Teachers’ Expectations and School Administration: Keys of Better Communication in Schools

Yıl 2015, , 17 - 34, 30.10.2015

Engin Aslanargun

https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.2

Öz

Problem Statement:The quality of education carried out in schools depends largely on the performance of teachers and school principals in cooperation. İt is possible to say that a qualified education of students depends on the performance and compliance degree of these two groups. İn this process, teachers’ having the primary responsibility for teaching in compliance with school administration and supported by administration is very critical. For a more qualified education/teaching school, principals should support their teachers as an institutional leader responding to their expectations and needs.

Purpose of the Study:The aim of this study is to determine teachers’ expectations from school principals so that they can do their jobs better. Teachers included in the study were asked what they have expected and hoped from principals while they were teaching.

Method:A qualitativeresearch methodology was employed, usingphenomenology to collect and analyze the interpretations and meanings of teachers’ expectations as drawn from their responses to openended semistructured questions. The research group consists of volunteer teachers who were employed in the district and province of Duzce city in Turkey.

Teachers were invited to fill out the openended form consisting of a single question via e-mail. A total of 677 volunteer teachers participated in this study: some of whom gave more than a single response, whereas some preferred short responses.

Findings andResults:In the finding section of the study, which aimed to investigate and analyse the teachers’ expectations and opinions, a major category and eight subcategories were identified. When analysing the expectations of teachers fom principals, it was evident that nearly one-fourth of the expectations were centered on the subcategories of coprehension and support (25 percent). Subsequently, satisfaction with the current administration (21 percent), leadership (13 percent), justice and equality (12 percent), communication (11 percent), physical equipment (9 percent), school development (9 percent) and no expectation (2 percent) followed.Consequently, valuebased informal behaviors such as appreciation, cooperation, consulting, respecting, fairness, confidence, and motivation were emphasized most often by the teachers.

Conclusions and Recommendations:The concepts and themes generally focused on human relationships, meaning that behaviours of principals should be shaped by considerations of leadership and communication. Communication, emphathy, and initiative are the concepts teachers paid the most attention to throughout the study, and these are the psychological characteristics that principals need to adapt most whatever their preferred leadership style has been. Having a considerate style of administration and providing support for teachers were the core recommendations of the research.

Keywords: Principal, instructional leadership, school improvement, justice and equality

Anahtar Kelimeler

Principal, instructional leadership, school improvement, justice and equality

Öğretmenlerin Görevlerini Daha İyi Yapabilmeleri İçin Okul Müdürlerinden Beklentileri

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Okul müdürü, öğretim liderliği, insan ilişkileri, değerler

Kaynakça

• Aslanargun, E. & Bozkurt, S. (2012). Okul Mudurlerinin Yonetimde Karsilastigi Sorunlar [Administrative Problems Principals Face in Schools], Gaziantep Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (2), 349-368.
• Bas, G. (2012). Correlation between School Principals’ Instructional Leadership Behaviours and Teachers’ Organisational Trust Perceptions,Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, (1), 5-18.
• Bilge, B. (2015). Okul Mudurlerinin Ogretmenlerin Mesleki Gelisimine Katkisi [Principals’ Contributions to Teachers’ Professional Developments],Yayinlanmamis Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Toplam Kalite Yonetimi Anabilim Dali, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Duzce.
• Blase, J.& Blase, J. (2000). Effective İnstructional Leadership, Teachers' perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 130-141.
• Cherian, F. & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change. İnternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 3(2).
• Corbin, J.,& Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research, techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
• Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform, Theory into Practice, 34, (1), 4-11.
• Edmonds, R.R. (1982). Program of School Improvement: An Overview, Educational Leadership, December, 1-11.
• Eres, F. (2011). Relationship between teacher motivation and transformational leadership characteristics of school principals, İnternational Journal of Education, 3 (2), 1-17. DOİ: 10.5296/ije.v3i2.798.
• Glatter, R. & Kydd, L. (2003). Best practice' in educational leadership and management: can we identify it and learn from it? Educational Management Administration Leadership, 31(3) 231–243, DOİ: 10.1177/0263211X03031003002.
• Gaziel, H. H. (2007). Re-examining the relationship between principals instructional / educational leadership and student achievement, Journal of Social Science, 15 (1), 17-24.
• Glasman, N. S. and Glasman, L. D. (1997): Connecting the preparation of school leaders to the practice of school leadership, Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (2), 3-20.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leaders that get results, Harward Business Review, March-April, 78-90.
• Goleman, D, Boyatzis, R. & Mc Kee, A. (2001). Primal leadership: the hidden drive of great performance, Harward Business Review, December, 42-51.
• Hallinger, P. (2012). Instructional Leadership in East Asia, Asia Leadership Roundtable 2012.
• Hallinger, P. (2009). Leadership for 21st century schools: from instructional leadership to leadership for learning, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.
• Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: a passing fancy that refuses to fade away, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 221-239.
• Hausman, C. S, Crow, G. M. & Sperry, D. J. (2000). Portrait of the ''İdeal principal'': context and self, National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 2000 84 (5), 5-14. DOİ: 10.1177/019263650008461701.
• Henderson, J.G. & Slattery, P. (2007). Understanding curriculum and pedagogy in relation to concepts of curriculum leadership, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 4 (2), 1-5
• Hoy, W. K, & Miskel, C. G. (2012). Egitim yonetimi: teori, arastirma ve uygulama [educational administration, theory, research and application],okul etkililigi, hesap verebilirlik ve gelistirme, (Ceviren A. Aypay, Editor. S. Turan) (ss.270-298). Ankara: Nobel.
• Kilinc, A. C., Cemaloglu, N., & Savas, G. (2015). The relationship between teacher leadership, teacher professionalism, and perceived stress. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.58.5
• Krug, S. E. (1992). İnstructional Leadership: A constructivist perspective, Educational Administration Quarterly, 28 (3), 430-443.
• Leithwood, K, Steinbach R. & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies, Educational Administration Quarterly, 38 (1), 94-119.
• Leithwood K. & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 177-199.
• MacNeill, N, Cavanagh, R. & Silcox, S. (2003). Beyond instructional leadership: towards pedagogic leadership, Paper submitted for presentation at the 2003 Annual conference for the Australian Association for Research in Education: Auckland.
• Marshall, C.,& Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Nettles, S. M. & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The Implications for School Improvement Policy, Peabody Journal of Education, 82 (4), 724-736
• Palmer, B, Walls, M, Burgess, Z & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional Intelligence and Effective Leadership, Leadership and Organisational Developmen Journal, 22 (1), 5-10.
• Peariso, J. F. (2011). A Study of principals‘ ınstructional leadership behaviors and beliefs of good pedagogical practice among effective california high schools serving socioeconomically disadvantaged and english Learners, A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education, Liberty University.
• Podsakoff, P. M, MacKenzie, S. B, Paine, J. B. & Bachrach, D. G. (2002). organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513–563.
• Robinson, V. M. J, Lloyd, C. A. & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 ( 5), 635-674.
• SJEC. (2015). School improvement education plan 2015 beaconsfield middle school, Saint John Educationa Centre, Anglophone School District, South.
• Schleicher, A. (2015), Schools for 21st-century learners: strong leaders, confident teachers, innovative approaches, International Summit on the teaching profession, OECD publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264231191-en
• Sharma, S. (2012). Instructional leadership model through asian principals’ perspectives, International Conference on Education and Management Innovation İPEDR, 30, Singapore.
• Sisman, M. (2011). Ogretim liderligi[Instructional Leadership]. 3.Baski. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundation of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approach, USA: Sage.
• Yildirim, A &Simsek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri [qualitative research methods in social sciences]. 7.Baski. Ankara: Seckin Yayinlari.