primary school teachers’ views about pupil control ideologies and classroom management styles

Cypriot Journal of EducationalSciences4 (2009) 157-167

www.world-education-center.org/index.php/cjes

Primary school teachers’ views about pupil control ideologies andclassroom management styles

Kür ad Y lmaz a*

a Assist. Prof. Dr. Dumlup nar University, Faculty of Education Kütahya - Turkey

Received June 12, 2009; revised September 17, 2009; accepted October 30, 2009

Abstract

Classroom management is a critical competency area for all teachers because classroom management skills are directly relatedto pupil achievement. In the present study, the four-category (authoritarian, authoritative, laissez-faire, indifferent)classification of Kris (1997a) is used. Pupil control ideologies, conceptualized by Willover, Eidell and Hoy (1967), were developedto define teachers’ views about pupil control. Pupil control ideologies conceptualized as two poles ranging from custodialcontrol ideology to humanistic control ideology. The purpose of the present study is to determine the correlation betweenprimary school teachers’ views about pupil control ideologies and classroom management styles. The survey model studyattempts to answer the research questions. 200 primary school teachers from Kütahya province are included in the sample ofthe research. The data is collected using “Classroom Management Profile Scale” and the “Pupil Control Ideology Scale”.Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis were used in data analysis. According to the findings obtained from thestudy, primary school teachers mostly presented authoritarian classroom management style, which was respectively followedby authoritative classroom management style, laissez-faire classroom management style and indifferent classroommanagement style. The findings of the study show that primary school teachers are closer to custodial control ideology. Acustodial control ideology has certain qualities such as strict control, enforcement of orders, one way downwardcommunication, and distrust towards pupils, cruel punishments and taking undisciplined behavior as personal offences. There isa moderate, positive and significant correlation between the participants’ views about custodial control ideologies andauthoritarian classroom management styles. It could be said from the findings of the study that the more the custodial controlideology of the participants occurs, the more the authoritative classroom management styles are observed.

Keywords: classroom management styles; pupil control ideologies; primary school teachers

©2009 Academic World Education & Research Center. All rights reserved.

1. INTRODUCTIONClassroom management is a critical competency area for all teachers because classroom management

skills are directly related to pupil achievement. Over the last years, the fact that classroom management

*Kür ad Y lmaz.

E-mail address: [email protected], Tel: +90 274 265 20 31 / 3267

http://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/cjes

mailto:kursad66:@hotmail.com

Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167

158

has been considered as learning based effective arrangement of classroom activities reveals the role ofclassroom management in creating an effective learning environment. Classroom management skills ofteachers are one of the main distinctive factors of classroom management style, since classroommanagement style is closely connected with classroom management efficiency. In this context,classroom management styles of teachers could be affected by a number of variables (A ao lu, 2007;Ba ar, 2001; Cerit, 2009; Toprakç , 2008). It is possible to categorize these variables under the followingheadings: “personal traits of teachers, school based qualities, environmental qualities and those aboutthe general structure of education system”. However, perhaps the most important of these is personaltraits of teachers which could be shaped by their educational background, self-efficiency perceptions invarious fields, individual and professional values and viewpoints about education, people and teaching.One of the important variables about personal traits is pupil control ideologies which reflect teachers’views about pupil control (Hoy, 1969, 2001; Hoy & Forsyth, 1986). Pupil control ideologies concernteachers’ views about pupil control. This approach shows teachers’ views about pupil control ideologies:Are these views close to custodial pupil control ideology or humanistic pupil control ideology?

The aim of the present study is to determine the correlation between classroom management stylesof primary school teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies.

1.1. Classroom Management Style

Behaviors displayed by teachers in classroom environment during the communication process inteaching activities show their classroom management styles. Teachers are classroom managers and mayapply different classroom management styles (Ekici, 2004). There are various classifications of teacherclassroom management styles. Martin, Yin and Baldwin (1998) define classroom management styles asnon-disciplinary and disciplinary; whereas Kris (1997a) suggests the following: authoritarian classroommanagement, authoritative classroom management, laissez-faire classroom management andindifferent classroom management. Generally, these classifications are conceptualized fromcoerciveness to democracy. In the present study, the four-category classification of Kris (1997a) is used.

Authoritarian classroom management is based on teachers’ control over pupils and restrictionsimposed by teachers. In this style, it is assumed that teachers think pupils learn only when they listen totheir teachers and when they pay attention to lessons. Pupils have to participate in activities voluntarilyeven if they are unwilling. Teachers make all kinds of decisions in classrooms and they never recognizepupils (Dunbar, 2004; Ekici, 2004, 2006; Hepburn, 1983; Kris, 1997b; Moore, 1989). In other words, inthis approach, teachers act as representatives of authority in classrooms.

In authoritative classroom management, teacher control behavior over pupils is based on somereasonable reasons. Therefore, teachers often explain the reasons underlying rules. In this style,although there is some control and restriction behavior, pupils are encouraged to act independently.When they display undesired behavior, they are not scolded, but politely warned. In this style, teacherstake pupils’ views, suggestions and questions into consideration (Ekici, 2004, 2006; Kris, 1997e). That isin a classroom where authoritative classroom management style is adopted there is mutualcommunication.

Laissez-faire classroom management is a style where teachers display little behavior to control pupilsand demand little from them. In this style, teachers accept and watch pupils’ behaviors and reactions,and never hurt their feelings and emotions and hardly say “no” to their pupils. In this style, there is nocontinuous discipline, teachers become friendly with pupils at once and really appreciate them, plus


159

treat their pupils in a friendly manner. Teachers have difficulties in refusing pupil demands (Dunbar,2004; Ekici, 2004, 2006; Kris, 1997c; Moore, 1989; Woolfolk & Nicolich, 1984). However, in this style,innocuous behavior of teachers may lead to uncontrolled pupil actions and occasionally classes get outof control. Teachers with this style are much loved by their pupils.

In indifferent classroom management style, pupils have very few demands, as teachers do notparticipate in lessons and they are generally indifferent to their pupils. In this style, teachers arereluctant to pressurize pupils in any way; they do not spare time to prepare teaching materials. Theyonly fill in time during lessons. As a result, those with this style lack disciplinary skills and do not buildtrust. As for their pupils, they hardly have motivation (Dunbar, 2004; Ekici, 2004, 2006; Kris, 1997d).Teachers with this style are not generally interested in classroom activities. They teach rapidly and letpupils do what they want for the rest of the lesson. They would like to fill in lesson time and theypretend to be teaching properly.

1.2. Pupil Control Ideologies

Pupil control ideologies, conceptualized by Willover, Eidell and Hoy (1967), were developed to defineteachers’ views about pupil control. Willover et al. (1967) conceptualized pupil control ideologies as twopoles ranging from custodial control ideology to humanistic control ideology.

According to custodial control ideology, organizations have high control levels to maintain their rules.Pupils are considered as individuals who need to be controlled by scolding based restrictions becausethey are irresponsible, undisciplined and ordinary in terms of the way they dress, their appearance, theirbehaviors and social status of their families. Teachers do not tend to understand pupil behavior. Instead,they highlight moral requirements. Wrong behavior is taken personally and relationships with pupils arepersonal as much as possible (Gordon, Dembo & Hocevar, 2007; Hoy, 2001; Hoy & Forsyth, 1986; Hoy &Miskel, 2001; Lunenburg, 1990; Lunenburg & Mankowsky, 2000; Lunenburg, Sartori & Bauske, 1999;Rideout & Morton, 2007; Willover et. al., 1967). Pupils and teachers are responsible for their actions tothe extent orders are enforced (Lunenburg, 1983). In a custodial school, there is an autocraticorganization in pupil activities and inflexibility in teacher-pupil status distinction (Kottkamp & Mulhern,1987).

In humanistic control ideology, pupil learning and behaviors are considered psychologically andsociologically rather than morally. From the humanistic point of view, socio-psychological sensesdeveloped by Fromm are used (Hoy, 1969). In this approach, timid children are equal to active andproblematic children. A humanistic teacher is optimistic. He builds close personal relationships withpupils and fulfills positive friendship and respect expectations. Teachers are guiding in self-disciplinerather than imposing discipline on pupils (Gordon et. al., 2007; Hoy, 2001; Hoy & Forsyth, 1986; Hoy &Miskel, 2001; Lunenburg, 1990; Lunenburg & Mankowsky, 2000; Lunenburg et. al., 1999; Rideout &Morton, 2007; Willover et. al., 1967). This approach enables creating a democratic classroomenvironment. It also entails mutual communication and a style which ensures flexibility in rules andstatus. Therefore, teachers and pupils become enthusiastic to act according to their options and beresponsible for their own actions. A humanistic ideology school considers pupils as an education groupwhere they participate in learning process through cooperative interaction and experiences (Lunenburg& Schmidt, 1989). From this point of view, creating a climate where pupil needs are largely met for everypupil and featuring pupil individualism is emphasized (Hoy, 1969).

The previous studies examined the correlation between pupil control ideologies and numerousdifferent variables. These variables could be grouped as demographic variables, experience variablesand philosophical variables. Philosophical variables rather include beliefs and individual traits (Rideout &


160

Morton, 2007). In Turkey, there has been some research on pupil control ideologies (Abac & Kalkan,1999; Beycioglu, Konan & Aslan, 2007; Can Altu , 2007; Celep, 1997a, 1997b, 1998; Y lmaz, 2002, 2007).

On the other hand, the number of the studies showed that the correlation between pupil controlideologies and other variables is limited in the related literature. In this context, the aim of the presentstudy is to determine the correlation between classroom management styles of primary school teachersand their views about pupil control ideologies. To this end, the study seeks to find answers to thefollowing questions:

1. What kinds of s classroom management styles do primary school teachers exhibit?2. What do primary school teachers think about pupil control ideologies?3. What kind of correlation existsbetween classroom management styles of primary school

teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies?

2. METHOD

The present study which aims at depicting the correlation between classroom management styles ofprimary school teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies througha survey modelimplemented in the study.

2.1. Sample

The sample consists of 200 teachers from primary schools in Kütahya city centre. The participantswere chosen randomly. The application was carried out during 2008-2009 academic year SpringSemester. As for the demographics, 53 per cent of the participants were female, and 47 per cent weremale. Their ages ranged from 22 to 61. Their experience was within the range of 1 and 39 years. 59.5per cent were classroom teachers, and 40.5 per cent were branch teachers. 63.5 per cent of theparticipants graduated from faculties of education, 10 per cent from training institutes, 7.5 per centfrom schools of education, and 7 per cent had their master’s degree in education.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

Data was gathered using Classroom Management Profile Scale (Ekici, 2004) and the Pupil ControlIdeology Scale (Willover et al., 1967). “Classroom Management Profile Scale” was developed by Kris(1997a). In the scale, there are 12 items for personal assessment. The scale measures four differentclassroom management styles (Authoritarian Classroom Management, Authoritative ClassroomManagement, Laissez-faire Classroom Management and Indifferent Classroom Management) and thereare three items for each classroom management style. The scale was adapted into Turkish by Ekici(2004). Cronbach Alpha coefficients of the sub-dimensions of the scale are as follows: AuthoritarianClassroom Management Style .82, Authoritative Classroom Management Style .80, Laissez-faireClassroom Management Style .84 and Indifferent Classroom Management .78 and the ClassroomManagement Style Scale totally .87 (Ekici, 2004). The scale includes the following answers: 5-I totallyagree, 4-I agree, 3-I am not sure, 2-I disagree, 1-I totally disagree. Here are some of the items included inthe scale:

1.If a pupil disturbs the class, I certainly interfere with him (Authoritarian Classroom ManagementStyle).


161

2. I am interested in both what pupils learn and how they learn (Authoritative ClassroomManagement Style).

3. Pupils feeling alright are more important than classroom management for me (Laissez-faireClassroom Management Style).

4. If pupil brings his homework late, this is not my problem (Indifferent Classroom ManagementStyle).

“The Pupil Control Ideology Scale”, developed by Willower, Eidell and Hoy (1967), was adapted intoTurkish by Y lmaz (2002). The scale is one-dimensional and the Turkish form of the scale consists of tenitems. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is = .72. Only one of the items in the scale isreversely scored, whereas the others are horizontally scored. The scale includes the following answers:5-I totally agree, 4-I agree, 3-I am not sure, 2-I disagree, 1-I totally disagree. An increase in the scalescore represents custodial control ideology, while a decrease in the score shows humanistic controlideology. Here are some of the items included in the scale:

1.If teachers are criticized by students they should think of changing their teaching methods(Humanistic Control Ideology-Reversely Encoded).

2. Best administrators are those who absolutely support their teachers in terms of discipline(Custodial Control Ideology).

3. Learning how to obey the rules is more important for pupils than making their own decisions(Custodial Control Ideology).

4. Pupils should often be warned about the fact that their status is different from that of teachers(Custodial Control Ideology).

2.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis was used for the overall assessment of the participants’ views, and Pearsoncorrelation analysis for determining correlations. In correlation analysis, the following intervals wereused to determine the strength of the obtained correlations: 0.70–1.00 high; 0.70–0.30 moderate; 0.30–0.00 low (Büyüköztürk, 2002).

3. FINDINGS

In this section,, classroom management styles of primary school teachers and their views about pupilcontrol ideologies are defined. Then, the results of correlation analysis performed to see the correlationbetween the participants’ classroom management styles and their views about pupil control ideologiesare presented. Descriptive statistics given in Table 1 reveals the views of primary school teachers aboutclassroom management styles.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of primary school teachers’ views of classroom management styles

Classroom managementstyles

n K Lowestscore

Highestscore

X S X/K

Authoritarian 197 3 3.00 15.00 9.94 1.92 3.31Authoritative 197 3 5.00 15.00 11.64 1.86 3.88Laissez-Faire 198 3 5.00 15.00 9.88 1.96 3.29Indifferent 197 3 5.00 15.00 8.69 1.67 2.89


162

As it is seen in Table 1, “authoritative classroom management” style ( =3.88) has the highest scorewhen compared with the the mean scores of other three styles, which reflect the views of the primaryschool teachers included in the study about classroom management styles. It is followed byauthoritarian classroom management style ( =3.31), laissez-faire classroom management style ( =3.29)and indifferent classroom management style ( =2.89) respectively. Accordingly, it might be suggestedthat teachers mostly prefer authoritative classroom management style. In Table 2, descriptive statisticsused to reveal the views of primary school teachers about pupil control ideologies are listed.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of primary school teachers’ views of pupil control ideologies

Scores n K Lowestscore

Highestscore

X S X/K

Pupil controlideologies

188

10 19.00 48.00 33.24 4.90 3.32

As it can be seen in Table 2, the mean score of the primary school teachers included in the studyabout pupil control ideologies is quite high ( =3.32). As an increase in the scale score representscustodial control ideology, the mean score of the participants might indicate that the primary schoolteachers included in the study have custodial control ideologies rather than humanistic controlideologies. Table 3 presents the results of Pearson correlation analysis performed to determine thecorrelation between classroom management styles of primary school teachers and their views aboutpupil control ideologies.

Table 3. Correlation between classroom management styles of primary school teachers and theirviews about pupil control ideologies

Classroommanagementstyles

Pupil ControlIdeology

Authoritarian Authoritative Laissez-Faire Indifferent

Authoritarian .48** – – – –

Authoritative –.03 –.26** – – –

Laissez-Faire –.19** –.33** .40** – –

Indifferent .10 .12 .02 -.03 –

**p<.01

According to Table 3, there are some significant correlations between pupil control ideologies of theprimary school teachers included in the study and their classroom management styles. There is amoderate, significant, and positive correlation between the pupil control ideologies of the primaryschool teachers included in the study and their authoritarian classroom management styles (r=0.48,p<.01). Accordingly, it might be suggested that the more the views of primary school teachers aboutpupil control ideologies occur, the more the authoritarian classroom management styles are observed.As an increase in the score of the Pupil Control Ideology Scale represents more custodial controlideology, it might be suggested in the correlation that the more the custodial control ideology occurs,the more the authoritarian classroom management is observed.

Another significant correlation was found between pupil control ideologies and laissez-faireclassroom management style (r=–0.19, p<.01). There is a negative, low, and significant correlationbetween these two variables. However, the finding obtained is important here because it is shown that


163

the more the views of the participants about pupil control ideologies occurred, the less the laissez-faireclassroom management styles are observed. In other words, the more the custodial control ideologyoccurs, the less the laissez-faire classroom management style is observed.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study is to determine the correlation between classroom management stylesof primary school teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies. Hence, the study is one of thefew studies in Turkey to show the correlation between pupil control ideologies and other variables.

In the study, it was observed that the primary school teachers mostly preferred authoritativeclassroom management style, which was respectively followed by authoritative classroom managementstyle, laissez-faire classroom management style and indifferent classroom management style. Ekici(2004, 2006) suggests that primary school teachers adopt the following respectively: authoritativeclassroom management, authoritative classroom management, laissez-faire classroom management andindifferent classroom management styles. For teachers with authoritative classroom managementstyles, pupils say that they love their teacher very much; their teacher knows pupils could not beperfect, and he is really understanding, polite and tolerant, and so they can talk to their teacher openly(Ekici, 2006). In this context, authoritative classroom management style is important in that it isessential to create a positive learning environment because this style is pupil-centered and in this styleteachers pay attention to pupil views, suggestions and questions.

In authoritative classroom management style, there is a classroom environment which is open toverbal communication and criticism. Pupils know they could have a discussion when they makesuggestions or ask questions (Ekici, 2004). In this style, teachers encourage pupils to participate invarious activities, they guide pupils and they give pupils suitable awards after assessing performances.Teachers always assess activities and give pupils feedback. This quality of authoritative classroommanagement is also important in terms of the constructivist program applied in primary schools becausein the current program, teachers are expected to assess performances more, monitor pupils’ cognitivedevelopment, assess efforts using various scales and make pupils prepare product files.

According to O uz (2008), constructivist learning requires pupils to use their background informationrather than getting information ready and make sense of this information while they interact with theirenvironment and continuously construct the given information in a specific way. Now that the main goalof classroom activities is to create an effective learning environment, authoritative classroommanagement style is recommended for all teachers.

The findings of the study show that primary school teachers are closer to custodial control ideology.In the previous studies (Altu , 2007; Y lmaz, 2002, 2007), it was also seen that primary school teacherswere closer to custodial control ideology. A custodial control ideology has certain qualities such as strictcontrol, enforcement of orders, one way downward communication, and distrust towards pupils, cruelpunishments and taking undisciplined behavior as personal offences. Therefore, it might be suggestedthat a custodial control ideology reflects a traditional school understanding. Traditional schools withtheir strict, disciplined, distrusting, authoritative nature where power relations are always prominentremind us of Theory X.

Theory X reflects a pessimistic attitude towards human beings and it dates back to ancient times.Although in the archaic age there were humanistic views stating that human beings could have positivecharacters to choose what was good, it was the common opinion during that period that people werebad by nature (Ayd n, 2000). The main reason why people were considered bad was that the first man


164

was expelled from Heaven and so human beings fell. Human nature, contaminated with the originalsin, is now hereditarily bad (Ayd n, 2000, 2001). Theory X represents such an understanding. Accordingto theory X (McGregor, 1960), human beings refrain from work due to their nature. Thus, they needstrict control, motivation for work, awards and punishments (when necessary) because people refrainfrom responsibilities. Such people prefer to be managed than manage others (Cited in: Ba aran, 2000;English, 1992; Hanson, 2003; pek, 2008; Karip, 2004; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2000; Ponticell, 2006;Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1993; Skidmore, 2006). Therefore, any tasks they perform need strict control.When interpreted in terms of classroom management, Theory X reflects a pessimistic attitude towardspupil nature. Accordingly, pupils must be provided with external control.

However, over the last years, the traditional school approach has gradually been criticized becausetoday we highlight an educational perspective to reveal individual differences rather than eliminatingthem. In this context, schools are institutions where knowledge is constantly reproduced, and teachersand students play an active role in such a reproduction process ( man & Turan, 2001). Accordingly,education in information society is the process of discovering innate potential powers and transformingthem into skills (Karsl , 2003). In this context, teachers today need to have humanistic control ideologiesinstead of custodial control ideologies. In classrooms where humanistic ideology is adopted, there mightbe a more positive classroom climate. In classrooms where a positive climate is established there is ademocratic classroom environment and student centered learning. Also, pupils might develop creativeand critical thinking skills and they strengthen their sense of responsibility, self-esteem andcommitment. As a result, positive climates serve individuals for their multi-dimensional development(Dönmez, 2007).

It was shown that there were significant correlations between pupil control ideologies of the primaryschool teachers included in the study and their classroom management styles. There was a moderatecorrelation in the same direction between pupil control ideologies of the participants and authoritativeclassroom management styles. Now that an increase in the score from the Pupil Control Ideology Scaleshows more custodial control ideology, the more the custodial control ideology of the participantsoccurs, the more the authoritative classroom management styles are observed. Significantly, whenteachers become more custodial in pupil control, they prefer authoritative classroom managementstyles. Authoritative classroom management styles might be caused by the fact that teachers withcustodial control ideologies consider pupils as potential offenders, and their undisciplined behavior asmoral offenses, they distrust pupils, they see pupils as irresponsible, undisciplined individuals who couldnot perform tasks on their own. Consequently, authoritative classroom management style is based onteacher control over students and restrictions imposed by teachers. In this approach, as teachers act asrepresentatives of authority in class, they have strict control because they do not believe pupils canperform tasks on their own.

According to another defined significant correlation, there is a reverse low significant correlationbetween pupil control ideologies and laissez-faire classroom management style. Although there is a lowsignificant correlation between these two variables, the obtained correlation is significant because themore the views of the participants about pupil control ideologies occur, the less the laissez-faireclassroom management styles are observed. Since custodial control ideology is based on the assumptionthat pupils need strict control and discipline, they cannot perform any task on their own and that theycould not distinguish democratic attitudes from autocratic attitudes, it is just the opposite of “leavingpupils uncontrolled” approach.


165

REFERENCES

Abac , R. & Kalkan, M. (1999, July). The correlation between teacher’s pupil control ideology andburnout. Paper presented at The 20th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety ResearchSociety, Cracow, Poland.

ao lu, E. (2007). General facts related to classroom management. In Z. Kaya (Ed.), f yönetimi[Classroom management]. (pp. 3–83). Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.

Ayd n, A. (2000). Dü ünce tarihi ve insan do as [History of ideas and human nature]. stanbul: AlfaPublishing.

Ayd n, A. (2001). Ya am n ve sevginin anlam [The meaning of life and love]. stanbul: GendaKültür.

Ba ar, H. (2001). f yönetimi [Classroom management]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.Ba aran, . E. (2000). Yönetim [Management]. Ankara: Gül Publishing.Beycioglu, K., Konan, N. & Aslan, M. (2007, September). Pupil control ideology among high school

teachers in Malatya, Turkey. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research,Ghent, Belgium.

Büyüköztürk, . (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitab [Data analysis handbook for socialsciences]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.

Can Altu , S. (2007). An examination of the primary school teachers’ student control ideologies interms of some demographic variables, Eskisehir Omangazi University, Institute for Social Sciences,Unpublished Master Thesis.

Celep, C. (1997a). Prospective student teachers' control orientation. TED Journal of Education andScience, 21(106), 12–22.

Celep, C. (1997b, October). Classroom teachers’ factors affecting the sense of efficacy: In terms ofthe management, work group, belief about student, and pupil control orientation. Paper presented atthe Third National Classroom Teachers Symposium. Adana, Turkey.

Celep, C. (1998, September). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, teachers’ management work group, beliefabout student, and pupil control orientation. Paper presented at the Seventh National EducationalSciences Congress. Selçuk University, Faculty of Education. Konya, Turkey.

Cerit, Y. (2009). Classroom management models. In M. D. Karsl (Ed.), lkö retimde S f yönetimi[Classroom management in primary school]. (pp. 99-109). Ankara: Kök Publishing.

Dönmez, B. (2007). Classroom as a social system. In M. man & S. Turan (Eds.). S f yönetimi[Classroom management]. (pp. 13-27). Ankara: Ö reti Publishing.

Dunbar, C. (2004). Best practices in classroom management. Michigan State University. RetrievedJanuary 10, 2009, from www.msu.edu/~dunbarc/dunbar3.pdf.

Ekici, G. (2004). Assessment of teachers’ classroom management profiles in the first-levelelementary education. TED Journal of Education and Science, 29(131), 50–60.

Ekici, G. (2006, April). Assessment of relationship between the teachers’ classroom managementprofiles and teachers self-efficacy. Paper presented at the National Classroom Teacher Congress. GaziUniversity, Faculty of Education. Ankara, Turkey.

English, F. W. (1992). Educational administration: the human science. New York: Harper CollinsPublishers.

Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do teachers’ own learning behaviors influencetheir classroom goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 36–46.

Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: PearsonEducation, Inc.

http://www.msu.edu/%7Edunbarc/dunbar3.pdf.


166

Hepburn, M. A. (1983). Can schools, teachers and administrators make a difference?. The researchevidence. In M. A. Hepburn (Ed.). Democratic education in schools and classrooms. USA: WashingtonNCSS Bulletin, N. 70.

Hoy, W. K. (1969). Pupil control ideology and organizational socialization: a further examination.The School Review Quarterly, 77(3–4), 257–265.

Hoy, W. K. (2001). Pupil control studies: a historical, theoretical, and empirical analysis. Journal ofEducational Administration, 39(5), 424–441.

Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. (1986). Effective supervision: theory into practice. New York: RandomHouse.

Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

pek, C. (2008). Management theories. In H. B. Memduho lu & K. Y lmaz (Eds.). Türk e itim sistemive okul yönetimi [Turkish educational system and school administration]. (pp. 119–166). Ankara: PegemAcademy Publishing.

Karip, E. (2004). Field and scope of management science. In Y. Özden (Ed.). itim ve okulyöneticili i el kitab [Handbook of education and school administration]. (pp. 1–39). Ankara: Pegem APublishing.

Karsl , M. D. (2003). Basic concepts of teaching. In M. D. Karsl (Ed.). Ö retmenlik mesle ine giri -alternatif yakla m [Introduction to teaching]. (pp. 1–28). Ankara: Ö reti Publishing.

Kottkamp, R. B., & Mulhern, J. A. (1987). Teacher expectancy motivation, open and closed climateand pupil control ideology in high school, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20, 9–18.

Kris, B. (1997a). What is your classroom management profile? Teacher Talk-A Publication forSecondary Education Teachers, 1(2). Retrieved January 10, 2009, fromhttp://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/what.html.

Kris, B. (1997b). Authoritarian. Teacher Talk-A Publication for Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2).Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/authoritarian.html.

Kris, B. (1997c). Laissez-faire. Teacher Talk-A Publication for Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2).Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/laissez.html.

Kris, B. (1997d). Indifferent. Teacher Talk-A Publication for Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2).Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/indifferent.html.

Kris, B. (1997e). Authoritative. Teacher Talk-A Publication for Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2).Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/authoritative.html.

Lunenburg, F. C. (1983). Pupil control ideology and self-concept as a learner. Educational ResearchQuarterly, 8(3), 33–39.

Lunenburg, F. C. (1990, April). Educators’ pupil-control ideology as a predictor of educator’sreactions to pupil disruptive behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association. Boston, MA., USA. ERIC No. ED321361.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Mankowsky, S. A. (2000, April). Bureaucracy and pupil control orientation andbehavior in urban secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association. New Orleans, LA., USA.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Educational administration: concepts and practices.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Schmidt, L. J. (1989). Pupil control ideology, pupil control behavior and thequality of school life. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22, 36-44.

Lunenburg, F. C., Sartori, M. A., & Bauske, T. (1999, August). Classroom climate, teacher controlbehavior, and student self-control: Urban public and military high schools compared. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. ERIC No.ED446201.

http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/what.html.

http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/authoritarian.html.

http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/laissez.html.

http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/indifferent.html.

http://www.drugstats.org/tt/v1i2/authoritative.html.


167

Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998). Construct validation of the attitudes and beliefs onclassroom control inventory. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33(2), 6–15.

Moore, K. D. (1989). Classroom teaching skills: a primer. New York: Random House, Inc.uz, A. (2008). Constructivism. In B. Duman (Ed.). retim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles

and methods]. (pp. 367–404). Ankara: Maya Academy Publishing.Ponticell, J. A. (2006). Attitudes toward work. In F. W. English (Edt.). Encyclopedia of educational

leadership and administration. (pp. 62–63). California: Sage Publications Ltd.Rideout, G. W., & Morton, L. L. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and other predictors of pupil

control ideologies. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 587–604.Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1993). Supervision: a redefinition. USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

man, M., & Turan, S. (2001). itimde toplam kalite yönetimi [Total quality management ineducation]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.

Skidmore, M. S. (2006). Theory x-theory y. In F. W. English (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educationalleadership and administration. (pp. 1018–1019). California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Toprakç , E. (2008). fa dayal yönetim. [Class-based management]. Ankara: Pegem AkademiPublishing.

Willover, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology. (Penn StateStudies Monograph, No: 24). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Woolfolk, A. E., & Nicolich, L. (1984). Educational psychology for teachers. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.

lmaz, K. (2002). A study of leadership behaviors of primary school’s administrators, the pupilcontrol ideology as perceived by teachers and the quality of school life as perceived by students, EskisehirOsmangazi University, Institute for Social Sciences, Unpublished Master Thesis.

lmaz, K. (2007). The opinions of primary school teachers concerning administrators’ leadershipbehaviors and pupil control ideologies. TED Journal of Education and Science, 32(146), 12–23.

Turkish Abstract

lkö retim okulu ö retmenlerinin ö renci kontrol ideolojileri hakk ndakigörü leri ve s f yönetimi tarzlar

Öz: Çal mada, ilkö retim okulu ö retmenlerinin s f yönetimi tarzlar ile ö renci kontrol ideolojilerineili kin görü leri aras ndaki ili kinin belirlenmesi amaçlanm r. Tarama modelindeki çal mada ara rmasorular na yan t aranm r. Ara rman n örnekleminde Kütahya il merkezindeki ilkö retim okullar ndagörev yapan 200 ö retmen bulunmaktad r. Veriler “S f Yönetimi Profili Ölçe i” ve “Ö renci Kontroldeolojileri Ölçe i” ile toplanm r. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistikler ile pearson korelasyon

analizi kullan lm r. Elde edilen bulgulara göre; ilkö retim okulu ö retmenlerinin daha çok “takdiredilen s f yönetimi” tarz na sahiptir. Ayr ca ö retmenlerin gözetimci kontrol ideolojisine daha yak nolduklar belirlenmi tir. Kat mc lar n ö renci kontrol ideolojileri ile otoriter s f yönetimi tarzlararas nda, orta düzeyde, ayn yönde anlaml bir ili ki vard r.

Anahtar Kelimeler: S f yönetimi tarzlar ; ö renci kontrol ideolojileri; ilkö retim okulu ö retmenleri