Primary School Administrators Views about Types of Violence and Method’s Coping with Violence Introduction

Year 2012, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 37 - 64, 01.02.2012

Zühal Çubukçu Ayşe Dönmez

Abstract

Background. Violence is a major problem of today's society. Violence in schools is increasing every day and becoming a serious problem. School violence is considered in disciplines such as sociology and psychology, is one of the most important issue that produce negative consequences on the school climate, harm student's learning processes and prevent their development and also does not identify behavior, aggression and crimes.Violence is actually a part of human nature and a kind of suppressed behavior. It is the exertion of the power and strength that individual has to himself/herself, other people, other groups or a society through threatening or employing it. Such behaviors may result in injury or lost. One of the most important reasons of the violence is social relationships in society. Violence can be broadly defined as not only the intentional physical behaviors against another person but also the unintentional verbal psychological pressure. In that sense, violence is seen as a type of behavior includes restricting the rights and liberties (Ergil, 2001; Şahin & Beyazova, 2001). The types of violence encountered in societal and daily life; • Violence towards oneself: suicide, the behaviors that damage the body. • Violence between people: the violence towards woman, child, elderly, violence in the family, dating violence. • Systemized violence: international violence, collective violence, political violence, power violence, violence towards the power. • Media violence: the violence which is caused by the sounds, the images and the articles in the written press and broadcast media. • Other types of violence: gang violence, blood feud, street violence, body and human trade, pornography, violence towards homosexual and lesbian, violence towards minorities, violence in school, work and sport. Violence in school is a problem that is present in the whole world. Violence in school violates the safety of a child and can severely jeopardize their normal psychophysical development. School teachers and parents can help in violence prevention in schools. Violence in school emerges in the form of a threatening environment, physical harm, emotional pressure and this situation is a big handicap for pupils' success. Violence in school is one of the forms of emerging of adults' reactional life. Children are both perpetrators and victims. The violence incidents can be prevented by the help of the effective curriculums that will be put into practice at the schools. Purpose. This study aims to investigate the opinions of primary school administrators on school violence, type of violent behavior among students, the study was conducted in 2008-2009 academic year on primary school administrators who work at 122 primary schools in Eskisehir city center. To investigate opinions gender, professional seniority, graduated from program and position taken as a variable. Method. The scale “The types of behavior encountered among pupils in schools” used in the study was upgraded by Turan, Çubukçu & Girmen (2008) in line with the classifications in the survey “Bullying and Violence” which was prepared by Çınkır and Karaman-Kepenekçi (2003). The first part of scale is personal information form, second part involved totally 26 items related to types of behavior under five sub-dimensions (types of violence). The third part involved two open-ended question, which asked administrators to express their feelings and opinions about the ‘violence' concept and method's coping with violence. After the factor analysis 2 item have been taken from the scale. To test the reliability of the scale “The Types of Behavior Experienced among Pupils in Schools” for each group Cronbach Alpha coefficient was measured. Cronbach Alpha coefficient is between .66 and .88 for each sub factor. The scale applied to 210 primary school administrator. In this study quantitative data was collected through a scale. In the analysis of the quantitative data, arithmetic means and standard deviation were computed, and for the sub-aims of the study; Mann Whitney-U and Kruskal Wallis-H test were computed. After the analysis of variance, when the statistics of the Kruskal Wallis-H test was significant, the source of the difference was searched using the Mann Whitney-U test. Findings. According to the findings of study; primary school administrators were noted that verbal type of violence was the highest among students. A significant difference was found Physical type of violence, in terms of the gender of administrators in favor of female administrators, sexual type of violence, in terms of task of administrators in favor of assistant administrator, sexual, emotional and physical type of violence according to the seniority variable, and in favor of emotional type of violence, according to graduates` teaching institutions. Conclusion. According the results of the study ‘Comparing the Proportion of Whipping in Schools Between 1992 and 2002' done by Gözütok, Er ve Karacaoğlu (2006), whereas the psychical punishment that the pupils mostly experience was slapping in 1992, pulling ear took its place in 2006. In addition, the study stated that the frequency of being exposed to physical punishment increased comparing to past. School administratorsWhen we look at the arithmetic mean of their scores from scale for examining the most dominant factor is the type of verbal violence than physical violence. Different studies can design, including students, teachers, administrators, staff, and parents involving all stakeholders. There are lots of studies in the literature about school violence but when we look at the effectiveness of studies in practice, the number of studies is very small. For this reason, long-term efficacy studies, can be designed and their effectiveness can be analyzed.

Keywords

violence , violence in school , school administrator

İlköğretim Okul Yöneticilerinin Şiddet Türlerine Yönelik Görüşleri ve Şiddetle Başa Çıkma Yöntemleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, ilköğretim okullarında görev yapan yöneticilerin şiddet türlerine yönelik görüşleri ve şiddetle başa çıkmada kullandıkları yöntemleri ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemini, 2008-2009 öğretim yılında Eskişehir il merkezinde bulunan 122 ilköğretim okulunda görev yapan ilköğretim okul yöneticileri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada nicel veriler “Okulda Öğrenciler Arasında Karşılaşılan Davranış Biçimleri Ölçeği” ile toplanmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizinde yüzde, aritmetik ortalama ve standart sapma değerleri hesaplanmış, araştırmanın alt amaçlarına yönelik olarak Mann Whitney-U ve Kruskal Wallis-H testi kullanılmıştır. Açık uçlu sorulara ilişkin verilerin analizinde ise frekans analizi ve betimsel çözümleme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre, ilköğretim okul yöneticileri öğrenciler arasında en fazla sözel şiddet türünün görüldüğünü belirtmişlerdir. Değişkenler dikkate alındığında, bedensel şiddet türünde, cinsiyetleri açısından kadın yöneticilerin lehine, cinsel şiddet türünde, yöneticilerin görevleri açısından müdür yardımcısı yöneticilerin lehine, cinsel, duygusal ve bedensel şiddet türlerinde mesleki kıdem değişkenine göre, duygusal şiddet türünde ise mezun oldukları öğretim kurumuna göre anlamlı farklılık saptanmıştır.

Keywords

şiddet , okulda şiddet , okul yöneticisi

References

• Alkan, H. B. (2007). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin istenmeyen davranışlarla baş etme yöntemleri ve okulda şiddet (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Niğde Üniversitesi, Niğde.
• Avcı, R. (2006). Şiddet davranışı gösteren ve göstermeyen ergenlerin ailelerinin aile işlevleri öfke ve öfke ifade tarzları açısından incelenmesi (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
• Ayan, S. (2006). Şiddet ve fanatizm. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 191-209.
• Baloğlu, N. ve Karadağ, E. (2008). Öğretmen yetkinliğinin tarihsel gelişimi ve Ohio öğretmen yetkinlik ölçeği: Türk kültürüne uyarlama, dil geçerliği ve faktör yapısının incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 56, 571-606.
• Çınkır, Ş. ve Karaman-Kepenekçi, Y. (2003). Öğrenciler arası zorbalık. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 34, 236-253.
• Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school violence: Definitions and facts. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 8, 71-82.
• Gözütok ve diğerleri (2006). Okulda dayak (1992 ve 2006 yılları karşılaştırması). iogm.meb.gov.tr/siddetveokul/index.htm. Erişim Tarihi: 13.04.2009.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Reducing school violence through conflict resolution. ASCD. Virginia.
• Karasar, N. (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. On yedinci baskı. Ankara: Nobel.
• Kartal, H. (2008). Bullying prevalence among elementary students. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 35, 207-217.
• Kartal, H. ve Bilgin, A. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenler ve öğrenim gören öğrencilerin zorbalığa yönelik görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(3), 539-562.
• Koç, M. (2006). Şiddetin ortaya çıkardığı psikolojik travmayla baş etmede sporun işlevselliği, 1. Şiddet ve Okul: Okul ve Çevresinde Çocuğa Yönelik Şiddet ve Alınabilecek Tedbirler Sempozyumu, 28-31 Mart, İstanbul.
• Korkut, F. (2004). Okul temelli önleyici rehberlik ve psikolojik danışıma. Ankara: Anı.
• Meyer, A. L., & Farrell, A. D. (1998). Social skills training to promote resilience in urban sixth-graduate students: one product of an action research strategy to prevent youth violence in high-risk environments. Education & Treatment of Children, 21(4), 461-478.
• Moore, W. L., & Cooper, H. (1984). Correlations between teacher and student background and teacher perceptions of discipline problems and disciplinary techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 21(3), 386-392.
• Neuman, W. L. (2007). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar. 1. Cilt, 1. Basım, İstanbul: Yayın Odası Yayıncılık Hizmetleri.
• Pişkin, M. (2002). Okul zorbalığı: tanımı, türleri, ilişkili olduğu faktörler ve alınabilecek önlemler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri (Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice), 2(2), 531-562.
• Şahin, F. ve Beyazova, U. (2001). Çocuğun şiddetten korunma hakkı. Milli Eğitim, 151, 90-94.
• Terzi Ş. (2007). Okullarda yaşanan şiddeti önleyici bir yaklaşım: kendini toparlama gücü. Aile ve Toplum Eğitim Kültür ve Araştırma Dergisi, 3(12), 73-82.
• Tural, K. N. (2006). Okul kültürü içinde şiddet. Toplumsal Bir Sorun Olarak Şiddet Sempozyumu, Eğitim Sen Yayınları, 237-239.
• Turan, S., Çubukçu, Z., & Girmen, P. (2008). Types of Violence and Behavior Styles among Students in Turkish Public Schools, Educational Planning in an Era of Dilemmas and Wicked Problems Conference ISEP, (Abstracts, 14-15), 38th Annual Meeting, October 16-18, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Turan, S., Çubukçu, Z., & Girmen, P. (2010). Patterns and forms of violent behaviors encountered among pupils in Turkish public schools. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi Teori ve Uygulama, 1(1), 53-74.
• Uysal, A. (2003). Şiddet karşıtı programlı eğitimin öğrencilerin çatışma çözümleri, şiddet eğilimleri ve davranışlarına yansıması (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir.
• Ünsal, A. (1996). Genişletilmiş bir şiddet tipolojisi. Cogito, (6-7), 29-36.
• Walker, H. M., & Walker, J. E. (2000). Key questions about school safety critical issues and recommended solutions. Preventing school violence, NASSP Bulletin/March, 46-55.