Educational Values and Priorities of School Principals in Turkey

1. Educational Values and Priorities of School Principals in Turkey Mualla BİLGİN AKSU Akdeniz University Antalya muallaaksu@akdeniz.edu.tr

2. The aim of this study is

3. The population of this study is

4. Sample and Instrument

5. Five Codes for Data Analysis (suggested by Bottery): Social Reconstruction(SR) Gross National Product (GNP) Environmental Sustainability(ENV) Cultural Transmission(CT) Student-centred (SC)

6. Data collectionin three different perceptions of the principals

7. Demographic Data

8. Table 1. Data on Principals’ Length of Service

9. Table 2.Data on School Types

10. Table 3. Data on School Level

11. Table 4. Data on Voluntary for an Interview

12. Table 5. Data on Demanding Research Results

13. Findings

14. Omitted Items One item within each code was omitted because they were put for verification They are:

15. Data Analysis Friedman test K related samples

16. Table 6. Data for Social Reconstruction Code ***P≤.001

17. For Social Reconstruction Code All the means are significantly different according to the Chi-Square values (P≤.001) All the highest means were obtained from the column c (principal’s free choice) except Item 1 “Students in my school need to learn about what constitutes a good society” (practice is the highest)

18. For Social Reconstruction Code The lowest means were obtained from the column a (promoted by government) except items 8 and 37 Practice is the lowest: Schools should teach their pupils the skills they will need in building a better society. (Item 8) Students need to understand that they should contribute to building a better world. (Item 37)

19. Table 7.Data for Gross National Product Code ***P≤.001

20. For Gross National Product Code All the means are significantly different(P≤.001) All the highestmeans were obtained from the column c (principal’s free choice) The lowest meanswere obtained from the column a(promoted by government)

21. Table 8.Data for Environmental Issues Code ***P≤.001

22. For Environmental Issues Code All the means are significantly different(P≤.001) All the highest means were obtained from the column c (principal’s free choice) except Item 10 “Students should be taught to value the lives of all creatures.” (practice is the highest) All the lowest meanswere obtained from the column a(promoted by government)

23. Table 9.Data for Cultural Transmission Code ***P≤.001

24. For Cultural Transmission Code Six means out of nine are significantly different(P≤.001) The highest means were divided among three columns Column a has only one highest mean (Item 19) “Students in my school should be taught to accept the opinions of their teachers. (P.05)” All the lowest meanswere obtained from the column aexcept 19 (choice is the lowest) but is not significantly different

25. Table 10. Data for Student-Centred Code ***P≤.001

26. For Student-Centred Code All the means are significantly different(P≤.001) All the highestmeans were obtained from the column c (principal’s free choice) The lowest meanswere obtained from the column a(promoted by government)

27. Table 11. Mean Ranks for Social Reconstruction Code

28. Table12. Mean Ranks for Gross National Product Code

29. Table 13. Mean ranks for Environmental Issues Code

30. Table 14. Mean Ranks for Cultural Transmission Code

31. Table 15. Mean Ranks for Student-Centred Code

32. Table 16. Turkey Top Ten CT-12 SR-9 ENV-6 SC-3GNP-0

33. Table 18. Turkey Bottom Ten SC-11CT-8 ENV-5SR-3 GNP-3

34. Main Results According to the Turkish data, Government column hasthe lowest point while principal’s free choice has the highest.

35. After filling in the questionnaire: One principal said: “Our government could not pass the exam”

36. The highest mean was obtained from the item “Schools need to teach pupils how to sing the national anthem” (CT-13a, 13b, 13c). The lowest mean was obtained from the item “Students in my school need to know that they cannot contribute much to curricula content” (CT-7a,7b).

37. Table 17. Comparisons* on numbers of items within top tenin three columns (Totally 10 X 3 =30 items) *Data related England, Finland, and Poland are obtained from Bottery & Wright (2010)

38. Most and least chosen codes Most chosen code: SRfor England and Finland CT for Poland and Turkey Least chosen code: CT for England GNP for Finland, Poland and Turkey

39. Top three items shared among countries*: Item 10 (Poland and Finland): “Students should be taught to value the lives of all creatures.” Item 3 (England and Poland): “Students need to understand that they have responsibilities to society as well as rights from it.” Item 4 (Poland and Turkey): “Students need to know about the history of their country.” *Data related England, Finland, and Poland are obtained from Bottery & Wright (2010)

40. Conclusion We have more data internationally as a research team, and we need to make more comparisons Then, we can see the more aspects about different countries

41. Two Contrast Theories • Espoused theory What principals say when they are just asked • Theory in use What principals do in an actual situation

42. The data show the principals’ espoused theory, and we need to find out their theory in use. Observation at work may be suggested for that.

43. We asked them only to fill in the questionnaires but their own values may also be asked especially to the principals who accept the interview

44. Of course limitations should be taken into consideration, and further researches are needed.

45. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION muallaaksu@akdeniz.edu.tr