Advertisement

A Qualitative Research Analysis of Chaotic Circumstances Affecting the Happiness of Teachers

  • Deniz Görgülü
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

In research that is carried out to analyze the effects of chaotic circumstances influenced by the human factor in educational organizations on the happiness of teachers, a situational study pattern, which is a qualitative research method, is used. In the study described in this chapter, that approach was used to study the views of 24 teachers working in different cities in Turkey in the 2018–2019 educational year. Semistructured interview forms were used to collect the data. Of the participants, 71% were women and 29% were men, and 17% of the teachers had 1–5 years of teaching experience, 17% had 6–10 years of experience, 25% had 11–15 years of experience, 12% had 16–20 years of experience, and 29% had at least 21 years of experience. Among the teachers who participated in this research, the proportion who felt happy was found to be quite high (71%). It was found that chaotic circumstances that teachers came across during their first professional appointment mostly arose from environmental–physical, occupational, and sociocultural factors. During that period, teachers mostly resorted to other teachers, school administrators, and their own efforts to help them overcome those chaotic circumstances. As a result, the source of happiness of teachers during their first professional appointment was mostly associated with the student factor. The study also found that chaotic circumstances that teachers experienced during their recent working period centered around subjects related to parents (of their students), social factors, the educational system, students, and economic factors. The teachers mostly resorted to their own efforts to overcome chaotic circumstances they experienced during that period. Another finding was that professional success and student factors significantly influenced the happiness of the teachers.

Keywords

Chaotic circumstances Happiness Teacher 

References

  1. Akdeniz, K. G., & Anastasopoulos, N. (2014). Chaotic awareness and simulacra in the recent emergence of the self-organized multitude. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin (Ed.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2014 (pp. 23–28). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, G. (2011). Dealing with the complexities of integration in cultural diverse rural school communities in South Africa. Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 1(1), 1–12.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Bülbül, M. Ş. (2007). Kaos ve eğitim. Ankara: Beyaz Kalem Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  5. Cahill, K. (2010). Even in chaos: Education in times of emergency. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative ınquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Araştırma deseni (Selçuk Beşir Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  8. Crowell, S. (1989). A new way of thinking: The challenge of the future. Educational Leadership, 18(3), 60–63.Google Scholar
  9. Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research. Educational Researcher, 15(3), 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ekiz, D. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  11. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Bisaso, S. M., & Saeed, F. (2013a). Understanding chaos and complexity in education systems through conceptualization of fractal properties. In Ş. Ş. Erçetin & S. Banerjee (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2013 (pp. 147–161). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Potas, N., Kısa, N., & Açıkalın, Ş. N. (2013b). To be on the edge of chaos with organizational intelligence and health. In S. Banerjee (Ed.), Chaos and complexity theory for management: Nonlinear dynamics (pp. 184–203). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  13. Ertürk, A. (2012). Kaos kuramı: Yönetim ve eğitimdeki yansımaları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(3), 849–868.Google Scholar
  14. Kara, A. (2008). Understanding today’s schools with chaos theory. http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/Understanding-Todays-Schools-with-Chaos-Theory, Accessed 28 Dec 2018.
  15. Köse, E. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma modelleri. In R. Y. Kıncal (Ed.), Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (pp. 99–122). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Google Scholar
  16. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Öge, S. (2005). Düzen mi düzensizlik (kaos) mi? Örgütsel varlığın sürdürülebilirliği açısından bir değerlendirme. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13, 285–303. Erişim: http://dergisosyalbil.selcuk.edu.tr, 27 Kasım 2018.Google Scholar
  18. Topçu, N. (1997). Türkiye’nin maarif davası. E. Erverdi ve İ.Kara (Yay. Haz.). İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları.Google Scholar
  19. Ural, Ş. (2005). Kozmozdan kaosa. Kaos, Mantık, Matematik ve Felsefe II. Ulusal Sempozyumu, 21–24 Eylül 2004. Assos Çanakkale, Yay. Haz. Ural, Ş., Yüksel, Y., Koç, A., Şen, A., Hacıbekiroğlu, G., Özer, M., İstanbul, İKÜ Yayınları, pp. 353–363.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deniz Görgülü
    • 1
  1. 1.Hacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations