Quality of Life in High Schools: The Case of Adana Province

Abstract

Summary The concept of quality of school life is based on the more general concept of “quality of life” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Land & Spilerman, 1975; Williams & Batten, 1981; cited in Linnakylä & Brunell, 1996, p.205). Quality of life is considered as a general and continual well being state and is generally determined both by positive experiences which bring happiness, pleasure and satisfaction and by negative experiences and feelings. These experiences are evaluated in terms of some concepts such as family, friends, school, work, free time etc. which are all important and meaningful for the individual (Linnakylä & Brunell, 1996, p.205). Education is also considered as an important dimension of general quality of life. Gander and Gardiner stated that (1993, p.456), school experiences clearly contributed both to the professional and social aims and to the adolescents' intellectual and esthetic development. Schools are responsible for students' social development as well as their academic development (Marks, 1998). Consequently, educational environment should help to support both their academic and social development. In their research which consisted of 5932 adolescents Mok and Flynn (1997) found that, 20% of variance in students' academic achievement can be explained by quality of school life. Besides that Wolf, Chandler and Spies (1980; cited in Mok & Flynn, 2002) asserted that, children who have a positive school life can take more responsibility of their own behaviours. Also, Perry (2000) in his research which consisted of 1500 high school students found that, quality of school life has an important role among factors which affect students' general life satisfaction. Due to its important effects on students' academic achievement and on other outputs of education, quality of school life draws attention of educators and a lot of studies about students' well being at school have been done. However, there is very few research done on this topic in Turkey. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to investigate students' perceptions about their quality of life in their high schools. In direction of this general purpose, the following questions were asked: 1. According to perceptions of students' what is the level of quality of life in high schools in the Adana central province? 2. Are there any significant differences between the male and female students' perceptions about quality of their school life 3. Are there any significant differences in the level of school life quality by SES of the schools? 4. Are there any significant differences in students' perceptions of quality of life in their schools by their grades? Method The participants of the study included a total number of 478 students; 243 of whom were female and 235 of whom were male students. They attend six different state high schools in 2004 – 2005 educational year in Adana, Turkey. 163 of these students (34.1%) attend schools of high SES, 141 of them (29.5%) attend schools of middle SES and 174 of them (36.4%) attend schools of low SES. As for distribution of them, 200 students (41.8%) were at ninth grade, 202 students (42.3%) were at tenth grade and 76 students (15.9%) were at eleventh grade. QLHSS which was developed by the researcher through adaptation of the “Quality of life in University Scale” (Doğanay & Sarı, 2006) was used to gather data. The scale consist of 40 items with seven dimensions (Teachers, Positive feelings about school, Negative feelings about school, Student- student interaction, School administration, Social activities and Status) after it was tested for reliability and validity. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency of these dimensions were calculated in sequence .89, .86, .81, .86, .80, .74, .71 and for the total of the instrument was .86. These seven dimensions could be account for 46.8% of the total variance. The instrument, being a Likert type consists of five scales which are certanly not agree, not agree, undetermined, agree and certanly agree. The minimum and maximum scores which can be collected from the scale are 40 – 200 and the scores can be analysed both on the base of subscales and the total scale. To analyse the gathered data, means and standard deviation distributions were investigated and independent samples of t-test and one way analysis of variance was performed. Findings and Discussion Results demonstrated that students perceived the quality of life in their schools at an average quality. Except for the School administration and the Social activities subscales, the mean was calculated between two and three for all the other dimensions. The highest mean was calculated for the School administration subscale and the lowest for the Status subscale. There were significant differences between the perceptions of male and female students regarding the dimensions of Feelings about school in favour of male students and regarding the dimensions of Social activities in favour of female students (p<.05). Although there were not significant differences between perceptions of girls and boys generally, according to literature, girls' perceptions of quality of life in their schools are more positive than the boys'. For example, Marks (1998) and Majeed, Fraser and Aldridge (2002) found that, when compared with boys, girls perceive the quality of life of their schools more positively than boys. On the base of this result of the study, it may be said that, different factors except sex have more important influences on students' perceptions of quality of life in their high schools in Turkey. Results show that in all subscales of QLHSS, the highest means were calculated in schools have high SES and the differences were statistically significant at the .05 level. According to this results it may be said that, the higher the SES of the school, the more positive the quality of school life was perceived by students. It may be because of that the schools in high SES, have both physical and socio-cultural opportunities to establish well environment to their students. On the other hand, students gradually become pretty selector persons and they can evaluated their education process quite critically. Studies show that adolescents not believe in their important needs are met enough in schools and they are not satisfied with service submitted to them (Flanagan, 1978; cited in Karatzias et al. 2001a). The result of students in schools with low SES perceived the life quality in their schools more negatively may be reflected such a critical perceptiveness. However in the high SES, the educational level of the parents are generally high too. Marks (1998) found that, students who have more educated parents were more satisfied with their quality of life in school. In the light of all of these results, it is suggested that, it can be beneficial to take some precautions to increase the quality of life in high schools which is a critical period of time for young students. Especially, if studies which will be done focus on high schools which are in low SES, it may be help to eliminate the inequality of opportunities between students. Also it may be beneficial to carry out a series of orientation programs for students who are at 9th grade, who are new in this environment. It is clear that, programs like that may help them to know the characteristics of life of their schools closely and to come over of adaptation problems easily. In the high school period which is accepted as a critical term for identity development, it may be said that, the quality of school life which is submitted to students has an important influences on the quality of personal identities which are formed by the students. Thus, investigating this topic in more detail by scientific research may led to submit to students a school life which has superior quality and satisfying for them.

Keywords

• quality of school life , quality of life in high schools scale

Liselerde Okul Yaşam Kalitesi: Adana İli Örneği

Öz

Tarama modelinde betimsel bir çalışma olan bu araştırmada, lise öğrencilerinin okullarının yaşam kalitesine ilişkin algılarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın örneklemi, Adana İli merkez ilçelerindeki alt, orta ve üst sosyo-ekonomik düzeydeki genel liselerden yansız olarak belirlenen altı lisedeki 478 öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin toplanmasında, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen Liselerde Yaşam Kalitesi Ölçeği (LİSEYKÖ) kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analiz edilmesinde aritmetik ortalama, standart sapma dağılımlarının incelenmesinin yanı sıra t-testi ve varyans analizleri yapılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, öğrencilerin okullarındaki yaşam kalitesini genel olarak orta düzeyde olarak algıladıkları, kız ve erkek öğrencilerin okul yaşam kalitesi algıları arasında önemli farklılıklar olmadığı, üst sosyo – ekonomik düzeydeki liselerde okul yaşam kalitesinin daha yüksek olduğu ve sınıf düzeyi yükseldikçe öğrencilerin liselerindeki yaşam kalitesini daha olumlu algıladıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• okul yaşam kalitesi , liselerde yaşam kalitesi ölçeği (LİSEYKÖ)

Kaynakça

1. Bulach, C., Fulbright & J.P., Williams, R. (2003). Bullying behavior: What is the potential for violence at your school? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30 (2), 156–164
2. Celep, C. (2002). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin psikolojik ve akademik gereksinimlerini karşılama ile sınıf içi öğrenci dönütleri. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 3 (9), 24 – 40.
3. Collins, K.; McAleavy, G. & Adamson, G. (2004). Bullying in schools: A Northern Ireland study. Educational Research, 46 (1), 55 – 71.
4. Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K.& Funk, J. B. (2003a). Teacher Perceptions and practices regarding school bullying prevention. Journal of School Health, 73 (9), 347 – 355.
5. Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K. & Funk, J. B. (2003b). The nature and extent of bullying at school., Journal of School Health, 73 (5), 173 – 180.
6. Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J. & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of south Australian secondary school students: Prevelance and psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71 – 90.
7. Doğanay, A. & Sarı, M. (2006). Öğrencilerin üniversitedeki yaşam kalitesine ilişkin algılarının demokratik yaşam kültürü çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi (Çukurova Üniversitesi örneği). Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4 (16), 107 – 128.
8. Gander, M. J. & Gardiner, H. W. (1993). Çocuk ve Ergen Gelişimi (2. Baskı) Çev:Bekir Onur. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi

9. Halawah, I. (2005). The relatıonshıp between effectıve Communıcatıon of hıgh school prıncıpal And school clımate. Education, 126 (2), 334-345.
10. Karatzias, A.; Papadioti-Athanasiou, V.; Power, K.G. & Swanson, V. (2001a). Quality of school life. A cross-cultural study of Greek and Scottish secondary school pupils. European Journal of Education, 36 (1), 91-105
11. Karatzias, A.; Papadioti-Athanasiou, V.; Power, K.G. & Swanson, V. (2001b). Quality of school life. Development and preliminary standardization of an instrument based on performance indicators in Scottish secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12 (3), 265 – 284.
12. Linnakylä, P. & Brunell, V. (1996). Quality of school life in the Finnish and Swedish speaking schools in Finland. M. Binkley, K. Rust, T. Williams (Eds.) Reading Literacy In An İnternational Perspective(s.203 – 217). U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 97-875.
13. Mahiroğlu, A. & Buluç, B. (2003). Ortaöğretim kurumlarında fiziksel ceza uygulamaları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Degisi, 1 (1), 81 – 93.
14. Majeed, A., Fraser, B. J. & Aldridge, J. M. (2002) Learning environment and its association with students satisfaction among mathematics students in Brunei Darussalam. Learning Environments Research, 5, 203-226.
15. Marks, G. N. (1998). Attitudes to school life: Their influences and their effects on achievement and leaving school. Australian Council For Educational Research. LSAY Research Report, No:5
16. Mok, M. & Flyyn, M. (2002). Determinants of students’ quality of school life: A path model. Learning Environments Research, 5, 275-300
17. Mok, M. & Flynn, M. (1997). Does school size affect quality of school life? Issues in Educational Research. 7, 1, 69-86.
18. Özcebe, H. & Üner, S. (2006, Mart). Ankara’da bir ilköğretim okulunda erken ve orta dönem adolesanlarda şiddet algısı ve şiddet davranışı sıklığının değerlendirilmesi (2005). I. Şiddet ve Okul: Okul Çevresinde Çocuğa Yönelik Şiddet ve Alınabilecek Önlemler Sempozyumu’nda sunulan sözlü bildiri. İstanbul, Türkiye.
19. Perry, G. (2000). Optimistic visions & satisfaction with life. The Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, 4 – 7 Kasım 2000, Sydney.
20. Smith, C. & Sandhu, D. S. (2004). Toward a positive perspective on violence prevention in schools: Building connections. Journal of Counselıng & Development, 82 (3), 287 – 293
21. Yazgan İnanç, B., Bilgin, M. & Atıcı, M. (2004). Gelişim psikolojisi çocuk ve ergen gelişimi. Adana: Nobel Kitabevi
22. Yılmazçetin Eke, C. & Ögel, K. (2006, Mart). İstanbul’daki okullarda suç ve şiddetin yaygınlığı. I. Şiddet ve Okul: Okul Çevresinde Çocuğa Yönelik Şiddet ve Alınabilecek Önlemler Sempozyumu’nda sunulan sözlü bildiri. İstanbul, Türkiye