2. 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 of
classroom management in creating an effective learning environment. Classroom management skills of
teachers are one of the main distinctive factors of classroom management style, since classroom
management 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 following
headings: “personal traits of teachers, school based qualities, environmental qualities and those about
the general structure of education system”. However, perhaps the most important of these is personal
traits of teachers which could be shaped by their educational background, self-efficiency perceptions in
various 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 concern
teachers’ 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 styles
of 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 in
teaching activities show their classroom management styles. Teachers are classroom managers and may
apply different classroom management styles (Ekici, 2004). There are various classifications of teacher
classroom management styles. Martin, Yin and Baldwin (1998) define classroom management styles as
non-disciplinary and disciplinary; whereas Kris (1997a) suggests the following: authoritarian classroom
management, authoritative classroom management, laissez-faire classroom management and
indifferent classroom management. Generally, these classifications are conceptualized from
coerciveness 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 restrictions
imposed by teachers. In this style, it is assumed that teachers think pupils learn only when they listen to
their teachers and when they pay attention to lessons. Pupils have to participate in activities voluntarily
even if they are unwilling. Teachers make all kinds of decisions in classrooms and they never recognize
pupils (Dunbar, 2004; Ekici, 2004, 2006; Hepburn, 1983; Kris, 1997b; Moore, 1989). In other words, in
this approach, teachers act as representatives of authority in classrooms.
In authoritative classroom management, teacher control behavior over pupils is based on some
reasonable 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, teachers
take pupils’ views, suggestions and questions into consideration (Ekici, 2004, 2006; Kris, 1997e). That is
in a classroom where authoritative classroom management style is adopted there is mutual
communication.
Laissez-faire classroom management is a style where teachers display little behavior to control pupils
and 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 no
continuous discipline, teachers become friendly with pupils at once and really appreciate them, plus
3. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
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 out
of control. Teachers with this style are much loved by their pupils.
In indifferent classroom management style, pupils have very few demands, as teachers do not
participate in lessons and they are generally indifferent to their pupils. In this style, teachers are
reluctant to pressurize pupils in any way; they do not spare time to prepare teaching materials. They
only fill in time during lessons. As a result, those with this style lack disciplinary skills and do not build
trust. 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 let
pupils do what they want for the rest of the lesson. They would like to fill in lesson time and they
pretend to be teaching properly.
1.2. Pupil Control Ideologies
Pupil control ideologies, conceptualized by Willover, Eidell and Hoy (1967), were developed to define
teachers’ views about pupil control. Willover et al. (1967) conceptualized pupil control ideologies as two
poles 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 because
they are irresponsible, undisciplined and ordinary in terms of the way they dress, their appearance, their
behaviors 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 are
personal 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 to
the extent orders are enforced (Lunenburg, 1983). In a custodial school, there is an autocratic
organization in pupil activities and inflexibility in teacher-pupil status distinction (Kottkamp & Mulhern,
1987).
In humanistic control ideology, pupil learning and behaviors are considered psychologically and
sociologically rather than morally. From the humanistic point of view, socio-psychological senses
developed by Fromm are used (Hoy, 1969). In this approach, timid children are equal to active and
problematic children. A humanistic teacher is optimistic. He builds close personal relationships with
pupils and fulfills positive friendship and respect expectations. Teachers are guiding in self-discipline
rather 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 classroom
environment. It also entails mutual communication and a style which ensures flexibility in rules and
status. Therefore, teachers and pupils become enthusiastic to act according to their options and be
responsible for their own actions. A humanistic ideology school considers pupils as an education group
where 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 every
pupil and featuring pupil individualism is emphasized (Hoy, 1969).
The previous studies examined the correlation between pupil control ideologies and numerous
different variables. These variables could be grouped as demographic variables, experience variables
and philosophical variables. Philosophical variables rather include beliefs and individual traits (Rideout &
4. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
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 control
ideologies and other variables is limited in the related literature. In this context, the aim of the present
study is to determine the correlation between classroom management styles of primary school teachers
and their views about pupil control ideologies. To this end, the study seeks to find answers to the
following 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 of
primary school teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies througha survey model
implemented in the study.
2.1. Sample
The sample consists of 200 teachers from primary schools in Kütahya city centre. The participants
were chosen randomly. The application was carried out during 2008-2009 academic year Spring
Semester. As for the demographics, 53 per cent of the participants were female, and 47 per cent were
male. Their ages ranged from 22 to 61. Their experience was within the range of 1 and 39 years. 59.5
per cent were classroom teachers, and 40.5 per cent were branch teachers. 63.5 per cent of the
participants graduated from faculties of education, 10 per cent from training institutes, 7.5 per cent
from 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 Control
Ideology 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 different
classroom management styles (Authoritarian Classroom Management, Authoritative Classroom
Management, Laissez-faire Classroom Management and Indifferent Classroom Management) and there
are 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: Authoritarian
Classroom Management Style .82, Authoritative Classroom Management Style .80, Laissez-faire
Classroom Management Style .84 and Indifferent Classroom Management .78 and the Classroom
Management Style Scale totally .87 (Ekici, 2004). 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. Here are some of the items included in
the scale:
1.If a pupil disturbs the class, I certainly interfere with him (Authoritarian Classroom Management
Style).
5. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
161
2. I am interested in both what pupils learn and how they learn (Authoritative Classroom
Management Style).
3. Pupils feeling alright are more important than classroom management for me (Laissez-faire
Classroom Management Style).
4. If pupil brings his homework late, this is not my problem (Indifferent Classroom Management
Style).
“The Pupil Control Ideology Scale”, developed by Willower, Eidell and Hoy (1967), was adapted into
Turkish by Y lmaz (2002). The scale is one-dimensional and the Turkish form of the scale consists of ten
items. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is = .72. Only one of the items in the scale is
reversely 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 scale
score represents custodial control ideology, while a decrease in the score shows humanistic control
ideology. 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 Pearson
correlation analysis for determining correlations. In correlation analysis, the following intervals were
used 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 pupil
control ideologies are defined. Then, the results of correlation analysis performed to see the correlation
between the participants’ classroom management styles and their views about pupil control ideologies
are presented. Descriptive statistics given in Table 1 reveals the views of primary school teachers about
classroom management styles.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of primary school teachers’ views of classroom management styles
Classroom management
styles
n K Lowest
score
Highest
score
X S X/K
Authoritarian 197 3 3.00 15.00 9.94 1.92 3.31
Authoritative 197 3 5.00 15.00 11.64 1.86 3.88
Laissez-Faire 198 3 5.00 15.00 9.88 1.96 3.29
Indifferent 197 3 5.00 15.00 8.69 1.67 2.89
6. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
162
As it is seen in Table 1, “authoritative classroom management” style ( =3.88) has the highest score
when compared with the the mean scores of other three styles, which reflect the views of the primary
school teachers included in the study about classroom management styles. It is followed by
authoritarian classroom management style ( =3.31), laissez-faire classroom management style ( =3.29)
and indifferent classroom management style ( =2.89) respectively. Accordingly, it might be suggested
that teachers mostly prefer authoritative classroom management style. In Table 2, descriptive statistics
used 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 Lowest
score
Highest
score
X S X/K
Pupil control
ideologies
18
8
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 study
about pupil control ideologies is quite high ( =3.32). As an increase in the scale score represents
custodial control ideology, the mean score of the participants might indicate that the primary school
teachers included in the study have custodial control ideologies rather than humanistic control
ideologies. Table 3 presents the results of Pearson correlation analysis performed to determine the
correlation between classroom management styles of primary school teachers and their views about
pupil control ideologies.
Table 3. Correlation between classroom management styles of primary school teachers and their
views about pupil control ideologies
Classroom
management
styles
Pupil Control
Ideology
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 the
primary school teachers included in the study and their classroom management styles. There is a
moderate, significant, and positive correlation between the pupil control ideologies of the primary
school 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 about
pupil 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 control
ideology, 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-faire
classroom management style (r=–0.19, p<.01). There is a negative, low, and significant correlation
between these two variables. However, the finding obtained is important here because it is shown that
7. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
163
the more the views of the participants about pupil control ideologies occurred, the less the laissez-faire
classroom management styles are observed. In other words, the more the custodial control ideology
occurs, 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 styles
of primary school teachers and their views about pupil control ideologies. Hence, the study is one of the
few 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 authoritative
classroom management style, which was respectively followed by authoritative classroom management
style, laissez-faire classroom management style and indifferent classroom management style. Ekici
(2004, 2006) suggests that primary school teachers adopt the following respectively: authoritative
classroom management, authoritative classroom management, laissez-faire classroom management and
indifferent classroom management styles. For teachers with authoritative classroom management
styles, pupils say that they love their teacher very much; their teacher knows pupils could not be
perfect, 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 is
essential to create a positive learning environment because this style is pupil-centered and in this style
teachers pay attention to pupil views, suggestions and questions.
In authoritative classroom management style, there is a classroom environment which is open to
verbal communication and criticism. Pupils know they could have a discussion when they make
suggestions or ask questions (Ekici, 2004). In this style, teachers encourage pupils to participate in
various 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 classroom
management is also important in terms of the constructivist program applied in primary schools because
in the current program, teachers are expected to assess performances more, monitor pupils’ cognitive
development, assess efforts using various scales and make pupils prepare product files.
According to O uz (2008), constructivist learning requires pupils to use their background information
rather than getting information ready and make sense of this information while they interact with their
environment and continuously construct the given information in a specific way. Now that the main goal
of classroom activities is to create an effective learning environment, authoritative classroom
management 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 teachers
were closer to custodial control ideology. A custodial control ideology has certain qualities such as strict
control, enforcement of orders, one way downward communication, and distrust towards pupils, cruel
punishments and taking undisciplined behavior as personal offences. Therefore, it might be suggested
that a custodial control ideology reflects a traditional school understanding. Traditional schools with
their strict, disciplined, distrusting, authoritative nature where power relations are always prominent
remind 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 positive
characters to choose what was good, it was the common opinion during that period that people were
bad by nature (Ayd n, 2000). The main reason why people were considered bad was that the first man
8. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
164
was expelled from Heaven and so human beings fell. Human nature, contaminated with the original
sin, is now hereditarily bad (Ayd n, 2000, 2001). Theory X represents such an understanding. According
to theory X (McGregor, 1960), human beings refrain from work due to their nature. Thus, they need
strict control, motivation for work, awards and punishments (when necessary) because people refrain
from 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 towards
pupil nature. Accordingly, pupils must be provided with external control.
However, over the last years, the traditional school approach has gradually been criticized because
today we highlight an educational perspective to reveal individual differences rather than eliminating
them. In this context, schools are institutions where knowledge is constantly reproduced, and teachers
and 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 transforming
them into skills (Karsl , 2003). In this context, teachers today need to have humanistic control ideologies
instead of custodial control ideologies. In classrooms where humanistic ideology is adopted, there might
be a more positive classroom climate. In classrooms where a positive climate is established there is a
democratic classroom environment and student centered learning. Also, pupils might develop creative
and critical thinking skills and they strengthen their sense of responsibility, self-esteem and
commitment. 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 primary
school teachers included in the study and their classroom management styles. There was a moderate
correlation in the same direction between pupil control ideologies of the participants and authoritative
classroom management styles. Now that an increase in the score from the Pupil Control Ideology Scale
shows more custodial control ideology, the more the custodial control ideology of the participants
occurs, the more the authoritative classroom management styles are observed. Significantly, when
teachers become more custodial in pupil control, they prefer authoritative classroom management
styles. Authoritative classroom management styles might be caused by the fact that teachers with
custodial control ideologies consider pupils as potential offenders, and their undisciplined behavior as
moral offenses, they distrust pupils, they see pupils as irresponsible, undisciplined individuals who could
not perform tasks on their own. Consequently, authoritative classroom management style is based on
teacher control over students and restrictions imposed by teachers. In this approach, as teachers act as
representatives of authority in class, they have strict control because they do not believe pupils can
perform tasks on their own.
According to another defined significant correlation, there is a reverse low significant correlation
between pupil control ideologies and laissez-faire classroom management style. Although there is a low
significant correlation between these two variables, the obtained correlation is significant because the
more the views of the participants about pupil control ideologies occur, the less the laissez-faire
classroom management styles are observed. Since custodial control ideology is based on the assumption
that pupils need strict control and discipline, they cannot perform any task on their own and that they
could not distinguish democratic attitudes from autocratic attitudes, it is just the opposite of “leaving
pupils uncontrolled” approach.
9. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
165
REFERENCES
Abac , R. & Kalkan, M. (1999, July). The correlation between teacher’s pupil control ideology and
burnout. Paper presented at The 20th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety Research
Society, 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: Alfa
Publishing.
Ayd n, A. (2001). Ya am n ve sevginin anlam [The meaning of life and love]. stanbul: Genda
Kültür.
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 social
sciences]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Can Altu , S. (2007). An examination of the primary school teachers’ student control ideologies in
terms 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 and
Science, 21(106), 12–22.
Celep, C. (1997b, October). Classroom teachers’ factors affecting the sense of efficacy: In terms of
the management, work group, belief about student, and pupil control orientation. Paper presented at
the Third National Classroom Teachers Symposium. Adana, Turkey.
Celep, C. (1998, September). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, teachers’ management work group, belief
about student, and pupil control orientation. Paper presented at the Seventh National Educational
Sciences 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. Retrieved
January 10, 2009, from www.msu.edu/~dunbarc/dunbar3.pdf.
Ekici, G. (2004). Assessment of teachers’ classroom management profiles in the first-level
elementary education. TED Journal of Education and Science, 29(131), 50–60.
Ekici, G. (2006, April). Assessment of relationship between the teachers’ classroom management
profiles and teachers self-efficacy. Paper presented at the National Classroom Teacher Congress. Gazi
University, Faculty of Education. Ankara, Turkey.
English, F. W. (1992). Educational administration: the human science. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Gordon, S. C., Dembo, M. H., & Hocevar, D. (2007). Do teachers’ own learning behaviors influence
their classroom goal orientation and control ideology? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 36–46.
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
10. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
166
Hepburn, M. A. (1983). Can schools, teachers and administrators make a difference?. The research
evidence. In M. A. Hepburn (Ed.). Democratic education in schools and classrooms. USA: Washington
NCSS 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 of
Educational Administration, 39(5), 424–441.
Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. (1986). Effective supervision: theory into practice. New York: Random
House.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. New
York: McGraw Hill.
pek, C. (2008). Management theories. In H. B. Memduho lu & K. Y lmaz (Eds.). Türk e itim sistemi
ve okul yönetimi [Turkish educational system and school administration]. (pp. 119–166). Ankara: Pegem
Academy Publishing.
Karip, E. (2004). Field and scope of management science. In Y. Özden (Ed.). itim ve okul
yöneticili i el kitab [Handbook of education and school administration]. (pp. 1–39). Ankara: Pegem A
Publishing.
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 climate
and 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 for
Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2). Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
http://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 Research
Quarterly, 8(3), 33–39.
Lunenburg, F. C. (1990, April). Educators’ pupil-control ideology as a predictor of educator’s
reactions to pupil disruptive behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Boston, MA., USA. ERIC No. ED321361.
Lunenburg, F. C., & Mankowsky, S. A. (2000, April). Bureaucracy and pupil control orientation and
behavior in urban secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational 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 the
quality 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 control
behavior, and student self-control: Urban public and military high schools compared. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. ERIC No.
ED446201.
11. Kür ad Y lmaz / Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 4 (2009) 157-167
167
Martin, N. K., Yin, Z., & Baldwin, B. (1998). Construct validation of the attitudes and beliefs on
classroom 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 in
education]. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Skidmore, M. S. (2006). Theory x-theory y. In F. W. English (Ed.). Encyclopedia of educational
leadership and administration. (pp. 1018–1019). California: Sage Publications Ltd.
Toprakç , E. (2008). fa dayal yönetim. [Class-based management]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
Publishing.
Willover, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1967). The school and pupil control ideology. (Penn State
Studies 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 pupil
control ideology as perceived by teachers and the quality of school life as perceived by students, Eskisehir
Osmangazi University, Institute for Social Sciences, Unpublished Master Thesis.
lmaz, K. (2007). The opinions of primary school teachers concerning administrators’ leadership
behaviors 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 ndaki
görü leri ve s f yönetimi tarzlar
Öz: Çal mada, ilkö retim okulu ö retmenlerinin s f yönetimi tarzlar ile ö renci kontrol ideolojilerine
ili kin görü leri aras ndaki ili kinin belirlenmesi amaçlanm r. Tarama modelindeki çal mada ara rma
sorular na yan t aranm r. Ara rman n örnekleminde Kütahya il merkezindeki ilkö retim okullar nda
görev yapan 200 ö retmen bulunmaktad r. Veriler “S f Yönetimi Profili Ölçe i” ve “Ö renci Kontrol
deolojileri 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 “takdir
edilen s f yönetimi” tarz na sahiptir. Ayr ca ö retmenlerin gözetimci kontrol ideolojisine daha yak n
olduklar belirlenmi tir. Kat mc lar n ö renci kontrol ideolojileri ile otoriter s f yönetimi tarzlar
aras 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
