Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 10, Issue 2, Article 6 (Dec., 2009) Kürşad YILMAZ Pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers’ classroom management styles in Turkey Previous Contents Next

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers’ classroom management style.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on Classroom Management Styles of the Pre-service Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers

Sub-scale	n	K	Minimum Score	Maximum Score		SD	/ K	SD
Instructional Management	204	12	22.00	48.00	36.58	4.12	3.04	0.34
People Management	204	10	10.00	36.00	20.72	3.71	2.07	0.37

As it is clear from Table 1, pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers have an interventionist style in the instructional management dimension (=3.04), as an increase in the scale score means more control style. The items the pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers agreed with most reflect this. In the instructional management dimension, pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers agreed most with the following items: “I believe classroom rules are important, as they shape student behaviors and improvement (=3.36)”, “I believe teachers should ask for students to respect and obey rules (=3.33)” and “I believe teachers should guide students while passing to another learning activity (=3.28)”.

The items that pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers agreed upon least in the instructional management dimension are as follows: “I believe teachers should decide what things students are taught and what activities they will use (=2.78)”, “In the first week when lessons start, I announce classroom rules and inform my students that those who do not obey rules will be punished (=2.79)” and “I believe students will be successful at school if they listen to adults who know what is best for them (=2.79)”.

Pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers have a style which is a non-interventionist in the people management dimension (=2.07), as an increase in the scale score means more control, whereas a decrease shows less control. In the people management dimension, pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers agreed most with the following items: “I let my students choose their desks (=2.46)”, “I believe students should assess their own work themselves, rather than what relying heavily on what their teachers say about their work (=2.41)” and “I believe students should choose what to learn and their assignments (=2.41)”.

The items that pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers agreed upon least in the people management dimension are as follows: “I believe students’ establishing their own daily activities will improve their sense of responsibility (=1.71)”, “I believe students will be successful if they are given a chance to study topics they are interested in (=1.72)” and “In the first week when lessons start, I let my students say their suggestions about classroom rules (=1.77)”. Table 2 presents the results of t-test analysis related to the comparison of classroom management styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers according to gender.

Table 2. Comparison ofclassroom management styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachersaccordingtogender

Sub-scale	Gender	n		S	df	t	p
Instructional Management	1. Female	124	36.82	4.12	202	1.03	.30
	2. Male	80	36.21	4.13
People Management	1. Female	124	20.70	3.78	202	0.11	.90
	2. Male	80	20.76	3.61

As it is clear from Table 2, there is no significant difference between the styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers in the dimensions of instructional management [t₍₂₀₂₎=1.03; p>0.05] and people management [t₍₂₀₂₎=0.11; p>0.05] according to gender. Accordingly, it might be suggested that classroom management styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers are not influenced by gender. Table 3 presents the results of ANOVA related to the comparison of classroom management beliefs of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers according to field of study.

Table 3. Comparison ofclassroom management styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachersaccordingtofield of study

Sub-scale	Field of Study	n		S	df	F	p
Instructional Management	1. Biology	35	37.31	4.29	3–200	0.76	.51
	2. Psychology	62	36.43	4.48
	3. Chemistry	39	36.94	3.77
	4. Mathematics	68	36.13	3.90
People Management	1. Biology	35	20.62	3.40	3–200	1.25	.29
	2. Psychology	62	20.37	4.12
	3. Chemistry	39	20.17	3.61
	4. Mathematics	68	21.41	3.49

As it is clear from Table 3, there is no significant difference between the styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers in the dimensions of instructional management [F_(3–200)=0.76; p>0.05] and people management [F_(3–200)=1.25; p>0.05], according to field of study. Accordingly, it might be suggested that classroom management styles of pre-service secondary science and mathematics teachers are not influenced by their field of study.