DETERMINATION OF TEACHERS' VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT VARIABLES IN KYRGYZSTAN

ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ МНЕНИЙ УЧИТЕЛЕЙ ОБ ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННОМ КЛИМАТЕ В КЫРГЫЗСТАНЕ
Moldobolotova N. Kursad Y.
Цитировать:
Moldobolotova N., Kursad Y. DETERMINATION OF TEACHERS' VIEWS ON ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT VARIABLES IN KYRGYZSTAN // Universum: психология и образование : электрон. научн. журн. 2022. 5(95). URL: https://7universum.com/ru/psy/archive/item/13451 (дата обращения: 05.10.2022).
Прочитать статью:

 

This article was prepared on the master's thesis by Nazgul Moldobolotova under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Kursad Yilmaz.

Данная статья была подготовлена Назгуль Молдоболотовой на основе магистерской дипломной работы под руководством Проф.Др.Кюршата Йылмаз. 

 

ABSTRACT

The study aimed to determine the teachers’ views on the organizational climate in Kyrgyzstan and compare these views according to their gender, seniority, and teaching fields. Around 367 teachers who work in the capital of Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek participated in this research. The data were collected according to the organizational climate scale. The Organizational Climate Scale included 6 dimensions: supportive principal behavior, directive principal behavior, restrictive principal behavior, collegial behavior, intimate teacher behavior, and disengaged teacher behavior. We used the following types of data analysis: Descriptive analysis, t-test, ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney U tests. According to the obtained results, teachers think that school principals demonstrate infrequently supportive behavior and mostly directive principal behavior. Male teachers have more positive views of intimate teacher behavior than female teachers. We have not identified any differences according to seniority. The groups of teachers with the most positive views about the supportive behavior of principals were the teachers of Fine Arts, and the group of teachers with the most negative views were the teachers of physical education. Foreign language teachers, on the other hand, are the group of teachers who have the most negative views in terms of collegial teacher behavior and intimate teacher behavior among their colleagues. In general, teachers' perception of organizational climate is low.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Целью данного исследования является определение мнений учителей в Кыргызстане относительно организационного климата и их сравнительная оценка с учетом их пола, должности и сферы преподавания. В исследовании приняли участие 367 учителей, работающих в центре города Бишкек. Данные были собраны с учетом шкалы организационного климата. Шкала организационного климата состоит из 6 факторов: «Фактор поддерживающего поведения директора; фактор указывающего поведения директора; фактор ограничивающего поведения директора; фактор искреннего поведения директора; фактор сотрудничающего поведения директора и фактор безрассудного поведения директора». При анализе данных были использованы такие методы, как описательная статистика, т-тест, тест ANOVA, Krusal Wallis и Mann-Whitney U. Согласно результатам исследования, по мнению учителей директора школьных заведений меньше всего придерживаются поддерживающего поведения и больше всего придерживаются указывающего поведения. Учителя-мужчины имеют более позитивное мнение о сотрудничающем поведении учителей между коллегами, чем учителя-женщины. По занимаемой должности никаких отличий установлено не было. Группа, которая имеет наиболее позитивное мнение о поддерживающем поведении директоров школ были учителя изобразительного искусства, а самое негативное мнение имели учителя физкультуры. Учителя иностранных языков относятся к группе учителей с наиболее негативными взглядами на искреннее поведение и сотрудничающее поведение учителей среди своих коллег. Восприятие педагогами организационного климата в целом низкое.

 

Keywords: organizational climate, school climate, teachers, Kyrgyzstan.

Ключевые слова: организационный климат, школьный климат, учителя, Кыргызстан.

 

INTRODUCTION

Organizational climate consists of the behavior and relations of employees and is used in relation to the general mood and emotions inside the organization. In terms of the organization, the concept of “climate” is used as a metaphor and expresses the psychological environment which consists of the relationships in the organization. In this regard, the organizational climate cannot be seen or touched, but it can be felt and indirectly affects the internal attitudes and behavior of the employees [4]. Organizational climate may refer to the common perceptions of employees about an organization [23]. In this respect, organizational climate may be defined as those characteristics related to the internal environment of an organization that distinguishes one workplace from another and influences the behavior of employees. In other words, organizational climate includes the personality of the organization [14]. In this sense, organizational climate may be described as one of the dimensions such as “purpose, structure, process, and climate” used to explain the atmosphere in the organization [5]. There are various measurement tools to determine the organizational climate. Since it is not possible to define the organizational climate exactly, the dimensions of these measurement tools also differ from each other [4]. Among these tools, the preliminary study used to determine the organizational climate is the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), which was developed by Halpin and Croft [12]. In this measurement, organizational climate is defined in six dimensions (closed, paternal, familiar, controlled, autonomous, and open). Later, with the studies of Wayne K. Hoy [13; 17; 15; 16], more up-to-date forms of this tool were developed for different types of schools. The measurement organizational climate is divided into six dimensions. Three of them describe the interaction between the principal and teachers, and the other three displays the interaction between teachers in the open and closed criteria. The brief summary of these dimensions is described below [13; 1]:

Supportive principal behavior: The school principal demonstrates democratic behavior gives constructive criticism; listens to the teachers’ opinions; is open to suggestions, and sincerely and frequently praises teachers.

Directive principal behavior: The school principal exhibits autocratic behavior. There is a strict and tight surveillance. In this type of behavior, the principal closely and constantly observes all teachers and school activities, including the smallest details.

Restrictive principal behavior: The principal interferes rather than assists the teacher's work. The principal burdens teachers with unnecessary paperwork, committee requirements, routine tasks, and intensive work.

Collegial teacher behavior among colleagues: Teachers support professional behavior of the staff. Teachers are ambitious, ready to accept new ideas, help each other, and respect the professional competence of their colleagues.

Intimate teacher behavior: It reflects a strong and close social support network within the school. The teaching staff knows each other very well, establish close friendships, and meet frequently.

Disengaged Teacher Behavior: It mostly reflects a lack of concentration on understanding and professional activities at school. Teachers are just killing time. They have a negative attitude and criticize their own colleagues.

Organizational climate can influence the majority of variables within the organization and can be influenced by many variables. For this reason, the psychological dimensions of the organizations should be analyzed in detail with the help of the constructional dimensions of the organizations [26]. Organizational climate is also extremely important in terms of understanding the general mood and atmosphere in schools [14]. Organizational climate gives us an opportunity to understand the impact of the organizations on people [9].

On the other hand, organizational climate reflects emotions such as “belief, trust, safety, open-mindedness, sincerity, cooperation, solidarity, helpfulness, participation, satisfaction, hope and expectation”. On the other hand, it can lead to such feelings, make them stronger and/or decline or disappear [22]. The concept of organizational climate is generally used as a school climate at schools. School climate can be defined as the point of view and conditions regarding organizational variables that influence organizational functioning, such as teacher morale and the school principal's leadership style [8]. A positive school climate can have all the above-mentioned features [19; 18; 11]:

  • Teachers have a high level of emotional intimacy and affiliation toward the school.
  • The emphasis is made on the academic success.
  • School administrators demonstrate a high-level professional leadership attitude.
  • Teachers are provided with necessary resources to implement their goals.
  • School administrators have a high managerial influence on their top executives.
  • All employees, including administrators, are open to development, change and innovation.
  • The administration supports the employees’ decisions.
  • Communication, cooperation, and a friendly atmosphere at work.
  • The administration tries to appreciate and keep the balance between the work and life of their employees.
  • Employees work under pressure-free / in a stress-free work environment.
  • Employees have a high level of commitment and willingness to work.

As it was mentioned above, it is extremely important for schools to have a positive climate and appropriate behavior. In this context, the purpose of this research is to determine the views of teachers in Kyrgyzstan on organizational climate and to compare them according to the various variables.  In order to achieve this common purpose, we tried to find the answers to the following questions:

  1. How can we assess the teachers’ views on the organizational climate in Kyrgyzstan?
  2. Do teachers' views on organizational climate differ from each other according to their gender, seniority, and field in Kyrgyzstan?

METHOD

We used a survey method in this research. Survey method is the most suitable method to describe an existing situation as it is [19].

The population and sample of the research

The research participants were teachers working in public schools in Bishkek during the 2021-2022 academic year.  In total 7,686 teachers were involved in the research. Cochran's (1962) formula was used to determine the sample size [Cited in: 3], and 366 people participated at a 95% confidence level.  Considering that fact there can be losses and unusable measurement scales that included 400 people, but only 367 of them were analyzed.

287 of the participants were women (78.2%), and 80 of them were men (21.8%).

The seniority of the participants varies between 1 year and 50 years. There were 8 different teaching fields. 117 of the participants were the teachers of science and mathematics (31.9%), 57 of social sciences (15.5%), 43  of foreign language (11.7%), 43 of Russian language and literature (11.7%), 38 of Kyrgyz language and literature (10.4%), 33 were primary school  (9.0%), 26 of fine arts  (7.1%) and 10 were teachers of physical education (2.7%).

Data collection tools

The research data were collected with the Organizational Climate Scale developed by Hoy and Tarter [16] and adapted by Yılmaz and Altınkurt [25]. The organizational climate scale consists of 6 dimensions: supportive principal behavior, directive principal behavior, restrictive principal behavior, intimate principal behavior, collegial teacher behavior and disengaged teacher behavior.

The result obtained due to the increase of each dimension of the scale indicates an increase in the behavior in that dimension that influences the organizational climate. In the process of scale adaption to the Kyrgyz language, it was submitted to the consideration of three language experts and two field experts with a good foreign language proficiency level to compare it with the Turkish variant in terms of the “language, meaning, and culture”. The scales, which were corrected in line with the proposals of the experts, were presented to a group of 10 teachers to be evaluated in terms of intelligibility and easy-to-answer features.

According to the proposals of this group, the scale was finalized and prepared for application.  The scales were arranged in the Likert type scale in accordance with their original form. For the participants' level of agreement with the statements, a 4-point Likert scale (consisting of the options: 1-rarely, 2-sometimes, 3-usually, and 4-very often) was used in the research.

The pilot sample of the scale was applied to 200 teachers and the data analysis was made. In order to determine the construct validity of the scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis based on principal component analysis method was performed.  The reliability of the scale was identified with the help of Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficients and item-total correlations were calculated. For the construct validity of the scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis based on principal component analysis method was used.  So, the determination of the reliability of the scale, internal consistency coefficients and item-total correlations were calculated through Cronbach’s Alpha.

Firstly, the construct validity of the scale, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was tested with the help of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett's test of sphericity. KMO value is a measure of the data suitable for factor extraction. For factorability, this value is expected to be above 0.60. Barlett Sphericity test can examine the relationship between variables on the basis of partial correlations as well.  The significance of the χ2 statistic is accepted as an appropriate indicator for the data matrix [6]. In this study, the KMO value was found to be 0.83 and the result of the Bartlett test (χ2=5827.063; p=.000) was also significant. Both the KMO and Bartlett test results show that the data are suitable for Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed in order to determine the factor structure of the Organizational Climate Scale. Varimax rotation method was used in the analysis due to the prediction of the scale that the dimensions would be independent of each other.  In the Exploratory Factor Analysis, the lower limit of the factor loading value was adopted as 0.30 in deciding whether or not the items would remain on the scale [24].

The analysis results  show that the item “School principal takes care of teachers' suggestions” in the Supportive Principal Dimension and “The support of enrollment officers reduces the burden of paperwork of teachers (Reverse item)” in the Restrictive Principal Behavior item due to low factor loading values; “Teachers come together only to entertain” in the Intimate Teacher Behavior; “Teachers leave school immediately after lessons” in the Collegial Teacher Behavior; “There is always a minority group that opposes the Majority” in Disengaged Teacher Behavior, was removed from the scale because it has a high factor loading in other factors. The validity and reliability information of the scale is given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Validity and Reliability Information of the Organizational Climate Scale

Organizational Climate Sub-Dimensions

Number of Items

Factor Loading

Item-Total Correlations

Explained Variance

Cronbach's Alpha

Supportive principal behavior

8

0.36 - 0.58

0.41 - 0.64

12.60%

0.86

Directive principal behavior

7

0.55 - 0.65

0.40 - 0.68

10.75%

0.83

Restrictive principal behavior

4

0.39 - 0.64

0.51 - 0.67

10.54%

0.64

Intimate teacher behavior

6

0.42 - 0.59

0.49 - 0.69

8.41%

0.82

Collegial teacher behavior among colleagues

6

0.41 - 0.61

0.30 - 0.60

7.45%

0.79

Disengaged teacher behavior

3

0.42 - 0.53

0.46 - 0.66

6.2%

0.68

 

Data analysis

In order to determine the personal data in the research and evaluate the answers related to the scale, the descriptive statistics was used. For the comparison of the views, t-test, one-way variance (ANOVA), Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U Test were applied. For the identification of the significant F values, Sidak test, one of the multiple comparison tests, the source of the difference was integrated. The Sidak test is developed to eliminate the type I error that the LSD (Least Significant Difference) test contains, and it can impose more stringent limitations on the number of errors. In addition, we could identify that the groups compared above have different personnel numbers, and do not prevent the application of statistics [20]. In the statistical analysis of the research, the level of significance was equal to 0.05.

The following ranges were employed to evaluate the arithmetic means used in the study and the answers given by the participants are as presented below: 1.00-1.75: never, 1.76-2.50: sometimes, 2.51-3.25: often, 3.26-4.00: always.

RESULTS

The teachers' views on the organizational climate were evaluated according to the sub-dimensions. A total score is not calculated from the scale used in the research; evaluations are made according to the sub-dimensions (Table 2).

Table 2.

Teachers’ Views on the Sub-Dimensions of Organizational Climate (n=367)

Organizational Climate Sub-Dimensions

M

(Mean)

S

(Standard Deviation)

Answer Scale

Directive principal behavior

2.70

0.65

Often

Restrictive principal behavior

2.51

0.62

Often

Supportive principal behavior

2.44

0.63

Sometimes

Collegial teacher behavior among colleagues

3.09

0,54

Often

Intimate teacher behavior

2.62

0,60

Often

Disengaged teacher behavior

1.81

0,66

Sometimes

 

As shown in Table 2, teachers think that school principals exhibit directive principal behavior the most (M=2.70; S=0.65-Often). The least exhibited principal behavior is supportive principal behavior (M=2.44; S=0.63-Often).

The teachers gave the answer “often” to all 7 items in the dimension of directive principal behavior. According to the teachers, school principals constantly monitor whether teachers come to school on time, run the school with an iron fist, exhibit autocratic behavior, supervise teachers tightly, monitor everything teachers do. As for the teachers, the most directive behavior of school principals is “The school principal constantly checking whether the teachers come to school on time (M=3.02; S=0.87)”.

The teachers responded “often” to 3 of the 4 items in the restrictive principal behavior dimension and “sometimes” to 1 of them. According to the teachers, the bureaucratic work required by the school administration is a burden on the teachers (M=2.77; S=0.80) and the teachers are overwhelmed by the workload (M=2.74; S=1.02). Teachers have too many extracurricular duties (commission membership etc.) (M=2.68; S=0.83). The multiplicity of routine tasks at school “sometimes (M=1.85; S=0.90)” disrupt the educational work.

There are 8 items in the dimension of supportive principal behavior. The teachers answered “often” to 4 of these items and “sometimes” to 4 of them. According to the teachers, school principals take care of teachers' personal happiness (M=1.80; S=0.87) at a very low level. School principals rarely exhibit behaviors such as being understandable (M=2.35; S=0.97), explaining the reasons for their criticizing (M=2.50; S=0.98), and always wanting to help teachers (M=2.50; S=0.90). As for the teachers' views, school principals make the following behavior at a low level: treating teachers equally (M=2.54; S=0.92); giving constructive criticism (M=2.54; S=0.76), and making teachers feel appreciated at every opportunity (M=2.55; S=0.87).

According to the teachers who participated in the research, teachers mostly exhibit collegial teacher behavior among colleagues (M=3.09; S=0.54-Often). The behavior that teachers exhibit the least is disengaged teacher behavior (M=1.81; S=0.66-Sometimes).

Teachers stated that they always do 2 of the 6 items, and 4 of them frequently in the collaborative teacher behavior dimension. The most common behaviors of teachers are being proud of their school (M=3.35; S=0.81) and supporting each other (M=3.31; S=0.79).

The teachers think that they exhibit often behaviors such as showing respect for the competence of their colleagues (M=3.24; S=0.77), accepting new teachers easily (M=3.06; S=0.74), fulfilling their duties with pleasure (M=3.06; S=0.76) and being tolerant of colleagues' mistakes (M=2.97; S=0.76).

The teachers responded “often” to 4 of 6 items of intimate teacher behavior and 2 of them for “sometimes”. According to the participants, teachers often exhibit behaviors such as being close friends with other teachers (M=3.15; S=0.82), having a good time by socializing during school time (M=2.76; S=0.86), providing strong social support for their colleagues (M=2.65; S=0.82) and socializing regularly (M=2.65; S=0.81). They exhibit fewer behaviors such as inviting their school friends to their homes (M=2.31; S=0.84) and getting to know the families of their colleagues at school (M=2.22; S=0.80).

The teachers responded “sometimes” to 2 of 3 items of disengaged teacher behavior and 1 of them to “never”. According to the participants, teachers never exhibit the behavior of applying group pressure to their colleagues who do not obey the rules (M=1.45; S=0.76). Teachers sometimes (M=2.09; S=0.84) try to distract the topic from its purpose in meetings. As for the teachers, meetings are sometimes (M=1.91; S=0.90) useless.

The views of the participants on supportive principal behavior sub-dimensions [t(365)=1.07; p>.05]; directive principal behavior sub-dimensions [t(365)=1.05; p>.05]; restrictive principal behavior sub-dimensions [t(365)=0.52; p>.05]; intimate teacher behavior sub-dimensions [t(365)=1.90; p>.05] and disengaged teacher behavior sub-dimensions [t(365)=1.05; p>.05] do not differ statistically according to gender. However, the collaborative teacher behavior among the participants sub-dimensions differ statistically according to gender [t(365)=2.27; p<.05]. The views of male teachers on collegial teacher behavior among colleagues are more positive than female teachers' views (M=3.05; S=0.46).

Teachers’ views on supportive principal behavior [F(3-366)=1.81; p>.05]; directive principal behavior [F(3-366)=0.14; p>.05]; restrictive principal behavior [F(3-366)=0.70; p>.05]; intimate teacher behavior [F(3-366)=0.98; p>.05]; collegial teacher behavior [F(3-366)=1.84; p>.05] and disengaged teacher behavior [F(3-366)=0.08; p>.05] dimensions do not differ statistically according to seniority.

The views of teachers on the directive principal behavior sub-dimensions [X2(7)=5.72; p>.05] and restrictive principal behavior sub-dimensions [X2(7)=13.48; p>.05] do not differ statistically according to the teaching field. However, their views on supportive principal behavior differ statistically according to the field of teaching [X2(7)=30.45; p<.05].

Teachers’ views on the disengaged teacher behavior sub-dimension do not differ statistically according to the field of teaching [X2(7)=7.16; p>.05]. Nevertheless, sub-dimensions such as intimate teacher behavior [X2(7)=15.10; p<.05] and collegial teacher behavior among colleagues [X2(7)=15.28; p<.05] differ statistically according to the field of teaching.

Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted in pairs in order to determine between which groups the views differ in the sub-dimensions of supportive principal behavior, intimate teacher behavior and collegial teacher behavior.

Table 3.

Comparison of Teachers' Views on the Sub-Dimensions of Organizational Climate by Teaching Field (n=367)

Sub-Dimensions

Group 1

Mean Rank

Group 2

Mean Rank

U

p

Supportive principal behavior

The Kyrgyz language and literature teachers

26.36

Fine arts teachers

41.48

260.5

.00

Foreign language teachers

28.84

Fine arts teachers

45.19

294.0

.00

Social science teachers

35.82

Fine arts teachers

55.56

388.5

.00

Russian language and literature teachers

28.15

Fine arts teachers

46.33

264.5

.00

Science and mathematics teachers

64.14

Fine arts teachers

107.37

601.5

.00

Physical education teachers

9.85

Fine arts teachers

21.83

43.5

.00

Primary school teachers

25.26

Fine arts teachers

36.02

272.5

.00

Intimate teacher behavior

Foreign language teachers

33.64

Kyrgyz language and literature teachers

49.33

500.5

.00

Foreign language teachers

39.41

Social science teachers

58.87

748.5

.00

Foreign language teachers

63.05

Science and mathematics teachers

86.91

1765.0

.00

Foreign language teachers

24.93

Physical education teachers

35.90

126.0

.00

Foreign language teachers

33.74

Primary school teachers

44.70

505.0

.00

Foreign language teachers

31.30

Fine arts teacher teachers

41.12

400.0

.00

Collegial teacher behavior among colleagues

Foreign language teachers

40.00

Social science teachers

58.42

774.0

.00

Foreign language teachers

28.69

Fine arts teacher teachers

45.44

287.5

.00

 

As is shown in Table 3, the differences in the dimension of supportive principal behavior are between fine arts teachers who have the most positive views and other subjects.  The differences in the dimensions of intimate teacher behavior and collegial teacher behavior are between foreign language teachers who have the most negative opinion and other subjects.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

 Teachers’ views on organizational climate in Kyrgyzstan and comparison of these views according to gender, seniority, and teaching field in this article are discussed in detail. According to the participants, school principals exhibit directive principal behaviors the most and supportive principal behaviors the least. The second most common behaviors of school principals are restrictive principal behaviors. Accordingly, it can be said that school principals in Kyrgyzstan generally have a directive and restrictive style, and they exhibit less supportive behaviors. Behaviors such as “continuous and close control, autocratic management, authoritative management style”, which are among directive principal behaviors, and “excessive workload, extracurricular activities”, which are among the restrictive principal behaviors, are actually incompatible with the value-based feature of school organizations. Schools are organizations where “cooperation, teamwork, supportive leadership behaviors” should be put at the center.

Generally, when considered in terms of organizational climate, directive and restrictive behaviors negatively impact on the school climate, while supportive behaviors influence the school climate positively [10]. Educational organizations, by their nature, are loosely structured organizations where the education level of the employees is high. Leadership behavior that is suitable for employees with a high level of education is supportive leadership [7]. Therefore, the main task of the administrators of organizations is to support their employees within the framework of organizational goals rather than giving orders [2]. It is not possible for restrictive and directive behaviors to be effective in these organizations [7].

There is a statistical difference according to gender between the views of the participants regarding the collegial teacher behavior sub-dimension of the organizational climate. Male teachers have more positive views of collegial teacher behavior than female ones. Male teachers have more positive views than female teachers about “tolerance towards the mistakes of their colleagues, supporting each other, being proud of their school, easily accepting new teachers, respecting the competence of their colleagues”.

The views of the participants on any of the sub-dimensions of the organizational climate did not differ statistically according to seniority. Teachers' views on the “supportive, directive or restrictive” behaviors of school principals and the “intimate, collegial or disengaged” behaviors of teachers were not affected by the seniority variable.

There is a statistical difference in the views of the teachers regarding the supportive principal behavior sub-dimension of the organizational climate according to the field of teaching. Fine arts teachers are the groups that think most positively about the supportive behaviors of school principals, and physical education teachers are the group that thinks most negatively.

The views of the participants on the disengaged teacher behavior of the organizational climate did not differ statistically according to the teaching field. However, it differed in the dimensions of intimate teacher behavior and collegial teacher behavior among colleagues. Foreign language teachers have the most negative views on the dimensions of intimate teacher behavior and collegial teacher behavior. There is a difference between foreign language teachers and teachers of other subjects.

 

References:

  1. Akyürek, M. İ. (2021). Organization climate in schools: Basic education example. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 9(17), 1-22.
  2. Aydın, M. (2019). Educational administration (11th Edition). Ankara: Hatıpoglu Publishing.
  3. Balcı, A. (2021). Research Methods, Techniques and Principles in Social Sciences (15th Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
  4. Bayrak, C., Altınkurt, Y. & Yilmaz, K. (2014). The relationship between school principals’ power sources and school climate. The Anthropologist, 17(1), 81-91.
  5. Bursalıoğlu, Z. (2021). New structure and behavior in school administration (21st Edition). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
  6. Buyuközturk, Ş. (2021). Handbook of data analysis for social sciences (21st Edition). Ankara: Pegem Academy.
  7. Çelik, V. (2012). Educational leadership (6th Edition). Ankara: Pegem A.
  8. Conley, S. (2006). Climate, school. In F. W. English (Edt.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership and administration (pp. 153-155). California: Sage.
  9. Ertekin, Y. (1978). Organizational climate. Ankara: TODAİE.
  10. Eshraghi, H., Harati, S. H., Ebrahimi, K., & Nasiri, M. (2011). The relationship between organizational climate and leadership styles of the managers of physical education offices in Isfahan province. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 1985-1990.
  11.  Güzelgörür, F., Demirtaş, H. & Bali, O. (2021). The relationship of school principals’ management style and school climate. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 12(4), 129-150.
  12. Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center. The University of Chicago.
  13. Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, P. (1986). Effective supervision: Theory into practice. New York: Random House.
  14. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  15. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997a). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, secondary edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  16. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997b). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, elementary edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  17. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
  18. Karademir, A. & Oren, M. (2020). School climate: A comparative study from the perspective of kindergarten principals and teachers. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 206-236.
  19.  Karasar, N. (2021). Scientific research method (37th Edition). Ankara: Nobel.
  20.  Kayri, M. (2009). The Multiple Comparison (Post-Hoc) techniques to determine the difference between groups in researches. Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 19(1), 51-64.
  21.  Lunenburg, F. C. & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  22.  Şahin, A. (2021). Organizational culture and climate. Educational administration: Theory and practice (Edt: K. Yılmaz & K. Demir). Ankara: Pegem Academy. pp. 291-333.
  23.  Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  24.  Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th Edition). Boston: Ally and Bacon.
  25.  Yılmaz, K. & Altınkurt, Y. (2013). Adaptation of Organizational Climate Scale into Turkish: The validity and reliability study. Trakya University Journal of Faculty of Education, 3(1), 1-11.
  26. Yılmaz, K., Altınkurt, Y. & Kesim, E. (2014). The relationship between school climate and the workaholism tendencies of teachers. The Anthropologist, 18(2), 277-288.
Информация об авторах

MA Student, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

магистрант Кыргызско-Турецкого университета «Манас», Кыргызстан, г. Бишкек

Prof. Dr., Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University, Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek

профессор, др. (Ph.D.) Кыргызско-Турецкого университета «Манас», Кыргызстан, г. Бишкек

Журнал зарегистрирован Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор), регистрационный номер ЭЛ №ФС77-54438 от 17.06.2013
Учредитель журнала - ООО «МЦНО»
Главный редактор - Ходакова Нина Павловна.
Top