Advertisement

The Views of the Teachers on Their Identification with the Schools They Work

  • Elife Doğan KılıçEmail author
  • Hatice Kılıçkaya
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Complexity book series (SPCOM)

Abstract

This study aims to determine the views of the teachers about their identification with the schools they work according to gender and experience differences. This research was conducted in the screening model of quantitative method. Eighty-two teachers participated in this study. When missing data was omitted, 80 teacher data sets were found ready for use and were analysed. The scale was analysed to choose items through factor analysis.

Keywords

Teacher Identification School 

References

  1. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı (12. Basım). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity and image on physician cooperative behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and membership commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eker, D. (2015). Öğretim Elemanı Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Ölçeği Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışması Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(4), 118–124.Google Scholar
  8. Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(1), 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Laswell, H. D. (1935). The person: Subject and object of propaganda. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 179(1), 187–193.Google Scholar
  10. Mael F. A. (1991). A conceptual rationale for the domain and attributes of biodata items. Personnel Psychology, 44, 763–792.Google Scholar
  11. Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of a reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(2), 103–123.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 626–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good and the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493.b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Silva, D. K. (2007). Structurational Identification In Groups Within Organizations: I, We & Us. Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi. Washington University.Google Scholar
  16. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tüzün, K. İ. (2006). Örgütsel güven, örgütsel kimlik ve örgütsel özdeşleşme ilişkisi; Uygulamalı bir çalışma. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.İstanbul UniversityİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations