Okul Müdürlerinin Manipülatif Davranışları ile Öğretmenlerin Özerklik Algıları ve Bağlılık Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkiler

Year 2018, Volume: 19 Issue: 2, 1707 - 1726, 01.05.2018

Nedim Özdemir Selçuk Turan

https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.19.02.018

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma, okul müdürlerinin duygusal manipülatif davranışları ile öğretmenlerin özerklik algıları ve okula bağlılık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektedir. Araştırma, ilişkisel tarama modelinde betimsel bir çalışma olarak yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın verileri için okullar ve okullar içinde öğretmenler olmak üzere iki düzeyli örneklem alma yoluna gidilmiştir. Bu çerçevede, ilk önce araştırmada yer alacak okullar tabakalı örnekleme yoluna saptanmış ardından seçilen okullardaki öğretmenler çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma grubunu Ankara ve Zonguldak illerinde yer alan 80 okuldan 760 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin toplanmasında, bu çalışma kapsamında araştırmacılar tarafından Türk kültürüne ve diline uyarlanan Duygusal Manipülatif Davranış Ölçeği, Öğretmen Özerkliği Ölçeği ve Öğretmen Bağlılığı Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Verilerinin analizinde, okul müdürlerinin duygusal manipülatif davranışları ile öğretmenlerin özerkliği algıları ve okula bağlılık düzeyleri arasındaki doğrudan ve dolaylı ilişkiler, iki düzeyli yapısal eşitlik modeli kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Okul düzeyinde yer alan değişkenler arasındaki sonuçlara göre, müdürlerin pozitif duygusal manipülatif davranışlarındaki artış öğretmen özerklik algılarını arttırmaktadır. Öte yandan, müdürlerin negatif duygusal manipülatif davranışlarının, öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılıkları üzerinde doğrudan bir etkisi olduğu bulunmuştur. Araştırmanın sonuçları, okul müdürlerinin öğretmenlerin özerklik algıları ve bağlılığı üzerinde önemli etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu anlamda, çalışmanın sonuçları, bireysel ve kurumsal amaçlara ulaşmak için okul müdürünün, duygularını etkili bir şekilde kullanılabileceği düşüncesini desteklemektedir.

Keywords

Anahtar Kelimeler: Duygusal manipülasyon, Okul özerkliği, Örgütsel bağlılık, Okul müdürü, Öğretmen.

Okul Müdürlerinin Manipülatif Davranışları ile Öğretmenlerin Özerklik Algıları ve Bağlılık Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkiler

Abstract

References

• Allen, N. J. ve Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
• Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C. ve Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence, Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side? Personality and Individual Differences, 43(1), 179-189.
• Ayral, M., Özdemir, N., Türedi, A., Yılmaz-Fındık, L., Büyükgöze, H., Demirezen, S., …Tahirbegi, Y. (2014). Öğretmen özerkliği ile öğrenci başarısı arasındaki ilişki: PISA örneği. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 207-218.
• Berkovich, I. ve Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129-167.
• Berkovich, I. ve Eyal, O. (2017). Good cop, bad cop: Exploring school principals’ emotionally manipulative behaviours. Educational Management Administration ve Leadership, 45(6), 944-958.
• Biesta, G. (2009). Values and ideals in teachers’ professional judgement. In S. Gerwirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall ve A. Crib (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism; international trends, challenges and ways forward (ss. 184-193). Oxon: Routledge.
• Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein ve S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (ss. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bradley, J. ve Eachus, P. (1995). Occupational stress within a UK higher education institution. International Journal of Stress Management, 2(3), 145-158.
• Briggs, K. L. ve Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Key elements of a successful School-Based Management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 351-372.
• Burns, S. K. (2013). Investigating relationships between trait anxiety emotional processing and psychopathy as a dimensional personality trait. PhD Thesis, Curtin University, Australia.
• Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1214-1221.
• Çolak, İ. ve Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Okul iklimi ile öğretmenlerin özerklik davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 23(1), 33-71.
• Day, C. (1997). Teachers in the twenty-first century: Time to renew the vision. In A. Hargreaves ve R. Evans (Eds.), Beyond educational reform: Bringing teachers back in (ss. 44–61). Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Day, C., Gu, Q. ve Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258.
• Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B. ve Singleton, C. A. (2006). Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools. Urban Education, 41(6), 603-627.
• Dou, D., Devos, G. ve Valcke, M. (2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration ve Leadership, 45(6), 959-977
• Eberts, R. W. ve Stone, J. A. (1986). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.
• Fancera, S. F. ve Bliss, J. R. (2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 349-370.
• Firestone, W. A. ve Pennell, J. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential Incentive Policies. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489-525.
• Friedman, I. A. (1999). Teacher-perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 58-76.
• Glatter, R., Mulford, W. ve Shuttlework, D. (2003). Networks of innovation: Towards new models of managing schools and systems. Paris: OECD.
• Grenville-Cleave, B., ve Boniwell, I. (2012). Surviving or thriving? Do teachers have lower perceived control and well-being than other professions? Management in Education, 26(1), 3-5.
• Grossman, P. L. ve Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-23.
• Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352.
• Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.
• Hallinger, P. ve Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980–1995 International handbook of educational leadership and administration (ss. 723-783). Springer.
• Hanson, E. M. (1998). Strategies of educational decentralization: Key questions and core issues. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2), 111-128.
• Howard, S. ve Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: resisting stress and burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 7(4), 399-420.
• Hoyle, E. ve John, P. D. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. London: Cassell.
• Hu, L. ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• Hulpia, H., Devos, G. ve Van Keer, H. (2009). The Influence of distributed leadership on öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılığı: A multilevel approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40-52
• Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability emotional intelligence and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 325-345.
• Hyde, J. ve Grieve, R. (2014). Able and willing: Refining the measurement of emotional manipulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 131-134.
• Khmelkov, V. T. (2000). Developing professionalism: Effects of school workplace organization on novice teachers’ sense of responsibility and efficacy. Yayınlanmamış Doctora Tezi. University of Notre Dame, USA.
• King, M. B. ve Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86-94.
• Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M. ve Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 319- 333.
• Leithwood, K. ve Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
• Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. ve Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
• Leithwood, K. ve Seashore Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
• Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B. ve Wahistrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315-336.
• MacBeath, J. (2012). Future of teaching profession. Brussels: Education International Research Institute. Marks, H. M. ve Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.
• Marks, H. M. ve Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370- 397.
• Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D. ve Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-156.
• Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. ve Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic press.
• Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. ve Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
• Mulford, W. (2003). School leaders: Challenging roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. Paper presented at the OECD Improving School Leadership activity.
• Muthén, L. K., ve Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus User's Guide. (6th Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén ve Muthén.
• Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. ve Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
• Ostroff, C. (1993). Comparing correlations based on individual-level and aggregated data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 569-582.
• Özdemir, N. ve Kavak, Y. (2017). Akademik başarı kıskacındaki okul yöneticileri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Pearson, L. C. ve Hall, B. W. (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-178.
• Pearson, L. C. ve Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
• Pitt, A. (2010). On having one’s chance: Autonomy as education’s Limit. Educational Theory, 60(1), 1-18.
• Pont, B., Nusche, D. ve Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership, Volume 1: Policy and practice (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD publishing.
• Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T. ve Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an organization-wide phenomena: Its impact on school performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 564-588.
• Ross, J. A. ve Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.
• Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., … Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–536.
• Sebastian, J. ve Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663.
• Short, P. M. (1994). Defining teacher empowerment. Education, 114(4), 488-493.
• Smylie, M. A. ve Wenzel, S. A. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, failures, and lessons for the future. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.
• Sparks, D. (2012). The relationship between teacher perceptions of autonomy in the classroom and standards based accountability reform. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. The University of Maryland, College Park, St. Clair, H. R. (1966). Manipulation. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7(4), 248-258.
• Sun, J. ve Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational School Leadership Effects on Student Achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418-451.
• Tabachnick, B. C. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Edition). Boston: Pearson.
• Verhoest, K., Peters, B. G., Bouckaert, G. ve Verschuere, B. (2004). The study of organisational autonomy: a conceptual review. Public Administration and Development, 24(2), 101-118.
• Wahlstrom, K. L. ve Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
• Ware, H. ve Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303-310.
• Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and professional community. Journal of School Change, 2(1), 1–33.
• Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J. ve Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425.
• Wohlstetter, P. ve Chau, D. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. In K. Bulkley ve P. Wolhstetter (Eds.). Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next (ss. 53–71). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.