The impact of demographic features on teachers’ work engagement

Year 2016, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 255 - 264, 31.10.2016

Akif Köse

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.267924

Cited By: 4

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the impact of demographic features on teachers’work engagement. The sample of the study consists a total of 433 primary school and branch teachers working at primary and secondary schools located within the province of Kahramanmaraş during the academic year of 2014-2015. Path analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling in the study. The findings showed that the model was found to be statistically significant (CFI=0.94; TLI=0.92; RMSEA=0.06; SRMR=0.04). The findings also revealed that gender, marital status, age, branch and the educational status were not statistically significant factors on teachers’ work engagement, but the effect of seniority variable is statistically positive and significant. Based on the findings that teachers’ work engagement increase the seniority, it is suggested that it might be benefited from the teachers who have high seniority in areas such as counseling, mentoring, academic studies and management at schools.

Keywords

Work Engagement, Organization, School, Teacher

Öğretmenlerin işe angaje olmalarında demografik özelliklerinin rolü

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin demografik özelliklerinin işe angaje olmaları üzerine olan etkisini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Araştırmanın örneklemini 2014-2015 Eğitim-Öğretim yılında Kahramanmaraş İli Merkezindeki ilkokullar ve ortaokullarda görev yapan 433 sınıf ve branş öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada yapısal eşitlik modeli kullanılarak yol analizi (path analysis) yapılmıştır. Araştırmada oluşturulan modelin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür (CFI=0.94; TLI=0.92; RMSEA=0.06; SRMR=0.04). Yapılan analiz sonucunda cinsiyet, medeni durum, yaş, branş ve eğitim durumlarının öğretmenlerin işe angaje olmalarına etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmazken, kıdem değişkeninin etkisi istatistiksel olarak pozitif yönde ve anlamlı bulunmuştur. Öğretmenlerin kıdemlerinin artmasıyla işe angaje olma düzeylerinin de arttığı bulgusuna dayalı olarak okullarda danışmanlık, rehberlik, akademik çalışmalar ve yönetim gibi alanlarda kıdemi yüksek öğretmelerden faydalanılabileceği önerisi getirilmiştir.

Keywords

İşe Angaje Olma, Örgüt, Okul, Öğretmen

References

• Agyemang, C.B. & Ofei, S.B. (2013). Employee work engagement and organizational commitment: acomparative study of private and public sector organizations in Ghana. European Journal of BusinessAnd Innovation Research, 1(4), 20-33.
• Ardıc, K. & Polatci, S. (2009). Tukenmislik sendromu ve madalyonun obur yuzu: isle butunlesme. Erciyes Universitesi IIBF Dergisi, 82, 21-46.
• Arifin, F., Afnan, A., Djumahir, T. & Rahayu, M. (2014). Organizational culture, transformational leadership, work engagement and teacher’s performance: test of a model. International Journal of Education and Research 2 (1), 1-14.
• Balci, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma “yontem, teknik ve ilkeler” (8. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Berg, A. (2013). Team level engagement as a mediator for the relation between perceived supervisor support and organizational performance. (Published master thesis). Tilburg University, Netherlands.
• Bostanci, H. & Ekiyor, A. (2015). Calisanlarin ise adanmasinin orgut ici girisimcilige etkisinin incelenmesi: saglik sektorunde bir uygulama. International Journal of Healt Management and Strategies Research, 1 (1), 37- 51.
• Bursalıoglu, Z. (2012). Okul yonetiminde yeni yapi ve davranış (17. bs.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Esen, E. (2011). Calisanlarin orgute cezbolmasi. Marmara Universitesi I.I.B.F. Dergisi, 30 (1), 377- 390.
• Kanten, P. & Yesiltas, M. (2013).Pozitif orgutsel davranıslar uzerine kavramsal bir inceleme Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 4 (8), 83-106.
• Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimsel arastirma yontemi (10. bs.). Ankara: Nobel.
• Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
• Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E. & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: a literature review. Kingston University Working Paper Series No:19.
• Kuruuzum, A., Irmak, S. & Cetin, E. İ. (2010). İe baglılıgı etkileyen faktorler: imalat ve hizmet sektorlerinde karsılastırmalı bir analiz. Bilig, Bahar 2010 (53), 183-198.
• Lockwood, N.R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. Socıety for Human Resource Management, SHRM Research, 2007.
• Macey, W. H. & Schneıder, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 3–30.
• Malekiha, M. & Abedi, M. R. (2014). The relationship between work engagement and happiness among nurses in İran. Reef Resources Assessment and Management Technical Paper, 40 (1), 809-816.
• Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review Psychology, 52, 397-422.
• Mustosmäki, A., Anttila, T. & Oinas, T. (2013).Engaged or not? A comparative study on factors ınducing work engagement in call center and service sector work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 3(1), 49-67.
• Ozer, O., Saygili, M. & Ugurluoglu, O. (2015). Saglik calisanlarinin ise cezbolma duzeylerinin belirlenmesine iliskin bir arastirma. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 3(3), 261-272.
• Roozeboom, M. B. & Schelvis, R. (2015). Work engagement: drivers and effects, http://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Work_engagement:_drivers_and_effects
• Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Work Engagement what do we know and where do we go?. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 3-10.
• Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez, V. & Bakker, A.B. (2001). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-79.
• Schaufeli, W.B. & Salanova, M. (2007). Research in social issues in Management.S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, and D. P. Skarlicki, (Eds.). Work Engagement: An Emerging Psychological Concept and ItsImplications for Organizations.Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers, (pp. 135-177).
• Schlechty, P.C. (2014). Okulu yeniden kurmak. Yuksel Ozden (Cev) Ankara: Nobel.
• Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
• Tozlu, N. (1992). Egitim problemlerimiz uzerine dusunceler. Van: YYU Fen Edebiyat Fakultesi.
• Turk, E. (1999). Turk egitim sistemi. Ankara: Nobel.
• Ugwu, F. O. (2013). Work engagement ın Nigeria: Adaptatıon of the utrecht work engagement scale for Nigerian samples. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 1(3),16-26.
• Wildermuth, M. (2008). 10 MS of employee engagement. Training and Development, 2008, 50-53.
• Yıldırım, A. & Simsek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri. Ankara: Seckin.