Students; Conflicts, Causes, Resolution Strategies and Tactics in High Schools

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the nature of high school students' interpersonal conflicts and their resolution strategies through the perspectives of students, teachers and school administrators. The research was carried out on 359 students, 75 teachers, and 21 school administrators who were selected by means of stratified, simple random, and cluster sampling. Data were collected using survey and semi-structured interview techniques. In this research, focus is on the “students”. Therefore, students' conflicts were examined through the perspectives of students, teachers and school administrators. Results of the research indicate that there is a difference between students' perceptions about themselves, and teachers' and school administrators' perceptions about students. Students' views about the types of conflicts, their reasons and conflict resolution strategies were different from those of teachers' and school administrators'. Teachers and school administrators attributed destructive conflict resolution strategies to external factors, such as family and social enviorenment. However, they did not list themselves as one of the reasons. On the other hand, students emphasized their own characteristics as reasons that lead to their conflict and constructive conflict resolution strategies. Summary Although students' conflicts are a natural and unavoidable part of school life, violent conflict resolution strategies are not. Students' conflicts and violence have been on the increase during the last decade in our country. One could possibly see or hear of students' violence each day. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to examine the nature of high school students' conflicts and their conflict resolution strategies. Students' conflicts and their conflict resolution strategies were examined through the perspectives of teachers, school administrators, and students themselves. In accordance with the purpose of the research, these four questions were answered in this study: • What are the associations for conflict of students, teachers and school administrators? • What kinds of student conflicts occur in high schools? • What are the causes of high school students' conflicts? • What are the views of teachers, school administrators, and students about students' conflicts and conflict resolution strategies? Method This research was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative research methods and techniques. In order to collect data, survey and semi-structured interview techniques were used. Since, two research methods were used in this research, there were two samples. Survey technique was carried out working with 359 high school students (177 girls and 182 boys), and 75 teachers (47 females and 28 males). 21 school administrators (20 males and 1 female) were interviewed in order to collect qualitative data. All the students, teachers and school administrators who participated in this research were from disadvantaged schools. Two questionnaires were used in order to collect data in this research. One of the questionnaires was used to collect data from students. The other one was used to collect data from teachers. All questions in the questionnaires were open ended in order to collect qualitative data. Semi-structured interview protocol was also used in order to collect data from school administrators. Since all data were qualitative `content analysis` techniques were used in order to analyze verbal data. Then, some nonparametric statistical techniques were also used to compare the frequency of the variables. Results Associations for conflicts: It was found that students' associations for conflicts were related to physical violence (33%), verbal violence (16%), intellectual concepts (29%), personal characteristics (10%), and destructive emotions (6%). When frequency of students' associations for conflicts were statistically compared based on gender, difference between girls' and boys' associations for conflicts were statistically significant (X2 =25,85, df=5, p<.05, n=228). Whereas boys' associations were related to violence, girls associations were related to intellectual concepts and personal characteristics. Similarly teachers' associations for conflicts were also generally related to intellectual concepts (39%). In addition to this, school administrators' associations for conflict were also related to intellectual concepts (knowledge, thoughts, education, culture, and beliefs). Types of student conflicts: There were differences among students', teachers' and school administrators' perceptions of the types of student conflicts that occur in their schools. Although teachers highlighted interpersonal conflicts (42%), and verbal violence (23%), students highlighted verbal violence (30%), intellectual conflicts (21%), and physical violence (13%). When students' and teachers' perceptions of the types of conflicts were compared, a statistical difference was found (X2 =42.72 df=6, p<.05, n=384). Similarly, school administrators also displayed parallel perception with teachers. They also claimed that interpersonal violence, and intellectual conflicts were common types of students' conflicts. Causes of students' conflicts: Teachers', students', and school administrators' views about the causes of students' conflicts were different from each other. Teachers raised family background of students (47%) as the main cause of student conflicts. Similarly girls-boys conflicts (12%) and personal characteristics (7%) were also stated as causes of students' conflicts by teachers. Similarly, school administrators also stated that students' family characteristics, economical standards, parents' education, being single family, and family violence were causes of students' conflicts. On the other hand, students' perceptions of the causes of their conflicts were different from teachers' points of view. Student's emphasis was placed on intellectual differences (24%), verbal violence (17%), personal characteristics (15%), and negative emotions (15%) as causes of their interpersonal conflicts. Students' conflict resolution strategies: There were differences among students', teachers' and school administrators' perceptions of students' conflict resolution strategies. Majority of the students stated that they used constructive conflict resolution strategies (74%). Only 18% of the students claimed that they used destructive conflict resolution strategies. When students' perceptions of themselves were statistically analyzed based on gender, no significant differences were found (X2 =4.71, df=2, p>.05, n=349). On the other hand, teachers' perceptions of students' conflict resolution strategies differed from the students'. Thirty-seven % of the teacher responses were related to constructive conflict resolution strategies. In addition to this, 55% of the teacher responses were related to destructive conflict resolution strategies. When teachers' and students' responses were statistically compared, a significant difference was found (X2 =60.24, df=2, p<.05, n=452) between students' and teachers' perceptions of the students' conflict resolution strategies. Discussion This research focused on the students' conflicts and conflict resolution strategies from the perspectives of students, teachers, and school administrators. Students', teachers' and school administrators' associations for conflicts were different from each other. Although students' associations for conflicts were generally related to violence, teachers' and school administrators' associations were related to intellectual concepts. According to these findings, a connection could be made between the increase in students' conflicts and violence, and students' negative associations for conflicts. Since their associations for conflicts may be caused by their actual experiences, these rising frequencies of conflicts and violence in schools can be explained by these findings. Parallel to the students' associations for conflicts, their main types of conflicts were also related to physical and verbal violence. Although students emphasized physical and verbal violence, and intellectual conflicts, teachers and school administrators emphasized interpersonal conflicts. This result is caused by teachers' and school administrators' experiences with students' conflicts. Since students reflect their unsolved conflicts to their teachers and school administrators, they may tend to highlight interpersonal student conflicts. Students', teachers', and school administrators' perceptions about the causes of students' conflict fall into ten categories; namely, physical violence, verbal violence, lack of communication, personal characteristics, negative emotions, ethical issues, peer relations, family, school, and intellectual conflicts. Teachers', school administrators', and students' perceptions were dissimilar in some respects in terms of the causes of students' conflicts. Teachers and school administrators underline the role of family background, economic standards of family, communication types of family, violence in family, and single parent family. On the other hand, students claim that their conflicts were caused by reasons related to themselves rather than external influences. Students', teachers' and school administrators' points of view about students' conflict resolution strategies also differed from each other. Students claim that they solve their conflicts generally through constructive conflict resolution strategies. This claim is also totally different from students' association for conflicts and perception about types and causes of conflicts. In contrast to this, teachers and school administrators claim that students generally use destructive conflict resolution strategies. Students' perceptions about their conflict resolution strategies were quite different from those of the teachers' and school administrators'. This result shows that depending on a single research technique, age, gender, profession, person, data, do not yield clear results about real world realities.

Keywords

• high school students’ conflicts , conflict resolution strategies.

Liselerde Öğrenci Çatışmaları, Nedenleri, Çözüm Stratejileri ve Taktikleri

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, lise öğrencileri arasında yaşanan kişiler arası çatışmaların doğasını ve çözüm stratejilerini öğrencilerin, öğretmenlerin ve okul yöneticilerinin bakış açılarından incelemektir. Araştırma, tabakalı, basit tesadüfi ve küme örneklem seçim teknikleri kullanılarak seçilmiş 359 öğrenci, 75 öğretmen ve 21 okul yöneticisi ile çalışılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada veriler tarama (survey) tekniği ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Bu araştırmada “odağa” öğrenci alınmıştır. Dolayısıyla öğrencilerin kendi aralarında yaşadıkları çatışmalara öğrencilerin, öğretmenlerin ve okul yöneticilerinin penceresinden bakılmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, öğrencilerin kendilerine ilişkin algıları ile öğretmenlerin ve okul yöneticilerinin öğrencilere ilişkin algıları arasında farklılıklar saptanmıştır. Öğrenci çatışmalarının türlerine, nedenlerine ve çözüm stratejilerine ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri ile öğretmen ve okul yöneticilerinin görüşleri birbirlerinden farklılaşmaktadır. Okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenler hem aile gibi dışsal değişkenlere atıfta bulunmuş hem de yıkıcı çatışma çözüm stratejilerini öne çıkarmışlardır. Buna karşın, okul yöneticileri ve öğretmenler kendilerine ilişkin nedenleri çok az vurgulamışlardır. Öğrencilerin ise kendilerine ilişkin özellikler ile yapıcı çatışma çözüm stratejilerini daha çok öne çıkardıkları saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• lise öğrenci çatışmaları
• çatışma çözüm stratejileri.
• Abbas Türnüklü

Kaynakça

1. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
2. Bakeman, R., ve Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: Introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: yöntem teknik ve ilkeler (3rd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
4. Bettmann, E. H. ve Moore, P. (1994). Conflict resolution programs and social justice. Education & Urban Society, 27 (1), 11-22.
5. Bilgin, N. (1999). Sosyal psikolojide yöntem ve pratik çalışmalar. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları (91).
6. Bilgin, N. (2000). İçerik analizi. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları (109).
7. Bodine, R. J., Crawford, D. K., ve Schrumpf, F. (2002). Creating peaceable school: A comprehensive program for teaching conflict resolution (2nd ed.). Ilionois: Research Press.
8. Bodine, J. R. ve Crawford K. D. (1998). The handbook of conflict resolution education: A guide to building quality programs in schools. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers.

9. Denzin, K. N. (1994). Triangulation in educational research. In T. Husen, ve N. Postlethwaite, (Ed.), The International Encyclopaedia Of Education (pp. 6461- 6466). Pergamon.
10. Denzin, K. N. (1989) The research act: A theoretical ıntroduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
11. Ferguson, A. G. ve Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
12. Fink, A. (1995). How to sapmle in surveys. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
13. Fisher, R,. Ury, W. ve Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Boks.
14. Gall, D. M., Borg, R. W. and Gall, P. J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). USA: Longman Publishers.
15. Girard, K. ve Koch, J. S. (1996). Conflict resolution in the schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
16. Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher: a companion volume to the quality school. Harper Prennial: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.
17. Hovardaoğlu, S. (2000). Davranış bilimleri için araştırma teknikleri. Ankara: VE-GA.
18. Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. (1995). Teaching students to be peacemakers. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
19. Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. T. (1996, a). Effectiveness of conflict managers in an inner-city elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 89 (5), 280-285.
20. Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. T. (1996, b). Peacemakers: teaching students to resolve their own and schoolmates' conflicts. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28 (6), 1-11.
21. Johnson, D. W. ve Johnson, R. T. (1997). The impact of conflict resolution training on middle school students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137 (1), 11-21.
22. Karip, E. (1999). Çatışma yönetimi. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
23. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand oaks: sage.
24. Leeds, A. C. (2001). Culture, conflict resolution, peacekeeper training and the mediator. International Peacekeeping, 8 (4) 92-110.
25. Lulofs, R. S. and Cahn D. D. (2000). Conflict from theory to action (2nd ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
26. Manning, K. P., ve Cullum-Swan, B. (1998). Narrative, content, and semoitic analysis. In N. K. Denzin ve Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp: 246-273). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
27. Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. London: Sage Publication.
28. Miles, B., M. & Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Pub.
29. Moore, C. W. (1996). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30. Oppenheim, N. A. (1996). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers.
31. Öner, U. (1999). Çatışma çözme ve arabuluculuk eğitimi. In Y., Kuzgun (Ed.), İlköğretimde rehberlik (pp:189-227). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
32. Patton, Q. M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation . London: Sage Pub.
33. Schrumpf, F. Crawford, K. D. ve Bodine, J. R. (1997). Peer mediation: Conflict resolution in schools. Program Guide. Illinois: Research Press.
34. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and ınteraction. London: SAGE Publication.
35. Türnüklü, A. ve Şahin, İ. (2002). İlköğretim okullarında öğrenci çatışmaları ve öğretmenlerin bu çatışmalarla başa çıkma stratejileri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 8 (30), 283-302.
36. Türnüklü, A. (2006). Öğretmenlerin öğrenci çatışmalarını çözüm strateji ve taktiklerinin sosyal oluşturmacılık perspektifinden incelenmesi. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 6, (22), 221-232.
37. Türnüklü, A. (2005). Lise okul yöneticilerinin çatışma çözüm strateji ve taktiklerinin sosyal oluşturmacılık kuramı perspektifinden incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 11 (42), 255-278.
38. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.