Comparison of School Administrators and Teachers' Understandings of Moral and Their Decision-Making Strategies

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 51 - 74, 30.06.2024

Cihat Arslan , Mehmet Üstüner

https://doi.org/10.25233/ijlel.1461398

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine whether there is a relationship between the moral understanding adopted by school administrators and teachers and the decision-making strategies they use when they have to make a decision on any issue, and if there is a relationship, to determine the level of this relationship. In order to achieve the purpose of the research, data collection was carried out in the 2022-2023 academic year through a group of participants selected by purposeful sampling method among school administrators and teachers working in Sivas province. Exploratory sequential mixed method was used in the research. Qualitative data was obtained using a personal information form and open-ended survey questions, and quantitative data was obtained using the "School Administrators' and Teachers' Moral Understandings of Understanding Scale" and "Decision Strategies Scale". When the qualitative findings of the research are examined; Regarding what the concept of "morality" means, it is seen that the concepts of "justice", "honesty" and "equality" come to the fore. In terms of decision-making situations, it is seen that school administrators and teachers mostly express the concepts of "justice" and "fairness". When the quantitative findings were examined, it was concluded that school administrators and teachers' understanding of morality and some of its sub-dimensions and decision-making strategies and some of its sub-dimensions showed significant differences in terms of some of the variables of age, gender and union membership status.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Morality, Ethics, Decision, Decision Strategies

Kaynakça

• Aksoy, N. (2011). Türkiye kamu eğitiminde gizli ticarileşme: kurumsal sosyal sorumluluğun işleyiş biçimleri ve eğitimi ticarileştirme işlevi. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 9(25), 8-27.
• Akhmetova, D. (1997). Anyone can become unique. Russian Education & Society, 39(19, 84-92. http://dx.doi.0.2753/RES1060-9393390184
• Bagley, C. (2006). School choice and competition: A public-market in education revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), 347-362.
• Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1), 23-28.
• Bayram, A. (2018). The reflection of neoliberal economic policies on education: Privatization of education in Turkey. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 341 - 347. http://dx.doi.10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.341
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Eğitim araştırmaları; Nicel ve nitel araştırmanın planlanması, yürütülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul: EDAM.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. N. York: Sage publications.
• Couch, J. F., William, F. S. & Williams, A. L. (1993). Private school enrollment and public school performance. Public Choice, 76(4), 301-312.
• Dikkaya, M. & Özyakışır, D. (2006). Küreselleşme ve bilgi toplumu: Eğitimin küreselleşmesi ve neo-liberal politikaların etkileri. Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi, 3(9), 155-176.
• Eğitim-Sen (2023). Eğitimde ticarileşme. Eğitim-sen Yayınları.
• Fuat, E. (2006). Neo-liberal eğitim politikalarının anatomisi için. alternatif bir çerçeve, Toplum ve Hekim, 14(4), 251-261.
• Falabella, A. (2013). Accountability policy effects within school markets a study in three chılean municipalities. (Doktoral Thesis Instıtute of Education University of London).
• Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. NewYork: Sage.
• Friedman, D. (2008), Piyasa, Devlet, Eğitim. Liberal Düşünce,49, 1-39.
• Harrison, J., & Rouse, P. (2014). Competition and public high school performance. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1), 10-19.
• Hoxby, M.C. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers?. The American Economic Review, 90(5), 1209-1238.
• Karasar, N. (2021). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nobel Dağıtım.
• Kishan, R. (2008). Privatization of education. New Delhi: Aph Publishing Corporation.
• Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers’ perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56-64.
• Lincoln, S. Y., & Guba, E. G. (19859. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Misra, K., Grimes, P.W., & Rogers, K. E. (2012). Does competition improve public school efficiency? A spatial analysis. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 1177-1190.
• Öztürk, H. (2015). Nitel ve nicel araştırma nedir? Aralarındaki farklar nelerdir? Retrieved from https://haldunozturk.com/nitel-ve-nicel-arastirma-nedir-aralarindaki-farklar-nelerdir/ February, 27, 2022.
• Rizvi, F. 2016. Privatization in education: Trends and consequences. Education Research and Foresight Series, No. 18. Paris, UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/node/262287
• Şahin, İ. (2007). Türkiye eğitim sisteminde değişim. Eğitim Bilim Toplum Dergisi, 5(20), 30-51.
• Tayyar A., Çetin, B. (2013). Liberal iktisadi düşüncede devlet, C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 107-120.
• Thapa, A. (2013). Does private school competition improve public school performance? The case of Nepal. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(4), 358-366.
• Toch, T. (2000). Improving performance: Competition in American public education. National Alliance of Business, Inc., Washington, DC.
• Uçkaç, A. (2010). Türkiye’de neoliberal ekonomi politikaları ve sosyo-ekonomik yansımaları. Maliye Dergisi, 158, 422-430.
• Urquiola, M. (2016). Competition among schools: Traditional public and private schools. In Handbook of the Economics of Education (Eds. Kirsten Shankland ). Elsevier B.V.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2022). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yolcu, H. (2013). The Education Agenda of Turkey: Marketing Education in the Context of Neo-liberal Policies. Routhledge.