School Administrators Level of Self-Esteem and its Relationship To Their Trust in Teachers. Mualla Aksu, Soner Polat, & Türkan Aksu

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "School Administrators Level of Self-Esteem and its Relationship To Their Trust in Teachers. Mualla Aksu, Soner Polat, & Türkan Aksu"

Vernon May
6 years ago
Views:

1 School Administrators Level of Self-Esteem and its Relationship To Their Trust in Teachers Mualla Aksu, Soner Polat, & Türkan Aksu

2 What is Self-Esteem? Confidence in one s own worth or abilities ( A feeling of having respect for yourself and your abilities a confidence and satisfaction in oneself ( A personal worth or worthiness according to Rosenberg and social-learning theorists Sum of self-confidence (a feeling of personal capacity) and self-respect (a feeling of personal worth) (

3 What is trust? Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something ( Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing (The American Heritage Dictionary, 1992) Trust can be defined in terms of these elements: 1. consistency 2. compassion 3. communication 4. competency (Vodicka, 2006, p.28) Trust is the expectation and faith that two parties will act to secure mutual benefit (Krot & Lewicka, 2012)

4 Some relationships between self-esteem and trust: There is a correlation between low self-esteem, loneliness, and social connectedness in relation to trust (McWhirter, 1997) There is a significant correlation between self-esteem and a person s willingness to trust (Weining & Smith, 2012) Self-esteem enhancement is positively related to trust conducted with the audiences of performing arts (Swanson, Davis, & Zhao, 2007)

5 Purpose of the study is: To determine school administrator s level of self-esteem and its relationship to their trust in teachers

6 Research Questions 1. What is the level of school administrator s selfesteem and trust in teachers? 2. To what extend does administrator s selfesteem influence their trust in teachers? 3. Does the level of administrator s self-esteem differ according to some demographic variables 4. Which independent variables have an impact on administrator s trust in teachers?

principals, and 204 assistant principals)

7 Design of the study Quantitative Study study With With phenomenological a relational survey design Population 325 administrators (105 principals, 16 deputy principals, and 204 assistant principals) No sampling Total 225 administrators= Questionnaires were completed by 94 principals, 13 deputy principals, and 118 assistant principals The study is conducted at 131 K-12 schools in İzmit district of Kocaeli province, Turkey 7

8 Data Collection Instruments 1. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.pdf (Rosenberg, 1989)* Ten item four-point (0-3) Likert-type scale Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Factor loadings between.401 and.720 Total variance explained = %32 Cronbach Alpha=.74 Criteria: Normal range :15-25 points Low self-esteem : Below 15 points *Scale was first developed in 1965

9 Trust Instrument.doc (Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H., 1999) Seventeen item five-point Likert-type scale Three factors Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) After reliability analysis, two items (7 and 15) were deleted. Cronbach Alpha for: Ability =.92 (six items) Benevolence =.78 (four items) Integrity =.87 (five items)

10 Confirmatory Factor Analysis on Lisrel 8.54 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2003) Figure 1.doc

11 Goodness-of-Fit Criteria After one modification, all measures as either good or acceptable fit: χ2/df=2,11 RMSEA=0.070 GFI=0.90 AGFI=0.86 NFI=0.96 CFI=0.98 RMR=0.033 SRMR=0.049 (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003)

12 Dependent Variable: Administrator s trust in teachers Two types of procedures were applied using this variable: (1) Administrator s trust in teachers was calculated through the analysis of Structural Equation Model (SEM) within three dimensions of the trust -ability, benevolence, and integrity (2) Two new categories of this metric variable were obtained using cluster analysis to run Binary logistic regression. The findings of the cluster analysis are given in Table 1

13 Table 1. Cluster descriptors: differences in mean values for administrator s trust in teachers Trust Cluster 1 Those who trust (n=126) Cluster 2 Those who don t trust (n=99) Mean SD Mean SD Ability *** Benevolence *** Integrity *** t *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 Dependent variable has a discriminative feature since there is a statistically meaningful difference between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2

14 Independent Variables 1. Self-esteem 2. Gender 3. Title 4. School level 5. Education level 6. Seniority as administrator 7. Seniority as administrator in the current school

15 Self-esteem was used both as dependent and independent variable Self-esteem as dependent variable was applied in inferential statistics (Table 3) and as independent variable in Binary logistic regression (Table 4)

16 Demographic Data Gender n % Female Male Title n % Principal Deputy principal Assistant principal

17 School Level n % Pre-school Primary school Middle school High school Education Level n % Associate degree Bachelor s degree Master s degree

18 Seniority as Administrator n % A. Less than five years B years More than 10 years Seniority as Administrator in Current School n % 1 year years years years years and more

19 Results

20 1. Level of School Administrator s Self-Esteem and Trust in Teachers Table 2. Descriptive statistics on administrator s self-esteem and trust in teachers (n=225) Self-esteem Mean SD Trust Dimensions* Self-esteem Ability Benevolence Integrity Mean SD *All the mean values are below the midpoint (3.00)

21 2. Influence of School Administrator s Self-Esteem on Their Trust in Teachers Administrator s self-esteem has an impact on all the dimensions of trust with the highest impact on benevolence (0.31) and the lowest on ability (0.16) Figure 2.doc T values for ability, benevolence, and integrity are 2.13; 3.61; and 2.86, respectively

22 3. Level of School Administrator s Self- Esteem According to Demographic Variables Three different tests were applied based on meeting criteria of the related tests 1. t test: for gender 2. ANOVA: for school type, seniority as administrator, and seniority as administrator in the current school 3. Kruskal-Wallis H: for title and education Table 3.doc

23 4. The Impact of Independent Variables on Administrator s Trust in Teachers Administrator s trust in teachers is negatively correlated with title (p<.01), school level (p<.01), and seniority as administrator (p<.01) while it is positively correlated with education level (p<.05) and self-esteem (p<.01)

24 Gender and seniority as administrator in the current school are not correlated with the administrator s trust in teachers (p>.05) Table 4.doc

25 Administrator s self-esteem has an impact on the dependent variable Administrators having higher level of selfesteem are more likely to trust in teachers

26 Administrator s title has an impact on the dependent variable The probability of trusting in teachers is times higher for an assistant principal than that of principal

27 School level has an impact on dependent variable The probability of trusting in teachers is times higher for a high school administrator than that of primary school

28 Education level is another significant independent variable The probabilities of trusting in teachers are times higher for a school administrator with associate degree and times higher for an administrator with bachelor s degree than that of the administrators with master s degree

29 Negatively correlated Seniority as administrator is another significant variable The probability of trusting in teachers is times lower for a participant working less than five years than that of one working more than 10 years as an administrator

30 Discussion The level of school administrator s self-esteem and trust in teachers were both found to be lower than we expected Ministry of National Education (MONE) was in the process of transforming the appointment system of school administrators MONE put into force new regulations that an administrator can be appointed for a period of four years based on the evaluations of local authorities unlike previous policies It might be interpreted by educational administrators as threatening their current positions

31 This might have created uncertainty and discomfort among current administrators because the new rules are considered to be open personal and political interferences Since we found that administrator s self-esteem has an impact on administrator s trust in teachers, higher level of self-esteem leads to higher level of trust The need is clear for the educational system having administrators with more self-esteem and trust in teachers

32 While gender, title, school type, education, seniority as administrator in current school are not significant variables in administrator s self-esteem, a statistical difference is found in the variable of seniority as administrator This result indicates new generation working less than 5 years as administrators have the highest self-esteem Regardless of the attributes given as demographic variables, in general all administrators have quite low level of self-esteem

33 Administrators who have more self-esteem tend to trust in teachers more. This result is consistent with the findings of Weining and Smith (2012) and Swanson, Davis, and Zhao s (2007) Finding of this study on the variable seniority as administrator is consistent with the result of Tschannen- Moran and Hoy (2000) indicating that as the parties gain experience, trust can develop based on knowledge of one another during the relationship

34 Conclusion Results are limited in the sense that it represents only accessible population in a small northwestern city in Turkey Therefore, they cannot be generalized to all Turkish school administrators

35 Recommendations Since trust levels of participating administrators are lower than expected, their self-esteem levels need to be impoved Principal preparation programs should focus on the development of trust as suggested by Tschannen-Moran (2003) Further research is suggested

36 References Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2001). Lisrel 8: User s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Krot, K. & Lewicka, D. (2012). The importance of trust in manager-employee relationships. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10(3), Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), pp McWhirter, B.T. (1997). Loneliness, Learned Resourcefulness, and Self-Esteem in College Students. Journal of Counseling & Development. 75, pp Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness of Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), Swanson, S.R., Davis, J.C. & Zhao, Y. (2007). Motivations and Relationship Outcomes:The Mediating Role of Trust and Satisfaction. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 18(2), The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1992). Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Vodicka, D. ( 2006). The four elements of trust. PL November Weining, A.N.& Smith, E.L. (2012). Self-Esteem and Trust: Correlation Between Self-Esteem and Willingness to Trust in Undergraduate Students. Student Pulse Online Academic Student Journal. 4 (8).

37 Thank you very much for your listening

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TRUST IN TEACHERS

Studia paedagogica vol. 20, n. 4, 2015 www.studiapaedagogica.cz DOI: 10.5817/SP2015-4-3 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR SELF-ESTEEM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TRUST IN TEACHERS MUALLA BILGIN-AKSU, TURKAN AKSU, SONER