Scholarly article on topic 'Secondary School Teachers’ Beliefs on Character Education Competency'

Secondary School Teachers’ Beliefs on Character Education Competency Academic research paper on "Educational sciences"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Character education" / "teacher competeceny" / "Character education competeceny"}

Abstract of research paper on Educational sciences, author of scientific article — Mehmet Ülger, Süleyman Yiğittir, Orhan Ercan

Abstract Character education competencies of teachers are very important in the achievement of educational objectives in addition to their field knowledge, general knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. The study which utilized survey model aimed to identify competencies in teachers, who play a significant role in shaping the character of students along with the parents, through self assessment. Data was collected with the help of CECBS (Character Education Competency Belief Scale) developed by Milson & Ekşi (2003). Working group of the study was composed of 231 teachers employed in various provinces of Turkey. Results showed that teachers’ beliefs on character education competency centered on “agree” on CEC (Character Education Competency) and GEC (General Education Competency) dimensions; variables such as gender, type of school teachers graduated from, type of setlement they work in, income levels of their students and seniority did not create a significant difference on their character education competency beliefs however the subject they teach, attending in-service seminars and reading books about character education were found be significant. In the contenxt of the findings; increasing the number of in- service training opportunities and the number of publications are suggested.

Academic research paper on topic "Secondary School Teachers’ Beliefs on Character Education Competency"

CrossMark

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 131 (2014) 442 - 449

WCETR 2013

Secondary School Teachers' Beliefs On Character Education

Competency

Mehmet Ulgera*, Suleyman Yigittir b, Orhan Ercan c

a Education Faculty, Kirikkale University, Turkey b General Directorate of Basic Education, Turkey c Education Faculty, Kahramanmara§ Sutgu imam University, Turkey

Abstract

Character education competencies of teachers are very important in the achievement of educational objectives in addition to their field knowledge, general knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. The study which utilized survey model aimed to identify competencies in teachers, who play a significant role in shaping the character of students along with the parents, through self assessment. Data was collected with the help of CECBS (Character Education Competency Belief Scale) developed by Milson & Ek§i (2003). Working group of the study was composed of 231 teachers employed in various provinces of Turkey. Results showed that teachers' beliefs on character education competency centered on "agree" on CEC (Character Education Competency) and GEC (General Education Competency) dimensions; variables such as gender, type of school teachers graduated from, type of setlement they work in, income levels of their students and seniority did not create a significant difference on their character education competency beliefs however the subject they teach, attending in-service seminars and reading books about character education were found be significant. In the contenxt of the findings; increasing the number of inservice training opportunities and the number of publications are suggested.

© 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCETR 2013. Keywords: Character education, teacher competeceny, Character education competeceny

* Corresponding Author: Mehmet Ulger. Tel.: +90 312 2126530 (4310); fax: +90 312 223 35 09 E-mail address: mulger@meb.gov.tr

1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCETR 2013. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.145

1. Introduction

In the development of societies, the importance of the quality of individuals who compose the society is increasing day by day. The objective of creating a society of qualified and competent individuals through education has recently been in the agenda of teaching programs in Turkey. Parallel to the development in teaching programs, the studies in the field of teacher competencies are also increasing (Huntly,2008; Bellm,2008; Demirel,2009; Selvi,2010).

The children and the youth who will ensure the continuity of the society should have good characters in addition to knowledge. Qualified and well trained individuals equipped with positive values are required to create serene, content and successful societies and therefore more resources are provided in Turkey to educate qualified and competent individuals (MEB, 2012:208). Acquisition of positive character attributes in schools in addition to field knowledge is possible through values included (MEB, 2004;2006;2009).

Teachers who implement teaching programs should be competent both in their fields and in character education in order to educate a qualified generation. Teacher model of the past mostly engaged in transferring knowledge is replaced by the teacher model that is student and learning centered and aware of all students in the classroom and engaged in preparing learning experiences suitable for development and individual differences of all students (Tanrikulu, 2008:57). As emphasized by Ersoy (2008:33); anyone with knowledge about a topic cannot just transfer it to another person. So effective teaching does not only include knowledge but methods and required teacher competences to transfer the knowledge to students. Self efficacy or competence is defined as one's belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations (Bandura, 1977 cited in Aypay, 2010:118). According to De Bueger & Vander Borght; (1996) the concept of competence defined as being qualified to undertake a task or activity requires knowledge, generation of knowledge production and the use of knowledge that is generated (Cited in:Naumescu, 2008:26-27). The fact that teacher competences are not independent of personal judgments and are closely related to intent, motivation and attitudes brings questioning of those competencies (So, Cheng & Tsang, 1996:46).

The majority of teacher competencies are acquired during teacher training periods (in faculties of education) and developed by implementations in schools. The theoretical foundation of the competency concept is based on Rotter's (1966) Control of Locus Theory and Bandura's (1977) Social Learning Theory. This concept is also related to Reddin's (1970) 3D theory which is a situational leadership theory (Baloglu & Karadag, 2008:571). There are studies about personal and general self competency areas of teachers that aim to explain the concept of self competence (Aypay, 2011; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; §ahinkaya, 2008). In addition to these areas, there are also classifications at the level of implementation such as level of internship, level of entrance, level of experience and level of expertise (Royce, 1999). Additionally, there is also personal competence that consists of competences such as self consciousness, adaptation and motivation as well as "social competence" consisting thirteen affective competences such as empathy, social skills etc that determine success in interpersonal relations (Ada, 2009:37-44).

There is a directly proportional relationship between self competence and achievement therefore teachers should have high levels of self competence (Tanrikulu, 2008:36). Teachers with high levels of competence have the following characteristics: They provide more effort to teach, they have more willing and passionate about teaching they take important educational decisions faster and more explicitly, they are more successful in implementing educational programs and less stressed compared to other teachers they are more inclined to use new ideas and teaching methods, they are less critical of student errors (§ahinkaya, 2008:13).

National Education Basic Statue states that students need to be provided with positive character attributes in schools in addition to knowledge and skills (MEB,1973). As can be seen in the fundamental objectives of the National Education, it is required to "educate individuals who internalize basic humanitarian values" in addition to academic achievement and this task is one of the major targets of the family, society and the school (Ek§i, 2003:79). The concept of character, which is an abstract notion in itself (Ryan & Bohlin,1999:5), is defined as the sum of features and qualities that distinguish someone or something form the others; personal attitudes and good qualities (Afdal,2007:349). Character can be acquired later in life. Teachers have the biggest responsibility in students' internalizing positive character traits. The roles of the teachers in character education are as follows (Hayes & Hagerdon, 2000:2; Lickona, 1993:7-8): Teachers behave with affection and respect to the students, provide a good role model and support positive social behaviors, they inform students about how to behave respectfully to others and ensure implementation of affection and responsibility towards peers in groups, they provide discipline with moral

rules that develop reasoning and are followed in a voluntary manner, they allow students to make decisions in the class and make the classroom a better place thereby creating a democratic environment, they place emphasis on values in the lesson programs required to be transmitted to students, they use cooperative learning approaches in order to develop students, they work to develop awareness for hand crafts, they strive for having student learning to be acknowledged and developed, they promote moral thinking in reading, doing research and writing, they work on conflict mediation.

Implementing the above mentioned character education activities is directly related to the character education competence of the teachers (Milson & Ek§i,2003). Therefore it is imperative to identify teachers' competencies in character education in order to make policies regarding the efficiency of character education currently provided in schools. Since the attributes are among the competences that hard to be evaluated because they are not concrete and some personal variations are possible (Tanrikulu, 2008:32), studies previously undertaken in the same field show that teachers' beliefs on character education competences can be assessed (Milson & Ek§i,2003). Therefore, the current study aimed to identify the character education competency of teachers who work teach different subjects.

2.Method

The research questions developed according to the purpose of the study and the design regarding how the answers would be analyzed are given below:

Table 1. Research Design

Data Collection Tools Data

Research Questions Analysis Technique

1. What are the beliefs and perceptions of teachers regarding character education competencies in CEC and GEC dimensions? Survey form Average

2. Do teacher perceptions regarding character education competencies in CEC and GEC dimensions change according to:

a. gender, b. type of school type graduate from, c. attendance in in-service training Survey form t - Test

d. subjects they teach , e. seniority , f. reading books on character education? Survey form ANOVA, (Bonferonni)

The research utilized the survey model, a descriptive research method, in order to assess teacher perceptions regarding character education (Karasar, 2002).

a. Working Group: Working group of the study was composed of 231 teachers employed in various provinces of Turkey. Three of these teachers had to be removed form the data set due to lack of information provided by them therefore data for 228 teachers were included in the analysis. Research participants were selected from secondary schools formative/master subject teachers who participated in no 1375-1380 in-service training provided by MoNE between the dates of 24 and 28 October 2011.

b. Data Collection Tool: Data of the study was collected with the help of CECBS (Character Education Competency Belief Scale) developed by Milson & Ek§i (2003). Reliability coefficient of the scale (Cronbach Alpha) was found as 0,74. The scale is composed of two dimensions: Character Education Competency (CEC) and General Education Competency (GEC) dimensions. The 5 point Likert type scale (completely agree, agree, undecided, disagree and completely disagree) consists of 24 items. Reverse coding was used in the negative statements in the scale.

c. Statistical Techniques Used in the Study: Analysis of averages was undertaken by Range/Number of Groups" formula and score intervals were calculated to be 4/5=0,80 (Tekin, 1996).

Normal distribution of the data and their homogeneity were taken into account to make decisions about the inferential analysis methods used in the study. Kolmogorov Smirnov analysis was undertaken for normal

distribution and homogeneity analysis was undertaken for homogeneity and for both analysis, result of p > 0,05 were found. Large enough sample size allows parametric analysis methods to be implemented on the data.

3. Findings

This section provides the averages of teachers' CEC and GEC beliefs regarding CECBS dimensions and various analysis of these dimensions with several variables.

Table 2. Teacher Views Regarding CEC and GEC

Dimension N M Sd

CEC 228 3,82 0,47

GEC 228 3,42 0,38

Results about teachers' total attitude scores regarding CEC and GEC dimensions show that although CEC attitudes were higher (X=3,82), teachers focused on "agree" for both dimensions.

Table 3. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and Gender

Dimension Gender N X ss ■ Levene Test F p sd t p

F 55 46,64 4,35

CEC 2,28 0,13 226 1,198 0,232

M 1 /3 45,60 5,95

GEC F M 55 173 40,98 41,01 4,39 4,55 0,05 0,82 226 0,043 0,966

Teachers' attitudes regarding the CEC [t(226)=1,198; p>0,05] and GEC [t(226)=0,043; p>0,05] do not show changes according to gender.

Table 4. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and type of school teachers are graduated from

Dimension Type of school N X Levene Test t

F p p

CEC Education Science-Literature 132 96 45,68 46,07 5,59 5,68 0,21 0,65 226 0,518 0,605

GEC Education Science-Literature 132 96 41,02 40,99 4,65 4,32 0,58 0,45 226 0,042 0,966

Teachers' total attitude scores regarding CEC [t(226)=0,518; p>0,05] and GEC [t(226)=0,042; p>0,05] dimensions were not found to be diverse in terms of schools they graduated from.

Table 5. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and in-service training attendance

Dimension Attendance N X ss - Levene Test F p - sd t p

Yes 50 48,44 5,06

CEC 0,18 0,67 226 3,802 0,000

No 178 45,12 5,56

GEC Yes No 50 178 42,66 40,54 4,70 4,35 0,42 0,52 226 2,994 0,003

A difference was identified in CEC and GEC dimensions in total attitude scores between teachers in terms of attending in-service training about character/value education. Total attitude scores of teachers who received in-

service training about character/value education was found to be X=48,44 in CEC dimension ; whereas total attitude scores of teachers who did not receive in-service training about character/value education was X=45,12. This difference was found to be statistically significant. [t(226)=3,802; p<0,05]. Similarly, total attitude scores of teachers who received in-service training about character/value education was found to be X=42,66 in GEC, whereas total attitude scores of teachers who did not receive in-service training about character/value education was X=40,54. This difference was found to be statistically significant as well [t(226)=2,994; p<0,05].

Table 6. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and subjects taught

Dimensi on Subject N X

History 4 5 48,76

Geography 3 0 46,27

Mathematics 2 9 43,76

CEC Turkish 1 8

language and literature 45,61

Physics 4 6 44,93

Chemistry 6 0 45,23

History 4 5 42,76

Geography 3 0 41,07

Mathematics 2 9 39,90

GEC Turkish 1 8

language and literature 40,39

Physics 4 6 40,30

Chemistry 6 0 70,92

Varianc e

Source

Squar es

Difference

Betwee n

groups

groups

574,32 5

0,00 2

1-3 1-5 1-6

6591,3 0

Betwee n

groups

groups

203,53 5

2,05 5

0,07 2

4397,4 7

Table 6 shows that there is a statistically significant difference between the subjects taught and the total attitude scores regarding CEC [F(5,222)=3,869; p<0,05] dimension. Bonferonni analysis was undertaken to identify which groups were affected by the difference and results show that there was significant difference between groups 1-3 (in favor of 1), 1-5 (in favor of 1) and 1-6 (in favor of 1). No significant relationships were identified between subject taught and total attitude scores in GEC dimension. [F(5222)=2,0 5 5; p>0,05].

Table 7. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and Seniority

Dimensi Seniority on_Regarding

Source of Sum of Variance_Squares

6-10 years 11-15 years

16-20 years

21 years or more

36 46,3 5 20

3 ' Between

89 45'6 6,17 gr0UpS

80 46,0 5,29 6

23 0 5,35

m-groups

24,632

7170,995 224

0,258 0,856

6-10 years 11-15 years

16-20 years

21 years or more

36 5 4,85 Between

89 40,8 4,74 gr0UpS 41 0

80 0 4,15

23 4,35

m-groups

24,907

4576,089 224

0,406 0,749

No significant difference was identified between total attitude scores and seniority regarding CEC [F(3,224)=0,258; p>0,05] and GEC [F(3,224)=0,406; p>0,05] dimensions.

Table 8. Relationship between CEC and GEC Dimensions and Reading

Dimensi

Reading N

None 1-3

8 or more

Source of Sum of sd

Varianc Squares

None 88 5,43

/ Between

1-3 75 45,2 5,16 groUps

4-7 40 6,24 .

8 or 25 49,3 5 10 groups

more 2

490,994 3

6674,633

88 75 40 25

40,8 4,39 n

1 Between

40,7 4,48 grouPS

^ 5,16 .

42,7 3,64 groUpS 6

86,598

4514,398

Differenc

5,493 0,001

1,432 0,234

Table 8 shows a statistically significant difference between reading books about character education and total attitude scores regarding CEC dimension [F(3224)=5,4 9 3; p<0,05]. Bonferonni analysis was undertaken to identify which groups were affected by the difference and results show that there was significant difference between groups 1-4 (in favor of 4), 1-4 (in favor of 4) and 2-4 (in favor of 4). No significant relationships were identified between subject taught and total attitude scores and in GEC dimension [F(3224)=1,4 3 2; p>0,05].

4. Results

The study presents important results regarding secondary school subject matter teachers' beliefs on character education competency. Teachers were found to center on "agree" option in CEC and GEC dimensions. Attitudes towards CEC were found to be higher compared to those regarding GEC. This result is compatible with the results of the study by Milson and Ek§i (2003) and that secondary school teachers have positive competency beliefs regarding character education. Secondary school teachers' beliefs on character education competency were not found be statistically different according to gender, type of school they graduated form and seniority. These results are supported by other studies in the literature (Milson & Ek§i,2003; §ahinkaya,2008; Tanrikulu,2008; Demirel,2009). However, Tanrikulu's (2008) study that shows gender is related to differences in primary school teachers do not support our findings. The difference presented in Tanrikulu's (2008) study may be related to B.A degree of the teachers and the age levels of their students. The fact that graduates of Faculty of Education were found to have higher averages in both dimensions (although there was no statistical difference) is an important issue that needs to be taken into consideration during teacher assignments and preferences.

A statistically significant difference was identified between secondary school teachers' beliefs on character education competency and their attending in-service training and reading books on character education. The statistical difference was found to be significant in favor of history teachers in CEC sub dimension of in-service training attendance. This finding was found to be related to the character education and values training in the framework of #435 in-service training provided for history teachers by MoNE in 2011. Results related to teachers' reading about character education showed that there was a significant difference in CEC sub dimension in favor of teachers who read 8 or more books. Accordingly, attending in-service training and reading books were found to positively affect and increase teachers' personal teaching competencies. These results also confirm the findings of Milson & Ek§i (2003) but not with the findings of Fholer (2002 cited in Tanrikulu, 2008). This difference may be explained by the fact that studies about teacher competencies may change according to samples of the studies. Ersoy's study (2008) that points to the differences of teacher, administrator, inspector and student opinions regarding teacher competencies also shows how perception of competency changes.

In the context of Character Teaching Competence, scores of history and geography teachers, which is related with social sciences, are higher than other areas (language-literature, math and science). Those social studies teachers having more positive attitude scores than other branches can be explained that character education is considered as a social science and the teachers of this branch are to take a role for themselves. In this sense, it can be said that on character education, social studies teachers (especially history teachers), feels more competent than teachers in other areas (especially math and science), have a favorable opinion and thoughts, and are interested in character education.

Suggestions that can be provided in line with these results are as follows: implementing in-service training about character education that is found to create differences on the beliefs regarding character education competency and distributing books in that field to schools should be given priority. The study should be replicated with different samples and teachers of subject matter to increase awareness in teachers about character education and to provide a comprehensive database for character education policy development. Preference should be given to teachers graduated from Faculty of Education in teacher assignments and teachers graduated from other fields should be provided preparatory education and training in character education.

5. References

Ada, S. (2009). Beden Egitimi Ögretmenlerinin Duygusal Zeka Düzeyleri ve Yetkinliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Yeditepe

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yayimlanmami§ Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Afdal, G. (2007). Ahlak Egitiminin Analizi: Bir Tipoloji. (Ed.R.Kaymakcan, H. Hökelekli, §. Arslan, M.

Zengin) Degerler ve Egitimi. Istanbul: Dem Yay., s. 333-334. Aypay, A. (2010). Genel Öz Yeterlik Ölfegi'nin (GÖYÖ) Türkfe'ye Uyarlama Qali^masi. inönü Üniversitesi

Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt:11, Sayi:2, ss. 113-131. Baloglu, N. ve Karadag, E. (2008). Ögretmen Yetkinliginin Tarihsel Geli^imi ve Ohio Ögretmen Yetkinlik Ölfegi: Türk Kültürüne Uyarlama, Dil Geferligi ve Faktör Yapisinin Incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, Sayi:56, ss. 571 - 606.

Bellm, D.(Ed.) (2008). Early Childhood Educator Competencies. Center For The Study of Child Care Employment

Research Report. California University, Berkeley. Demirel, M. (2009). Sinif Ögretmenlerinin ve Okul Yöneticilerinin Karakter Egitimine ili^kin Öz-Yeterlik Inanflari.

Hacettepe Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (37) ss.36-49 Ek§i, H. (2003). Temel Insani Degerlerin Kazandirilmasinda Bir Yakla^im: Karakter Egitimi Programlari. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 1 (1), 79-96.

Ersoy, Y. (2008). ilkögretim Okullarinda Matematik ve Fen Bilgisi Ögretmenlerinin Yeterlilikleri ve Yetkinlik

Inanflari, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (24) ss.28-41 Hayes, B.G.& Hagerdon, W.B. (2000). A Case for Character Education, Journal of Humanistic Counseling,

Education&Development. 39(1) 1-8. Huntly, H. (2008). Beginning Teachers" Conceptions Of Competence, Journal of College Teaching & Learning,

Volume 1, Number 5, pp.29-38 Karasar, N. (2002). Bilimsel Ara^tirma Yöntemi, Ankara:Nobel Yayinlari. Lickona, T. (1993). The Return of Character Education. Educational Leadership. 51 (3). 6-11 MEB. (2004). Sosyal Bilgiler (4-5.Sinif) Dersi Ögretim Programi, Ankara: Milli Egitim Yayinevi. MEB. (2009). ilkögretim Hayat Bilgisi (1,2 ve 3.Siniflar) Ögretim Programi, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php (Eri^im tarihi: 28/04/2011) MEB. (2006). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti inkilap Tarihi ve AtatürkfülükDersi Ögretim Programi, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/modules.php (Eri^im tarihi: 28/04/2011) MEB. (2012). Milli Egitim istatistikleri (2011-2012), Ankara.

MEB. (1973). 1739 Sayili Milli Egitim Temel Kanunu, http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/88.html (Eri^im tarihi: 17/08/2012).

Milson, A.J. & Ek§i, H. (2003). Ögretmenlerin Karakter Egitiminde Yetkinlik Duygusu Konusunda Bir Ölfme Aracina Dogru: Karakter Egitimi Yetkinlik Skalasi (KEYIS) ve Türkfeye Uyarlanma Qali^masi. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 1 (4), 99-130. Naumescu, A.K. (2008). Science Teacher Competencies In A Knowledged Based Society. Acta Didactica

Napocensia, (1)1, pp. 25-31. Royce, S. (1999). ATCS: Adult Teacher Competencies Study. Focus Bulletin, 14(2), 1-2. Ryan, K. & Bohlin, K. (1999), Building Character in Schools. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers. Selvi, K. (2010). Teachers' Competencies. Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology,

Vol. VII, Number: 1, pp.167-175. So, W, Cheng M., & Tsang C. (1996). An Impact of Teaching Practice: Perceptions of Teacher Competence Among

Student-Teachers, Journal of Primary Education. Vol:6, No:1&2, pp. 45-56. §ahinkaya, N (2008). Türkiye-Finlandiya Sinif Ögretmenligi Matematik Ögretimi Programlari, Sinif Ögretmeni Adaylari ile Ögretmenlerin Öz-Yetkinlik ve Ögrenme-Ögretme Süreqleri Afisindan Kar§ila§tirilmasi. Gazi Üniversitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Yayimlanmami§ Doktora Tezi Tekin, H. (1996). Egitimde Ölfme ve Degerlendirme. Ankara: Yargi Yayinlari.

Tanrikulu, S. (2008). ilkögretim Okullarindaki Ögretmenlerin Yetkinlik Duygusunu Etkileyen Etkenlerin Ögretmen Algilarina Göre Degerlendirilmesi. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yayimlanmami§ Yüksek Lisans tezi

UNESCO. (2008). ICT Competency Standards for Teachers (Competency Standards Modules). Paris.