İlköğretim Okullarında Örgütsel Sağlık İle Öğrenci Başarısı Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

This study examines how school health is related to student achievement. In other words, how SES affects the relation between the organizational health of schools in different socio economic statute and students achievement. For this, a Likert-type scale was applied to 791 teachers working in 42 primary schools with three different levels of SES in the province of Ankara. The results of correlation and multiple regression analysis show that all sub scales of school health “except institutional integrity” has a significant relation with students achievement. However, though institutional integrity is a part of school health, it is not the part of the school climate which increases the student achievement. Moreover, there is a significant positive relation between SES and students achievement. Summary In recent years in developed countries, there are reform-like studies to make schools the places where effective education are realized. By determining the handicaps that are in the effective education solutions are being looked for (Allen, Freeman, Reizenstein and Rentz, 1995; Davis, 2002) Though researches done in the field of education have different contents and fields, what is common amongst them is to realize effective education and have good outcomes. The Problem To be able to realize effective education that is necessary for student's achievement we need robust schools. Robust schools can adopt themselves to the environment. Moreover, in robust schools teachers, managers and students work with the environment in an constructive and cooperative way. (Hoy and Feldman, 1987; Hoy and Tarter, 1997). Though the school manager can not be held responsible for this relation between the school and its environment, he has an important role to develop this relationship. Researches showed that managers who are friendly, open supportive and believe perfectionism create a school atmosphere that causes school success. Under the light of these explanations, how the school atmosphere is related to student achievement will be searched. Many suggested that school atmosphere created a difference in learning and student achievement. (Bassert, 1998; Stedman, 1987). In reality, does the school atmosphere develop student achievement or does student achievement cause a better school atmosphere? What is important here is to find out the characters of school atmosphere which facilitate student achievement. For this reason, this study will examine the relationship between achievement of students in maths, Turkish and Social Sciences in the 6th, 7th and 8th grades of primary schools and school health. Method The sample of the study is the 42 primary schools which are in different districts-Çankaya, Mamak and Altındağ- with different socio-economic status (high, middle and low) in the province of Ankara. By applying Organizational Health Inventory (OHI) to 791 teachers working in these schools, the data was collected. Besides, to measure students' achievement in maths, Turkish and social sciences, the results of the placement test given to students by the Ministry of National Education were also used to collect data. Students' mean scores belonging to each lesson were calculated from the total scores. Having a high mean score means high student achievement. Statistically the correlation between OHI and each character of student's achievement were computed. Results As can be seen in Table 2 there is a positive relation among the sub scores of OHI. Besides, most of the OHI dimensions were related to socio economic status (SES). The only variable related to SES was the academic emphasis sub scale(r=.69,p<.01). The strongest relation among the sub scales was between teachers' perception of schools resource support and teachers' idea of academic emphasis (r=.68, p<.01). The relation between OHI and student achievement was (r=.62, p<.01) for maths, (r=.68,p<.01) for Turkish and (r=.52,p<.01) for social sciences. Discussion and Suggestions Statistics used in the study and its analysis showed that institutional integrity is a part of school health but not part of the atmosphere which encourages high student achievement This result means that there is interference from the parents and environment of the school. As a result of educational system, it is impossible for parents to interfere. As a result of it, the result of this study is the opposite to the studies done by Hoy (1991), Barth (1990) and Epstein (1990). Multi regression results used in the study showed that school health except ‘Institutional Integrity' and the socio economic environment of the school might me important factors on student achievement. Academic emphasis, which is an indicator of a robust school atmosphere and SES had a strong relation on student achievement for maths, Turkish and social sciences lessons. Academic emphasis means school's putting forward high but achievable goals. Besides, socio economic status of the school environment and students' parents have an effect on student achievement. In this study only the factors that might have an effect on student achievement were searched. The health of school environment and SES were found to have an effect on student achievement. These two factors, naturally, are not the only dimensions that have an effect on students' achievement or failure. There are lots of factors that play a role on this subject. The search of these subjects thoroughly will enable us to learn more about student learning and achievement.

Keywords

• school health , school climate , student achievement

İlköğretim Okullarında Örgütsel Sağlık İle Öğrenci Başarısı Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu çalışma, okul sağlığının öğrenci başarısı ile nasıl ilişkilendirilebileceğini araştırmaktadır. Başka bir ifadeyle, farklı sosyo ekonomik statüye sahip bölgelerde yer alan okulların örgütsel sağlığı ile öğrenci başarısı arasındaki ilişkiye SES'in nasıl bir etkide bulunacağıdır. Bunun için Ankara ilinde üç farklı SES sahip bölgelerde yer alan 42 ilköğretim okulunda görev yapan 791 öğretmene Likert tipinde bir ölçek uygulanmıştır. Korelâsyon ve çoklu regrasyon analizi sonuçlarına göre, okul sağlığının alt biri hariç öğrenci başarısı ile manidar bir ilişkiye sahiptir. Fakat kurumsal bütünlük okul sağlığının bir parçası olduğu halde öğrenci başarısını artıran okul ikliminin bir parçası değildir. Ayrıca, SES ile öğrenci başarısı arasında da manidar olumlu bir ilişki vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul Sağlığı, Okul İklimi, Öğrenci Başarısı

Kaynakça

1. Açıkalın, A. (1995). Toplumsal, Kuramsal ve Teknik Yönleriyle Okul Yöneticiliği. PegemA, Ankara.
2. Allen, T.D; D.M. Freeman; R.C. Reizenstein; J.O. Rentz. (1995) Just another transition? Examining Survivors’ attitudes over time. Academy of Management Proceedings. Best paper, 78–82.
3. Ames, N.L.ve Miller, E. (1994). Changing middle schools. CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Aytaç, T.(1995). Genel Liselerde Uygulanmakta olan Ders Geçme ve Kredi Düzeni Hakkında Okul Yöneticilerinin Görüşleri, Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri (Ankara İli Örneği) A.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
5. Balcı, A. (2001). Etkili Okul ve Okul Geliştirme. Kuram Uygulama ve Araştırma. Ankara, PagemA.
6. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. CA: Jossey-Bass.
7. Bassert, S.T. (1988). School effects. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 341–352). NY: Longman.
8. Brookover, W.B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School social systems and student achievement. NY: Praeger.

9. Celep, C. (2000). Eğitimde Örgütsel Adanma ve Öğretmenler, Anı, Ankara.
10. Cheng, Y.C. (1987). A study of school organizational environment and teacher’s professional behaviors. Educational Research Journal, 2, 13, 17.
11. Davis, J. (2002). “Effective schools, Organizational Culture, and Local Policy Initiatives.” Teachers College Press, NY.
12. Epstein, J.L. (1990). School and family connections: Theory, research, and implications for integrating sociologies of education and family. In D.G. Unger & M.B. Sussman (Eds.) Families in community setting: Interdisciplinary perspective (pp.99–126). NY: Haworth.
13. Firestone, W.A. & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20–7, 13.
14. Halpin, A.W. (1966). Theory and research in administration. NY: Macmillan.
15. Hoy, J.K.& Tarter C.J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: The handbook for change. CA: Corwin.
16. Hoy, W. K. & Hannum, J. (1997). Middle School Climate: An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Health and Student Achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 290–311.
17. Hoy, W.K. & Sabo, D.J. (1998). Quality middle schools: Open and healthy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Pres.
18. Hoy, W.K. Miskel, C. W. (1996). Educational administration. NY: McGraw-Hill.
19. Hoy, W.K. Tarter C.J., & Kottkamp, R.B. (1991). Open school, healthy school: Making schools work: Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
20. Hoy, W.K.,& Feldman, J.A. (1987). Organizational health: The concept and its measure Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 30–38.
21. Johnson, S.M. (1990). Teachers at work. NY: Basic.
22. Kaya, Y.K. (1991). Eğitim Yönetimi. Bilim, Ankara.
23. Kazak, E. (1998). Okul-Aile İşbirliği ve Sorunları. Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
24. Licata, J. W. ve Harper, G.W. (2001). Organizational health and robust school vision Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (1), 5–26.
25. Licate, J.W. Harper, G.W. (1999). Healthy Schools, Robust Schools and Academic Emphasis as an Organizational Theme. Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (5), 463-475.
26. Milles, M.B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In ED. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior (pp. 375-391). New York: McGraw – Hill.
27. Murphy, J. Adams, J.E. (1998). Reforming America’s Schools 1980-2000. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 426-444.
28. Özden, Y. (1998). Eğitimde Dönüşüm Yeni Değer ve Oluşumlar. Pegem, Birinci askı, Ankara.
29. Parsons, T. (1967). Some ingredients of a general theory of formal organization. In A. W. Halpin (Ed), Administrative theory in Education (pp. 40-72). New York: Macmillan.
30. Parsons, T., Bales, R.E., & Shils, E.A. (1953). Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
31. Şişman, N.&Turan, S. (2002). Eğitim ve Okul Yönetiminde Eğitim Bölgesi Danışma Kurallarının İşlevi. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2 (6), 136-146.
32. Stedman, L.C. (1987). It’s time we changed the effective school formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 214-224.
33. Tsui, T.K. & Cheng, C.Y. (1999). School organizational health and teacher commitment: A contingency study with multi-level analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 249-268.