazla sağladıkları, öğretmenlerin kolektif sorumluluk düzeylerinin yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca okul müdürlerinin duygusal, öğretimsel ve araçsal destekleyici davranışları ile öğretmenlerin kolektif sorumluluk düzeyleri arasında pozitif ve anlamlı ilişkiler olduğu; okul müdürünün öğretimsel desteğinin öğretmenlerin kolektif sorumluluğunu yordadığı görülmüştür. Araştırmanın nitel bulgularının, nicel bulgularla örtüştüğü ve nicel bulguları destekleyici nitelikte olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmenler
• Müdür Desteği
• Kolektif Sorumluluk

The Relationship between the Perceptions about the School Principal Support and the Levels of Collective Responsibility for Primary School Teachers: Mixed Research

Abstract

The goal of this research is to examine the relationship between the perceptions about the school principal support and the levels of collective responsibility of primary school teachers, and to reveal their views on collective responsibility and principal support. The mixed method was used in the study, which combines the quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative sample of the study consists of 256 teachers selected by the simple random sampling. Qualitative sample of the study consists of 19 teachers selected according to the maximum diversity method. The quantitative findings of the study show that school principals actually support the teachers, principals provide instrumental support more than other types of support, and that teachers have a high level of collective responsibility. In addition, it was revealed that there are a positive and statistically significant relationships between the emotional, instructional and instrumental supportive behaviors of school principals and the collective responsibility levels of teachers. It was observed that the principals' educational support predicted the collective responsibility of the teachers. It was observed that the qualitative findings of the study coincided with the quantitative findings and supported them.

Keywords

• Teachers
• Principal Support
• Collective Responsibility

References

1. Baki, A. & Gökçek, T. (2012). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına genel bir bakış. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(42), 1-21.
2. Bonzonelos, J. (2008). Retention in special education: reducing attrition through supportive administrative interventions. International Journal of Learning, 15(1), 149-157.
3. Bryk, A., Camburn, E. & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
5. Can, N. (2006). Öğretmen liderliğinin geliştirilmesinde müdürün rol ve stratejileri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(2), 349-363.
6. Can, N. (2010). Öğretmen liderliğine müdürün etkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 57-66.
7. Cagle, K. E. (2012). Faculty perceptions of principal support and change orientation in Virginia high schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, USA.
8. Cemaloğlu, N. & Savaş, G. (2018). Examining the relationship between supportive behaviors of school principals and teacher leadership. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(1), 244 – 258.

9. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına giriş. (M. Sözbilir, Çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik spss ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
11. Demirtaş, H., Özer, N., Demirbilek, N. & Bali, O. (2017). Relationship between the perceived principal support, trust in principal and organizational commitment. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 1075-1092.
12. Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. (2004). Teachers' expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98.
13. Dipaola, M. F. (2012). Conceptualizing and validating a measure of principal support. In. Dipaola, M. F. & Forsyth, P. B. (Ed.), Contemporary Challenges Confronting School Leaders Charlotte (pp. 111-120). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
14. Günbayı, İ., Dağlı, E. & Kalkan, F. (2013). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin destekleyici davranışları ile öğretmenlerin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 4(4), 575-602.
15. Hairston, A. N. (2016). Climate and collective responsibility as predictors of effectiveness in secondary schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, USA.
16. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
17. Hoy, W. K. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for achievement of all students: a 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(1), 76-97.
18. Hoy, W. K., Smıth, P. A. & Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: its measure and relationship to faculty trust. High School Journal, 86, 38-49.
19. Hoy, W., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press/Sage Publications.
20. Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
21. Karip, E. (2018). Okul müdürü başöğretmendir. Erişim adresi: https://tedmem.org/vurus/okul-muduru-basogretmendir. 01.05.2020.
22. Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (2009). Building strong school cultures: a guide to leading change. American Association of School Administrators; Corwin Press.
23. Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S. & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Analyzing school-based professional community. In. Louis, K. S. & Kruse, S. D. (Ed.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 171-263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Convin.
24. Krüg, M. T. (2015). Academic optimism, organizational citizenship behavior, and principal support: an examination of factors effecting teacher agency in elementary schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Faculty of the School of Education the College of William and Mary, Virginia, USA.
25. Lackey, H. E. (2019). The relationship between the supportive principal behavior dimension and teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy in rural schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln Memorial University, USA.
26. Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S. & Smith, J. B. (1993). The organization of effective secondar yschools. In. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 171-263). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
27. Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (2000). School Size in Chicago Elementary Schools: Effects on Teachers’ Attitudes and Students’ Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 3–31.
28. Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in student achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147.
29. Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 128-150.
30. Littrell, P. (1992). The effects of principal support on general and special educators’ stress, job satisfaction, health, school commitment, and intent on staying in teaching. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, USA.
31. Littrell, P. C., Billingsley, B. S. & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects of principal support on special and general educators' stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 297-310.
32. Logerfo, L. F. & Goddard, R. D. (2008). Defining, measuring, and validating teacher and collective responsibility. In. Hoy, W. K. & Dipaola, M. F. (Ed.), Improving schools: studies in leadership and culture (pp. 73-97). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
33. Mihans, R. (2008). Can teachers lead teachers? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 762-765.
34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Erişim adresi: https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretmenlik-meslegi-genel-yeterlikleri/icerik/39 10.05.2019.
35. Miles, M, B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag.
36. Özdemir, S. (2012). İlköğretim okullarında okul kültürü ile örgütsel sağlık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18(4), 599-620.
37. Özgüven, İ. E. (1994). Psikolojik testler. Ankara: Yeni Doğuş Matbaası.
38. Rosenholtz, S. J. & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitments. Sociology of Education, 63, 241 - 257.
39. Soodak, L. C. & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401-411.
40. Singh, K., & Billingsley, B.S. (2010). Professional support and its effects on teachers' commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 91(4), 229-239.
41. Terry, P. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal, faculty trust in colleagues, collegial principal leadership, and collective responsibility. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, Alabama.
42. Tindle, J. A. (2012). Dimensions of principal support behaviors and their relationship to organizational citizenship behaviors and student achievement in high schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Virginia.
43. Wahlstrom, K. & Louis, K.S. (2008). How teachers perceive principal leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 498-445.
44. Whalan, F. (2012). Collective responsibility, collective struggle: redefining what falls between the gaps for school reform. Rotterdam, Tapei: Sense Publishers, Boston.
45. Wu, H. C. (2012). Collective responsibility, academic optimism and student achievement in Taiwan elementary schools. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio.
46. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.