The Relationship between Bureaucratic School Structure and Classroom Teachers’ Professional Behaviours

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 4, 497 - 521, 01.05.2012

Yusuf Cerit

Öz

Method. The sample of this study included 260 classroom teachers from 24 elementary schools in Bolu. Data in this study were collected using Enabling School Structure Scale developed by Hoy and Sweetland (2000) and Teacher Professionalism subscale of the School Climate Index by Tschannen-Moran et al. (2006). For the structure validity of the two scales, principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotations was performed. Enabling School Structure Scale has 12 items with loading ranged from .65 to .84. Teacher Professionalism Scale has 8 items with loading ranged from .55 to .90. Internal consistency was measured by using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient and alpha coefficient was .83 for Enabling School Structure Scale, .90 for Teacher Professionalism Scale. SPSS was used in the data analysis. Bivariate Pearson Correlation test was used to determine the relationship between school bureaucratic structure and classroom teachers' professional behaviors. To assess the effect of school bureaucratic structure on classroom teachers' professional behaviors, regression analyses were applied. Findings. The findings of present study show that the level of professional behaviors displayed by classroom teachers was low the midpoint on the scale. The level of enabling bureaucratic school structure was low the midpoint. The results of Pearson correlation analyses indicated that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachers' professional behaviors. The regression analyses revealed that enabling bureaucratic school structure was significantly predictor of classroom teachers' professional behaviors. The results suggest that enabling bureaucratic school structure may enhance classroom teachers' professional behaviors. Discussion. In this study, it was found that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachers' professional behaviors and was significantly predictor of classroom teachers' professional behaviors. There is a discrepancy among the findings of the previous research. The findings are consistent with the results of previous studies which indicate that enabling bureaucratic school structure was related to classroom teachers' professional behaviors (Geist, 2003; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). Inconsistent with the findings of this study, in the study conducted by Jacob (2003), it found that there is not a relationship between enabling bureaucratic school structure and classroom teachers' professional behaviors. Such as all organizations, schools that have bureaucratic structure are inevitable. Hoy and Sweetland (2001) argued that school bureaucratic structure can either hinder or enable the effective operation of schools. The prototype for an enabling structure is a hierarchy of authority and a system of rules and regulations that help rather than hinder the teaching – learning mission of the school. In enabling structures, principals and teachers work cooperatively. Similarly, rules and regulations are flexible guides rather than restraints to problem solving. Both the authority hierarchy and the rules and procedures are mechanisms that support the work of the teachers rather than means to enhance the power of the principal (Hoy, 2003). In contrast, the prototype for a hindering structure is a hierarchy of authority that hinders and a system of rules and regulations that is coercive. The hierarchy has as its primary goal controlled and disciplined compliance of teachers. In order to achieve that goal the system of rules and regulations is used to buttress control and punish deviance. The consequence typically and restrains the performance of teachers (Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Professionals carry out the work based on the knowledge and skills. In the bureaucratic environment, employees acts are consistency with the organizational rules and regulations and approval by a superior (Morris, 1990). Therefore, in schools that have excessive bureaucratic structure, teachers are not displayed professional behaviors. Karaman et al. (2008) suggested that in organizations which are controlled bureaucratic mechanisms is not widespread in professionalism. The results of this study revealed that when school bureaucratic structure was enabling, teachers demonstrate professional behaviors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bureaucratic structure , enabling bureaucratic school structure teachers’ professionalism

Okulun Bürokratik Yapısı ile Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Profesyonel Davranışları Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Bu çalışmada okulların bürokratik yapıları ile öğretmenlerin profesyonel davranışları sergilemeleri arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın verileri 2011-2012 öğretim yılında Bolu ilindeki ilköğretim okullarında çalışan 260 sınıf öğretmeninden elde edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın verileri Hoy ve Sweetland (2000) tarafından geliştirilen etkili okul yapısı ölçeği ve Tschannen-Moran, Parish ve DiPaola (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Öğretmen Profesyonelizm Ölçeği kullanılarak elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde ortalama, standart sapma, korelasyon ve regresyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Korelasyon analizi sonuçları etkili bürokratik okul yapısı ile öğretmen profesyonelizmi arasında anlamlı ve olumlu ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Regresyon analizi ise etkili bürokratik okul yapısının öğretmen profesyonelizminin önemli bir açıklayıcısı olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

bürokratik yapı , etkili bürokratik okul yapısı , öğretmen profesyonelizmi

Kaynakça

• Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Quarterly, 41, 61-89.
• Aycan, Z. ve Kanungo, R. N. (2000). Toplumsal kültürün kurumsal kültür ve insan kaynakları uygulamaları üzerine etkileri. İçinde Z. Aycan (Ed.), Türkiye’de yönetim, liderlik ve insan kaynakları uygulamaları (ss. 25-47). Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• Barrett, A. M. (2008). Capturing the differance: Primary school teacher identity in Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 490507.
• Bayhan, G. (2011). Öğretmenlerin profesyonelliğinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: an exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 749-764.
• Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781.
• Buluç, B. (2009). İlköğretim okullarında bürokratik okul yapısı ile okul üdürlerinin liderlik stilleri arasındaki ilişki. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(132), 7186.
• Coleman, M. R., Gallagher, J. J., & Job, J. (2012). Developing and sustaining professionalism within gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 27-36.
• Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Education Research, 37, 677-692.
• Day, C., Flores, M. A., & Viana, I. (2007). Effects of national policies on teachers’ sense of professionalism: Findings from an empirical study in Portugal and in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 249-265.
• Demirkasımoğlu, N. (2010). Defining “Teacher Professionalism” from different perspectives. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2047-2051.
• Dzubay, D. (2001). Understanding motivation & supporting teacher renewal. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 460 112).
• Gaziel, H. H. (1995). Sabbatical leave, job burnout and turnover intentions among teachers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 14(4), 331338.
• Geist, J. R. (2002). Predictors of faculty trust in elementary schols: Enabling bureaucracy, teacher professionalism, and academic prees. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3081919).
• Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
• Hildebrandt, S. A., & Eom, M. (2011). Teacher professionalization: Motivational factors and the influence of age. Teaching and Teachers Education, 27, 416-423.
• Hoy, W. K. (2003). An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: Some theoretical, research, and practical consideration. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 87-108.
• Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). Bureaucracies that work: Enabling not coercive. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 525-541.
• Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and nature of enabling school structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296-321.
• Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2010). Eğitim yönetimi: Teori, araştırma ve uygulama (Çev. Ed. S. Turan). Ankara: Nobel.
• Jacob, A. (2003). A study of school climate and enabling bureaucracy in select New York city public elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3166881).
• Karaman, M. K. ve Akıl, Ü. G. (2004). Bürokrasi ve ilköğretimde örgütsel sağlık. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 15-38.
• Karaman, K., Yücel, C. ve Dönder, H. (2008). Öğretmen görüşlerine göre, okullardaki bürokrasi ile örgütsel vatandaşlık arasındaki ilişki. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 53, 49-74.
• Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 49-66.
• Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. K. (2007). Teacher professionalism in educational reform: The experiences of Hong Kong and Shanghai. Compare: a Journal of Comparative Education, 37(1), 53-68.
• Liew, W. M. (2012). Perform or else: The performative enhancement of teacher professionalism. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 285-303.
• Mattar, D. M. (2012). Factors affecting the performance of public schools in Lebanon. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(2), 252263.
• Mayerson, D. R. (2010). The relationship between school climate, trust, enabling structure, and perceived school effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. 3476662).
• Morris, P. (1990). Bureaucracy, professionalization and school centred innovation strategies. International Review of Education, 36(1), 21-41.
• Rajuan, M., & Bekerman, Z. (2011). Inside and outside the integrated bilingual Palestinian-Jewish schools in Israel: Teachers’ perceptions of personal, Professional and political positioning. Teaching and Teachers Education, 27, 395-405.
• Sachs, J. (1997). Reclaiming the agenda of teacher professionalism: an Australian experience. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 263-276.
• Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004). An analysis of enabling school structure. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 462-478.
• Swann, M., McIntyre, D., Pell, T., Hargreaves, L., & Cunningham, M. (2010). Teachers’ conceptions of teacher professionalism in England in 2003 and 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 549-571.
• Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., Parish, J., & DiPaola, M. F. (2006). School climate and state standards: How interpersonal relationships influence student achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 386-415.
• Watt, H. M., Richardson, P.W., Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Beyer, B., Trautwein, U., & Baumert, J. (2012). Motivations for choosing teaching as a career: An international comparison using the FIT-choice scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 791-805.
• Velayutham, T. (1994). Professionalism and bureaucracy: Can they develop together? Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Fiji Institute of Education Officers. www.directions.usp.ac.fj/collect/direct/.../doc.pdf.