Journals / OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 15

Preservice Teachers’ Evaluations of the Bases of Power that their High School Teachers Preferred

Öğretmen Adaylarının Kendi Lise Öğretmenlerinin Tercih Ettikleri Güç Temellerine İlişkin Değerlendirmeleri

Pages
1163–1197
Publication Date
2018-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The stated taxonomy was presented in its final form, and implications of the findings for research and practice were also discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this qualitative study, which takes the last form that French and Raven’s taxonomy of power bases as its theoretical framework, is to present a group of preservice teachers’ evaluations of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the bases of power in the process of classroom management as based on their perceptions they formed through their lived experiences in their high school years.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings based on the written responses to open-ended questions of 345 preservice teachers, showed that personal reward power (as being an effective basis of power) and impersonal coercive power (as being an ineffective basis of power) were mentioned with the highest frequencies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The stated taxonomy was presented in its final form, and implications of the findings for research and practice were also discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:French ve Raven · Güç temelleri · Güç kaynakları

Abstract

The aim of this qualitative study, which takes the last form that French and Raven’s taxonomy of power bases as its theoretical framework, is to present a group of preservice teachers’ evaluations of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the bases of power in the process of classroom management as based on their perceptions they formed through their lived experiences in their high school years. The findings based on the written responses to open-ended questions of 345 preservice teachers, showed that personal reward power (as being an effective basis of power) and impersonal coercive power (as being an ineffective basis of power) were mentioned with the highest frequencies. In regard to the appropriateness of their use in classroom management, personal reward power was approved by all the participants who mentioned it, while coercive power was disapproved by all the participants who regarded it as an ineffective, and by almost all the others who regarded it as an effective basis of power. The literature on the power interactions between teachers and students have so far been theoretically based on the earliest form of French and Raven’s taxonomy of power bases presented in 1959. The present study points to the need to take the taxonomy in its final, the most comprehensive and thus the most explanatory form that it took in 1993. The stated taxonomy was presented in its final form, and implications of the findings for research and practice were also discussed.

Özet

French ve Raven taksonomisinin ulaşmış olduğu son hali teorik çerçeve olarak alan bu nitel araştırmanın amacı, bir grup öğretmen adayının lise yıllarındaki öğrencilik deneyimlerine dayanarak dile getirebilecekleri, güç temellerinin etkililiğine ve sınıf yönetimi sürecinde uygunluklarına ilişkin değerlendirmelerini ortaya koymaktır. 345 öğretmen adayının açık uçlu sorulara verdikleri cevaplara dayanan bulgular, katılımcıların en yüksek frekansla dile getirilen etkili güç temelinin kişisel ödül gücü, en yüksek frekansla dile getirilen etkisiz güç temelinin ise kişisel olmayan zorlayıcı güç olduğunu göstermektedir. Kişisel ödül gücünü dile getiren katılımcıların tamamı bu gücü sınıf yönetimi sürecinde uygun bulurken, kişisel olmayan zorlayıcı gücü etkisiz olarak dile getiren katılımcıların tamamının, etkili olarak dile getiren katılımcıların ise tamama yakının bu güç temelini sınıf yönetiminde uygun bulmadıkları görülmüştür. Sınıfta öğretmen-öğrenci güç etkileşimlerine ilişkin alanyazın French ve Raven taksonomisinin 1959 yılındaki 5 boyutlu ilk halini esas almaktadır. Bu araştırma ise söz konusu taksonominin 1993 senesinde ulaştığı son noktadaki, en kapsamlı ve dolayısıyla da en açıklayıcı hali ile bu alandaki araştırmalara çerçeve alınması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir. Araştırma kapsamında taksonomi ulaştığı son haliyle tanıtılmış, bulgulara dayalı olarak araştırma ve uygulama önerileri geliştirilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZASLAN, G. (2018). Preservice Teachers’ Evaluations of the Bases of Power that their High School Teachers Preferred. OPUS Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 15, 1163–1197. https://ajindex.com/articles/897032

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Aslanargun, E., ve Eriş, H. M. (2013). Öğretim elemanlarının sınıf yönetiminde kullandıkları güç türleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2). 207-220.
  2. Elias, S. M., ve Loomis, R. J. (2004). The effect of instructor gender and race/ethnicity on gaining compliance in the classroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 937-958.
  3. Finn A. N. (2012). Teacher use of prosocial and antisocial power bases and students’ perceived instructor understanding and misunderstanding in the college classroom. Communication Education, 61(1), 67-79.
  4. French, J.R.P., ve Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory, (pp. 259–269). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published in 1959).
  5. Goodboy, A. K., ve Bolkan, S. (2011). Student motives for communicating with instructors as a function of perceived instructor power use. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 109-114.
  6. Goodboy, A. K., Bolkan S., Myers S. A. ve Zhao X. (2011). Student use of relational and influence messages in response to perceived instructor power use in American and Chinese college classrooms. Communication Education, 60(2), 191-209.
  7. Hoşgörür, T., ve Yorulmaz, Y. İ. (2016). Öğretim Elemanlarının sınıf yönetiminde kullandıkları güç kaynaklarının öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik adalet algılarına etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(2), 375-404. Kaufmann R., ve Buckner, M. M. (2018). Revisiting “power in the classroom”: Exploring online learning and motivation to study course content. Interactive Learning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1481104. Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(3), 307-19.
  8. McCroskey, J. C., ve Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication Education, 32(2), 175-184.
  9. Orgill, M. (2012). Phenomenography, in Seed, N.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 2608-2611.
  10. Osteraker, M. (2002). Phenomenography as a research method in management research, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.199.5234& rep =rep1&type=pdf Özaslan, G. (2017). French ve Raven Perspektifiyle Kişilerarası Gücün Temelleri. Editörler Yılmaz, E. ve Yılmaz, H. (Ed.) Eğitimden Damlalar içinde (s. 35-60). Konya: Palet Yayınları.
  11. Özdemir, A. (2013). Ö