POVEZANOST STEPENA ZADOVOLjENOSTI POTREBE ZA

Tadić: POVEZANOST STEPENA ZADOVOLjENOSTI POTREBE ZA AUTONOMIJOM NASTAVNIKA U ŠKOLI I NjIHOVIH STRATEGIJA... ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

13

Doc. dr Aleksandar Tadić1 Originalni naučni rad Univerzitet u Beogradu, Učiteljski fakultet UDK: 371.213.1

==============================================================================

POVEZANOST STEPENA ZADOVOLjENOSTI POTREBE ZA AUTONOMIJOM NASTAVNIKA U ŠKOLI I NjIHOVIH STRATEGIJA RAZREDNE DISCIPLINE2

Rezime: U radu se ukazuje na potrebu istraživanja kontekstualne determinisanosti postupanja nastavnika u razredu, polazeći od pretpostavke teorije samoodređenja – da je stil ponašanja nastavnika na nastavnom času povezan sa stepenom zadovoljenosti potrebe nastavnika za autonomijom u školi. Analizirani su različiti hipotetički modeli povezanosti nastavničkog osećaja pritiska na poslu, kojim se podriva njihova autonomija i unutrašnja radna motivacija, sa upotrebom kontrolišućih disciplinskih postupaka. Odatle, cilj sprovedenog istraživanja je bio da se stekne uvid u povezanost stepena zadovoljenosti potrebe za autonomijom nastavnika u školi i strategija razredne discipline koje primenjuju. Za potrebe istraživanja konstruisane su i validirane dve skale procene. Uzorak čine 444 nastavnika predmetne nastave osnovnih škola iz Srbije. Rezultati sprovedenog istraživanja pokazuju da postoji pozitivna, relativno niska, povezanost doživljaja nastavnika da školska klima podstiče aktivno uključivanje svih članova kolektiva u donošenje odluka, da ima osećaj da drugi članovi kolektiva uvažavaju njegova mišljenja i osećanja sa nastavničkom primenom tehnika dogovaranja rešenja problematičnih situacija sa učenicima, sprečavanja nedisciplinovanog ponašanja nastojanjem da se učenici zainteresuju za gradivo i pohvale za pozitivna ponašanja. Nije potvrđena pretpostavka o direktnoj povezanosti nastavničkog doživljaja kontrole i pritiska u školi sa primenom postupaka kontrolišućeg tipa u nastojanju da uspostave i održe razrednu disciplinu. Ključne reči: autonomija nastavnika, pritisak na poslu, razredna disciplina, stil ponašanja nastavnika, teorija samoodređenja.

Uvod

Ponašanje nastavnika na nastavnim časovima može biti posledica realnog okruženja u kome nastavnici obavljaju svoj posao. Treba imati u vidu da nastavnu praksu određuju i uži i širi socijalni kontekst, vrednosti koje se u školi i društvu promovišu, odnosi u školskom kolektivu i mogućnosti da nastavnici utiču na odluke o bitnim pitanjima ličnog delovanja na poslu. Danas se sve češće konstatuje da „školski sistem može da vrši pritisak na nastavnike što istovremeno utiče na smanjenje nastavnikove i učenikove motivacije, kao i na kvalitet njihove interakcije” (Lalić-Vučetić, Đerić & Đević, 2009: 360). Idejne postavke teorije samoodređenja (engl. Self-Determination Theory) i empirijski rezultati na njima zasnovanih istraživanja sve više usmeravaju istraživački rad pedagoga i psihologa na ispitivanje kontekstualne determinisanosti postupanja nastavnika u razredu. Naglašava se da je stil ponašanja

1 Imejl-adresa: [email protected]. 2Napomena. Rad predstavlja rezultat rada na projektu (broj 179020) pod nazivom Koncepcije i strategije obezbeđivanja kvaliteta bazičnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja Učiteljskog fakulteta u Beogradu (2011–2015), čiju realizaciju finansira Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije.


14

nastavnika na nastavnom času povezan sa stepenom zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba nastavnika (autonomija, bliskost i kompetentnost) u školi. Na autonomiju nastavnika u školskom kontekstu, kao i na autonomiju učenika u razrednom okruženju, gleda se kao na potrebu da osoba deluje u skladu sa svojom voljom, htenjem, izborom i integritetom, da njena ponašanja i krajnji rezultati tih ponašanja (umesto pod uticajem ili kontrolom spoljašnjeg pritiska) budu samoodređena i slobodno odabrana (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Johnston & Finney, 2010). Kontrolišući kontekstualni faktori (vezani za osobenosti posla i konteksta u kome se posao obavlja) i kontrolišući intrapersonalni faktori (vezani za klimu u kolektivu i interpersonalni stil uprave škole) podrivaju osećaj autonomnog delovanja nastavnika u školi i intrinzičku motivaciju nastavnika za nastavni rad. Smatra se da je verovatnije da će u takvim okolnostima nastavnikov rad na času i odnos prema učenicima karakterisati kontrolišući stil ponašanja (Đorđić & Tubić, 2010; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Tadić, 2015). Nastavnici češće biraju disciplinske tehnike koje omogućavaju kontrolu nad učenicima i razredom, koje se temelje na moći (naredbe, pretnje, čak i fizičko kažnjavanje), nego one koje podržavaju učeničku autonomiju (Pšunder, 2005). Često koriste disciplinske postupke zasnovane na kontroli i ograničavanju učenika, iako ih je „moguće saopštiti učenicima na način koji ne podriva intrinzičku motivaciju ili samooodređenje i ne slabi kvalitet postignuća” (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri & Holt, 1984: 246–247). Kao jedan od osnovnih razloga zašto nastavnici koriste spoljašnju kontrolu, umesto postupaka kojima se podržava učenički osećaj autonomije na času, navodi se taj što su i sami nastavnici izloženi spoljnim pritiscima (Đerić, Bodroža, & Lalić-Vučetić, 2012; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Pregled relevantnih istraživanja u nastavku rada, za cilj ima celovitije sagledavanje osnovnih korelata kontrolišućeg ponašanja nastavnika u razredu, posebno kada govorimo o fenomenu razredne discipline.3 Problem razredne discipline u više studija je ispitivan sa stanovišta opaženog lokusa kontrole ponašanja učenika. U nastavku ćemo prikazati rezultate studija koje su se na manje ili više eksplicitan način bavile ispitivanjem povezanosti pritiska koji nastavnici osećaju na vlastito ponašanje u školi sa postupcima kojima uspostavljaju i održavaju razrednu disciplinu (upravljaju razredom). U istraživanju Luka Peletiera i saradnika (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque & Legault, 2002) pošlo se od pretpostavke da je verovatnije da se nastavnici koji doživljavaju pritisak na poslu ne osećaju autonomno u pogledu svog nastavnog rada, usled čega njihovi odnosi sa učenicima imaju karakteristike kontrolišućeg tipa. „Moguće je da ove okolnosti direktno utiču na ponašanja nastavnika, ili da podrivaju radnu motivaciju nastavnika, što zauzvrat može dovesti do toga da u većoj meri postupaju kontrolišuće sa svojim učenicima” (Pelletier et al., 2002: 187). U tom smislu, istraživanjem su merena četiri teorijska konstrukta i ispitivani su različiti modeli njihove međusobne povezanosti. Ispitivani su: 1) nastavnički doživljaj pritiska na poslu, 2) nastavnički doživljaj motivacije učenika za školske aktivnosti, 3) nastavnički doživljaj lične motivacije za posao i 4) orijentacija nastavnika na kontrolu ponašanja učenika, odnosno, podršku autonomije učenika (Pelletier et al., 2002). Pritisak na poslu meren je instrumentom

3Koristimo termin razredna disciplina shvatajući ga kao pedagoški fenomen reintegrisan u celinu vaspitnog procesa, koji uključuje sve proaktivne i preventivne aktivnosti koje su usmerene na stvaranje uslova za neometano, uspešno učenje na nastavnom času (Tadić, 2015). U nastavku rada biće upotrebljavan i termin upravljanje razredom (classroom management), uz napomenu da njegov sadržaj odgovara korišćenom terminu razredna disciplina.


15

konstruisanim za potrebe ovog istraživanja (The Constraints at Work Scale), koji se sastoji od tri subskale (sa po tri stavke) od kojih svaka meri nastavničke doživljaje: a) pritiska u vezi sa kolegama (npr. „Morate da se prilagođavate nastavnim metodama svojih kolega.”), b) pritiska koji dolaze od uprave škole (npr. „Vršena je procena stepena kontrole koju održavate u razredu.”) i c) pritiska u vezi sa nastavnim planom i programom (npr. „Važno je da u potpunosti realizujete nastavni plan i program.”). Za ispitivanje nastavničke orijentacije u odnosima sa učenicima (načina na koji nastavnik postupa prema učenicima), razlikovanih kao one kojom se podržava autonomija, odnosno, one kojom se ponašanje učenika kontroliše, korišćen je instrument Problems in Schools Questionnaire (objavljen u: Deci et al., 1981, prema: Pelletier et al., 2002). Nije utvrđena direktna veza između pritiska na poslu i ponašanja nastavnika prema učenicima, već je njihova veza posredovana motivacijom nastavnika za svoj posao. U radu se ne navode podaci o jačini korelacije. Dakle, dobijeno je da je ponašanje nastavnika kojim se podržava autonomija učenika na nastavnom času direktno povezano sa njihovom motivacijom za posao autonomnog tipa (Pelletier et al., 2002). Jan Tejlor i saradnici realizovali su više srodnih istraživanja, od kojih smo za detaljniji prikaz izdvojili posebno relevantno za problem koji istražujemo. Sprovedeno istraživanje (Taylor, Ntoumanis & Standage, 2008) smatramo značajnim iz dva razloga: a) istraživački problem vezan je za ispitivanje povezanosti pritiska koji nastavnici osećaju u školi i njihovih postupaka u nastavi u odnosima sa učenicima (primenu postupaka kojima se podržava autonomija učenika) i b) opisi tri ispitivane strategije motivacije4 (struktura5, interpersonalna uključenost6 i podržavanje autonomije7) u obrazloženju teorijskog okvira istraživanja u značajnoj meri odgovaraju klasifikovanju osnovnih strategija razredne discipline koju smo mi koristili – proceduralna, interpersonalna, didaktička strategija (v. Tadić, 2015). Pozivajući se na ranije prikazane zaključke istraživanja (Pelletier et al., 2002) da je pritisak na poslu direktno povezan sa autonomnom motivacijom nastavnika za realizaciju nastave, ovde je pretpostavljeno da ta povezanost nije direktna. Autori polaze od stanovišta teorije samoodređenja da društveni kontekst utiče na motivaciju posredstvom osećaja zadovoljenosti osnovnih psiholoških potreba (autonomija, kompetentnost i bliskost), zbog čega se kao posredna varijabla ispituje zadovoljenost tri osnovne ljudske potrebe (Taylor et al., 2008: 78). Dakle, ispitivan je sledeći hipotetički model: nastavnički doživljaj pritiska na poslu, autonomne motivisanosti učenika i autonomnog lokusa kauzalnosti (svaki pojedinačno) direktno je povezan sa osećajem zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba; takav osećaj direktno je povezan sa radnom motivacijom nastavnika koja je direktno povezana sa upotrebom tri motivacione strategije.

4 Autori navode da su ove tri osnovne vrste motivacionih nastavnih strategija koje nastavnici primenjuju na časovima ranije definisane i ispitivane (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; prema: Taylor et al., 2008). 5 Strukturiranost nastavnog okruženja definiše se na osnovu količine i kvaliteta informacija koje nastavnik pruža učenicima u vezi sa posledicama određenog ponašanja, kao i u pogledu pojašnjavanja načina (ponašanja) na koji učenici mogu dostići željene rezultate (što uključuje pružanje instrumentalne podrške, preciziranje i objašnjavanje očekivanja i smernica od strane nastavnika). Ovaj opis odgovara shvatanju proceduralne strategije autonomnog tipa u oblasti razredne discipline (Tadić, 2015). 6 Odnosi se na nastavnikovo pokazivanje zainteresovanosti i pružanje emocionalne podrške učenicima (kao primeri se navode izgradnja odnosa sa učenicima baziranih na nastojanjima nastavnika da razumeju svoje učenike i održavanje fizičke blizine sa njima). Ovaj opis odgovara shvatanju interpersonalne strategije autonomnog tipa u oblasti razredne discipline (Tadić, 2015). 7 Odnosi se na razne nastavne strategije kojima se kod učenika podstiče voljno angažovanje i unutrašnji lokus kauzalnosti, poput: obrazloženja značaja aktivnosti i prenošenja odgovornosti i na učenike. Ispitivano je „u kojoj meri nastavnici pružaju učenicima obrazloženja značajnosti uključivanja u aktivnosti” (Taylor et al., 2008: 76). Navedeni opis odgovara shvatanju didaktičke strategije autonomnog tipa u oblasti razredne discipline (Tadić, 2015).


16

Nastavnički doživljaj pritiska na poslu (Perceived Job Pressure) ispitivan je korišćenjem instrumenta u formi sedmostepene skale Likertovog tipa sa 10 stavki konstruisanim za potrebe ovog istraživanja kako bi se ispitao pritisak vezan za posao u pogledu ograničenih rokova, evaluacije nastave i postignuća učenika, kao i pritisak uprave škole za upotrebom određenih nastavnih metoda. Osećaj zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba ispitivan je pomoću instrumenta u formi sedmostepene skale Likertovog tipa Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSAW, objavljen u: Deci et al., 2001; prema: Taylor et al., 2008). Instrument se sastoji od tri subskale. Autonomija je ispitivana putem 7 stavki, kompetentnost putem 6 stavki, a bliskost putem 8 stavki. Upotreba tri motivacione strategije ispitivana je pomoću adaptirane verzije instrumenta Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire (TASCQ; objavljen u: Wellborn et al., 1988; prema: Taylor et al., 2008), koja se sastoji od 10 stavki. Nastavnici su na sedmostepenoj skali određivali učestalost upotrebe tri motivacione strategije – struktura (3 stavke), interpersonalna uključenost (4 stavke) i podržavanje autonomije (3 stavke). Uzorak su činili nastavnici fizičkog vaspitanja. Od mnogih podataka o povezanosti navedenih varijabli izdvojićemo nekoliko najrelevantnijih za naše istraživanje. Potvrđena je pretpostavka autora da pritisak na poslu (negativno, r = –0,44) korelira sa nastavničkim osećajem zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba. Uočena je posredna i direktna povezanost nastavničkog osećaja zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba sa upotrebom pojedinih motivacionih strategija – posredna, preko autonomne motivacije nastavnika za realizaciju nastave8, a direktna sa proceduralnom motivacionom strategijom (r = 0,22) i interpersonalnom motivacionom strategijom (r = 0,23). Autori zaključuju: „Što su više zadovoljene potrebe nastavnika i što više izjavljuju da su autonomni u radu, u većoj meri će se truditi da ih učenici razumeju i da im obezbede instrumentalnu pomoć i podršku” (Taylor et al., 2008: 88). Uz to, naglašen je indirektan negativan uticaj pritiska koji nastavnici osećaju na poslu na osećaj autonomnog realizovanja nastavnih aktivnosti i, posledično, manju verovatnoću da će nastavnici primenjivati motivacione strategije autonomnog tipa. Osećaj zadovoljavanja potreba nastavnika u školi direktno je povezan sa motivacijom nastavnika, od koje zavisi u kojoj meri se angažuju na pružanju značajnih obrazloženja, pomoći i podrške učenicima, kao i u kojoj meri se trude da razumeju svoje učenike, njihove potrebe, perspektive i vrednosti. Kontrolišuće ponašanje nastavnika prema učenicima autori tumače nedostatkom motivacije nastavnika za ulaganje truda koji je podrazumevan za primenu postupaka kojima se podržava autonomija učenika. Luk Peletier i Elizabeta Šarp (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009) su razmatrali rezultate više relevantnih istraživanja kojima je ispitivano u kojoj meri pritisak na nastavnika u školi utiče na stil ponašanja nastavnika prema učeniku (podržavanje autonomije / kontrolišući stil). Autori ukazuju na to da je jedan od značajnih razloga zašto nastavnici kontrolišu učenike taj što osećaju pritisak uprave škole. Osećaj odsustva autonomije dovodi do smanjenja nastavnikove motivacije za nastavni rad što za posledicu ima povećavanje kontrolišućeg ponašanja nastavnika, smanjenje motivacije za učenje kod učenika i njihova niska obrazovna postignuća. „Kontrolišuća ponašanja uprave škole slična su onima kontrolišućih nastavnika” (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009: 176). Uprava može naglašavati odgovornost nastavnika za postignuća svojih učenika i

8 Pozitivno korelira sa nastavničkim osećajem zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba (r = 0,39) i sa sve tri strategije: razumevanjem učenika (interpersonalna uključenost, r = 0,35), proceduralnom, instrumentalnom podrškom (struktura, r = 0,49) i obrazlaganjem značajnosti nastavnih aktivnosti (podržavanje autonomije, r = 0,34).


17

nametati nastavnicima: visoke zahteve uz vremenski ograničene rokove za njihovo postizanje, evaluaciju nastave, pridržavanje određenih nastavnih metoda i slično.

Metodologija istraživanja

U više istraživanja do sada potvrđena je pretpostavka da nastavnici koji doživljavaju pritisak na poslu, prenose taj pritisak na svoje učenike, što se ogleda u kontrolišućem stilu ponašanja nastavnika. Na osnovu navedenog, smatrali smo da je značajno ispitati povezanost nastavničkih strategija za uspostavljanje i održavanje razredne discipline sa njihovim viđenjem vlastite autonomije u školi u kojoj rade, polazeći od okvira teorije samoodređenja pri teorijsko-metodološkom zasnivanju istraživanja. Pod autonomijom nastavnika u školi podrazumevamo osećaj nastavnika: da mu je omogućeno da utiče na događaje u školi, da je inicijator vlastitog delovanja u školi, da mu se pružaju mogućnosti za izbor, da se njegova mišljenja, predlozi i viđenja određenih problema u školi poštuju i da je njegovo ponašanje u školi autonomno motivisano, a ne pod uticajem ili kontrolom spoljašnjeg pritiska (obaveza, naredba, kazna, nagrada, plata i slično). Pod strategijama razredne discipline u radu podrazumevamo osnovne postupke nastavnika (puteve, procedure, korake) u nastojanju da uspostave i održe disciplinu na nastavnom času. Dakle, strategija razredne discipline označava način na koji nastavnici primenjuju specifična znanja, veštine, sposobnosti, organizacione mehanizme disciplinovanja, kako bi uspešno uspostavili i održavali razrednu disciplinu. Tri ključne strategije putem kojih se (pojedinačno ili kombinovano) uspostavlja i održava razredna disciplina imenovane su kao: proceduralna, interpersonalna i didaktička strategija (v. Tadić, 2015).9 Sve tri strategije razredne discipline posmatramo na kontinuumu koji se kreće između kontrole ponašanja učenika i podrške autonomiji učenika na nastavnom času. Cilj ovog istraživanja je da se stekne uvid u povezanost stepena zadovoljenosti potrebe za autonomijom nastavnika u školi i strategija razredne discipline koje primenjuju. Osnovni zadaci bili su: 1) ispitati mišljenje nastavnika o stepenu zadovoljenosti vlastite potrebe za autonomijom u školi, 2) ispitati povezanost strategija uspostavljanja i održavanja razredne discipline sa stepenom zadovoljenosti nastavnikove potrebe za autonomijom u školi i 3) ispitati povezanost sociodemografskih i profesionalnih karakteristika nastavnika sa stepenom zadovoljenosti nastavnikove potrebe za autonomijom u školi. Pošli smo od pretpostavke da su strategije razredne discipline koje nastavnici primenjuju povezane i da reflektuju njihov lični osećaj autonomije u školi, tj. da strategije razredne discipline kontrolišućeg tipa primenjuju nastavnici koji osećaju nizak stepen vlastite autonomije u školi. U okviru istraživanja10 koristili smo instrumente sastavljene od pitanja anketnog tipa (za ispitivanje sociodemografskih i

9 Proceduralna strategija odnosi se na razradu različitih procedura za uspostavljanje i održavanje razredne discipline: pravila ponašanja i sistem pozitivnih i negativnih potkrepljenja. Interpersonalna strategija naglašava kvalitet interpersonalnih odnosa čije razvijanje u razredu pozitivno deluje na uspostavljanje i održavanje razredne discipline. Didaktička strategija karakteristična je za shvatanje da je proces uspostavljanja i održavanja razredne discipline direktno zavisan od karakteristika nastavnih sadržaja i aktivnosti, kao i organizacije nastavnog rada. 10 Rezultati koje ćemo prezentovati dobijeni su u okviru šireg istraživačkog projekta čiji je cilj bio ispitivanje: 1) karakteristika nastavničkih uverenja o vaspitanju i razrednoj disciplini, 2) karakteristika postupaka kojima nastavnici uspostavljaju i održavaju razrednu disciplinu i 3) korelata navedenih varijabli. Istraživanje je realizovano u maju 2013. godine (v. Tadić, 2015).


18

profesionalnih karakteristika nastavnika) i skala procene. Primenili smo dve skale: skala ZPAN11 i skala SRD12. Podaci o validaciji instrumenta i sadržajima faktora varijable SRD objavljeni su u monografiji Nastavnički modeli i strategije razredne discipline (Tadić, 2015).13 Stavke u skali ZPAN (Prilog 1) su indikatori autonomije nastavnika u školi.14 Od 18 stavki, pojedine (r. br. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 i 18) su formulisane na osnovu teorijskih pretpostavki, delom empirijski potvrđenih, o osnovnim faktorima nastavničkog doživljaja da su u školi kontrolisani i pod pritiskom, a preostale iskazuju doživljaj nastavnika da autonomno deluju u školi. Dakle, skala ispituje izraženost osećaja autonomije nastavnika u školi u pogledu: učešća u donošenju odluka (npr. „U školi nemam puno prilika da samostalno odlučujem šta i kako treba da radim.”), pritiska od strane članova uprave škole (npr. „Članovi uprave škole raspoređuju nadležnosti na brojne zaposlene u kolektivu kako bi svi imali osećaj da su aktivno uključeni u upravljanje školom.”), pritiska od strane drugih kolega (npr. „Kolege iz kolektiva se trude da shvate kako se osećam u vezi sa situacijama sa kojima se svakodnevno susrećem u školi.”), pritiska od strane roditelja (npr. „Roditelji učenika sve češće vrše pritisak na mene u pogledu toga šta bi učenici trebalo da uče, koje ocene zaslužuju ili kako treba da se ophodim prema njima.”), načina održavanja nastave (npr. „Zvanični nastavni programi ograničavaju moju kreativnost i fleksibilnost u radu na času.”) i ocenjivanja učenika (npr. „Ponekad osećam pritisak da uskladim svoje kriterijume ocenjivanja prema zahtevima kolektiva.”). Uzorak istraživanja čini 444 nastavnika predmetne nastave osnovnih škola iz Srbije. Prema polu, uzorak ima sledeću strukturu: 107 muškaraca (24,1%) i 337 žena (75,9%). Prosečna dužina radnog staža je 16 godina. Radi detaljnijih analiza ispitanike smo podelili u četiri grupe u

11 Skraćeno od: Zadovoljenost potrebe za autonomijom nastavnika u školi. 12 Skraćeno od: Nastavničke strategije razredne discipline. 13 Na osnovu rezultata faktorske analize izdvojene su tri dimenzije: 1) strategija autoritarnih odnosa, 2) strategija kazni, striktnih pravila i uputstava (strategije razredne discipline kontrolišućeg tipa) i 3) strategija razgovora, interesovanja i pozitivnih potkrepljenja (strategija razredne discipline autonomnog tipa). Strategija autonomnog tipa nezavisna je od strategije autoritarnih odnosa, a umereno jako je povezana sa strategijom kazni, striktnih pravila i uputstava (Shema 1). Dve strategije kontrolišućeg tipa međusobno su jače povezane. Sve tri dimenzije strategije razredne discipline nešto više su izražene od teorijskog proseka, posebno strategija autonomnog tipa (Tadić, 2015). 14 Polazna osnova za konstruisanje skale ZPAN bila nam je Opšta skala zadovoljavanja osnovnih potreba (engl. The Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale: BNSG-S). Skale zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba su srodne skale od kojih neke mere opšti stepen zadovoljavanja osnovih potreba (s obzirom da polazi od teorijskih osnova teorije samoodređenja to su: autonomija, bliskost i kompetentnost) u nečijem životu, dok su druge usmerene na merenje stepena zadovoljavanja osnovih potreba u određenim oblastima. Originalna skala (Johnston & Finney, 2010: 294) ima 21 indikator: 7 indikatora zadovoljavanja potreba za autonomijom, 8 indikatora zadovoljavanja potreba za bliskošću i 6 indikatora zadovoljavanja potreba za kompetentnošću. Opšta skala je uz određene adaptacije korišćena u brojnim istraživanjima u oblasti sporta, psihologije, psihoterapije, rodnih studija i drugim (prema: Johnston & Finney, 2010). Kada je reč o istraživanjima u oblasti vaspitno-obrazovnih ustanova, adaptirane verzije opšte skale za procenu zadovoljavanja osnovnih potreba korišćene su u istraživanju u oblasti fizičkog vaspitanja (Ntoumanis, 2005) i u oblasti angažovanja studenata u prosocijalnim aktivnostima (Gagné, 2003); u oba slučaja ispitivani su učenici (studenti). Adaptirane verzije skale zadovoljavanja osnovnih potreba zaposlenih (The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale: BNSW-S) korišćene su često u vezi sa poslovima u drugim oblastima (videti na: http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/basic-psychological-needs-scale), ali kada je reč o istraživanjima u oblasti zadovoljavanja osnovnih potreba nastavnika u školama pronašli smo da je korišćena samo u istraživanju koje smo u pregledu relevantnih istraživanja opisali (Taylor et al., 2008). U našoj verziji instrumenta adaptirali smo stavke iz opšte skale navedene kao indikatore zadovoljavanja potreba za autonomijom, prilagodivši ih školskom kontekstu.


19

zavisnosti od dužine radnog staža: do 10 godina – 159 nastavnika (35,8%), od 11 do 20 godina – 145 nastavnika (32,7%), od 21 do 30 godina – 82 nastavnika (18,4%) i više od 30 godina – 58 nastavnika (13,1%). Struktura uzorka prema predmetima koje nastavnici predaju u školi je sledeća: matematičko-tehničko-prirodne nauke – 243 nastavnika (54,7%) i društveno-humanističke nauke – 201 nastavnik (45,3%). U istraživanju smo koristili kvantitativne tehnike obrade prikupljenih podataka. Primenjene su parametrijske i neparametrijske statističke tehnike. Pored deskriptivnog opisa podataka uz pomoć frekvencija, procenata, mera centralne tendencije i disperzije, primenjeni su i korelacija, t-test, analiza varijanse i hi kvadrat test.

Rezultati istraživanja sa diskusijom

Osećaj zadovoljenosti potrebe za autonomijom nastavnika u školi merili smo skalom ZPAN. Primenom metode glavnih komponenti u faktorskoj analizi skale ZPAN izdvojena su tri faktora sa karakterističnim korenom većim od jedan (Tabela 1). Isti broj faktora je sugerisao i Scree kriterijum (Grafikon 1). Ipak, odlučeno je da se zadrži dvofaktorska solucija koja daje interpretabilnije rešenje. KMO koeficijent (0,865) ukazuje na veoma dobru reprezentativnost ovog instrumenta.

Tabela 1. Karakteristični korenovi i procenat objašnjene varijanse dvofaktorske solucije – dimenzije autonomije nastavnika u školi

Inicijalna solucija

Rotirana solucija

Redni broj faktora

Naziv faktora

Karakte-ristični koren

% varijanse

Kumulativni % varijanse

Karakte- ristični koren

1. kontrola i pritisak

4,762 29,765 29,765 4,293

2. participativnost i sloboda mišljenja

1,661 10,379 40,144 3,589

Grafikon 1. Scree grafikon faktorske strukture Skale ZPAN


20

Prvi faktor (Tabela 2) zasićuju stavke koje ukazuju na to da nastavnici u školi osećaju pritisak od strane kolega, direktora, roditelja i nastavnog programa. Nastavnik ima osećaj da stvari mora da radi onako kako to od njega drugi očekuju, da nema samostalnost, slobodu izbora, niti mogućnost da bude onakav kakav zaista jeste. Ovaj faktor je imenovan kao kontrola i

pritisak. Sadržaj drugog faktora čine stavke koje govore o školskoj atmosferi u kojoj se podstiče participativnost u donošenju odluka, aktivno uključivanje svih članova kolektiva, sloboda govora i mišljenja. Nastavnik u ovakvoj atmosferi ima osećaj da drugi članovi kolektiva prihvataju i uvažavaju njegova mišljenja i osećanja. Ovaj faktor je nazvan participativnost i

sloboda mišljenja. Dva ekstrahovana faktora koreliraju umereno visoko i negativno (r = –0,487), što sugeriše da škole, u kojima je izraženiji osećaj nastavnika da postoji pritisak na zaposlene, često odlikuje i manje učešće svih članova kolektiva u donošenju odluka i smanjena sloboda izražavanja sopstvenog mišljenja.

Tabela 2. Matrica faktorskog sklopa Skale ZPAN

Zasićenje faktora Stavka 1.15 2.16

07. Često na poslu stvari moram da radim onako kako mi drugi kažu 0,851 05. Često osećam pritisak od strane svojih kolega (direktora i/ili kolektiva) da promenim svoje odluke ili način rada

0,697

09. U školi nemam puno prilika da samostalno odlučujem šta i kako treba da Radim.

0,611

01. Ponekad osećam pritisak da uskladim svoje kriterijume ocenjivanja prema zahtevima kolektiva.

0,600

15. Roditelji učenika sve češće vrše pritisak na mene u pogledu toga šta bi učenici trebalo da uče, koje ocene zaslužuju ili kako treba da se ophodim prema njima.

0,587

04. U školi osećam slobodu da samostalno odlučujem kako ću raditi svoj posao.

–0,557

10. U svakodnevnim situacijama u školi mogu da budem onakav/va kakav/va stvarno jesam.

–0,501

08. Mišljenja i želje roditelja učenika ne doživljavam kao pritisak na lični stil rada na nastavnom času.

–0,424

11. Zvanični nastavni programi ograničavaju moju kreativnost i fleksibilnost u radu na času.

0,419

14. Kada dobijem neko zaduženje od nadređenih na poslu, obično moram da ga obavim baš onako kako mi kažu.

0,374

16. Uprava škole podstiče učešće zaposlenih u donošenju značajnih odluka koje utiču na rad nastavnika.

0,868

02. Članovi uprave škole raspoređuju nadležnosti na brojne zaposlene u kolektivu kako bi svi imali osećaj da su aktivno uključeni u upravljanje školom.

0,771

06. Kolege iz kolektiva se trude da shvate kako se osećam u vezi sa situacijama sa kojima se svakodnevno susrećem u školi.

0,650

18. Članovi uprave škole često odlučuju u ime kolektiva šta i kako treba da se radi u školi, bez konsultovanja sa ostalim zaposlenima.

–0,623

13. Na sastancima kolektiva (nastavnog veća, stručnog aktiva...) osećam potpunu slobodu da izrazim svoje ideje i mišljenja.

0,527

15 Kontrola i pritisak 16 Participativnost i sloboda mišljenja


21

17. Zadatke i zahteve članova uprave škole doživljavam kao pritisak na lični stil rada.

0,343 –0,451

Izdvojeni faktori i njihov sadržaj dozvoljavaju poređenje rezultata našeg istraživanja sa prikazanim rezultatima relevantnih studija. Na prvom mestu, sa rezultatima istraživanja kojima je ispitivana povezanost upotrebe proceduralne, interpersonalne i didaktičke motivacione strategije sa nastavničkim doživljajem pritiska na poslu i autonomnog lokusa kauzalnosti (Taylor et al., 2008). Deskriptivne informacije o dimenzijama autonomije nastavnika u školi prikazane su u Tabeli 3.

Tabela 3. Deskriptivni podaci o dimenzijama autonomije nastavnika u školi Varijabla

Min

Maks

AS

SD

Standard. skjunis

Standard. kurtozis

Kontrola i pritisak –1,657 3,510 0 1 6,678 2,000 Participativnost i sloboda mišljenja

–3,466 1,775 0 1 –5,818 1,594

Distribucija dimenzije participativnost i sloboda mišljenja iz domena autonomije nastavnika u školi zakrivljena je u levo (veći broj ispitanika postiže visoke skorove), dok je dimenzija kontrola i pritisak zakrivljena u desno (veći broj ispitanika postiže niske skorove). Izvršena je normalizacija distribucija, nakon čega su normalizovane varijable korišćene u daljim analizama. Da bi se utvrdilo da li su prosečne vrednosti rezultata ispitanika na dimenzijama podrške autonomiji u školi više ili niže od teorijskog proseka (ASteor = 3), primenjen je t-test za jedan uzorak. Rezultati pokazuju da su kontrola i pritisak statistički značajno niži od teorijskog proseka, dok je participativnost i sloboda mišljenja statistički značajno viša od teorijske artimetičke vrednosti (Tabela 4).

Tabela 4. Značajnost odstupanja skora na dimenzijama autonomije nastavnika u školi od teorijske aritmetičke sredine

Varijabla AS

ASteor

t (443) p

Kontrola i pritisak 2,23 3 –25,805 0,001

Participativnost i sloboda mišljenja

3,79 3 22,454 0,001

Kada je u pitanju kontrola i pritisak 88,7% ispitanika postiže skor koji je ispod teorijske aritmetičke sredine, dok je preostalih 11,3% postiglo skor koji je iznad ove vrednosti. Na dimenziji participativnost i sloboda mišljenja situacija je obrnuta: 16,2% ispitanika postiže skor ispod, a 83,8% skor koji je iznad teorijskog proseka. Ovi rezultati sugerišu da većina nastavnika opaža da u njihovoj školi ne postoji izražena kontrola i pritisak i da postoji atmosfera koja podržava uključivanje svih članova kolektiva u aktivnosti povezane sa donošenjem odluka i slobodnog izražavanja mišljenja. Smatramo da bi za objašnjenje navedenih podataka (koje nismo očekivali) bilo korisno razmotriti razliku koju ističe Nenad Havelka među pojedinim dimenzijama pojma autonomija nastavnika u školi. Navodi da se autonomija nastavnika može vezivati za njegov položaj i uloge u školi, pri čemu u mnogim (posebno najznačajnijim) aspektima i komponentama


22

nastavnikovog rada njemu ne ostavljaju nikakvu autonomiju, već su određeni izvan škole „veoma razuđenim sistemom odluka na koje on nije imao uticaja” (Havelka, 1996: 173). S druge strane, autonomnost koju nastavnici imaju u svom radu (didaktičku autonomiju) vidi kao veliku i veoma značajnu i iznosi uverenje da je za mnoge nastavnike to jedina dobra strana njihovog poziva. Pretpostavljamo da bi se veoma visok procenat nastavnika koji su na dimenziji participativnost i sloboda mišljenja postigli skor koji je iznad teorijskog proseka mogao objasniti time da su nastavnici prilikom davanja odgovora prvenstveno imali u vidu ovu vrstu lične autonomije. Posebno značajnim za naš problem istraživanja vidimo Havelkino obrazloženje načina na koji se takva vrsta didaktičke autonomije transformiše u didaktički konformizam (radimo dobro ako imamo u vidu uslove u kojima radimo), čija je posledica „didaktička uniformnost – prevlast rutine i jednoobraznosti u radu većine nastavnika” (Havelka, 1996: 177), koja ne omogućuje razvoj akcione autonomije učenika. Ovakvo tumačenje u saglasnosti je i sa podacima koje smo dobili u pogledu značajnosti odstupanja skorova na dimenzijama strategija razredne discipline (Tadić, 2015), gde je preko 88% ispitanika na sve tri skale postiglo skorove koji su iznad teorijske prosečne vrednosti. Naravno, ovakvi rezultati mogu se tumačiti i iz aspekta formulacije stavki iz instrumenta, a vode i sumnji u iskrenost ispitanika pri popunjavanju instrumenata Drugačije, podatak da značajan procenat nastavnika na dimenziji participativnost i sloboda mišljenja postiže skor koji je iznad teorijskog proseka mogao bi se tumačiti ili tako da u našim školama zaista vlada atmosfera koja podržava uključivanje nastavnika u aktivnosti povezane sa donošenjem odluka i slobodno izražavanje mišljenja, ili da su nastavnici snizili svoje kriterijume procene škole kao radnog okruženja koje zadovoljava njihovu potrebu za autonomijom.

*** U relevantnim istraživanjima kojima je ispitivana povezanost društveno-kontekstualnih uslova i interpersonalnog stila ponašanja u školskom kontekstu dobijeni su podaci da kontrolišuće ponašanje nastavnika na časovima nije direktno povezano sa osećajem pritiska u školi. Na osnovu odgovora nastavnika zaključuje se da je ta veza posredna, preko autonomne radne motivacije nastavnika (Pelletier et al., 2002). Ovi zaključci potvrđeni su i kada su o postupcima nastavnika izveštavali učenici (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon & Kaplan, 2007). Pokazalo se i da je nastavnički osećaj zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba direktno (pozitivno) povezan sa upotrebom proceduralne motivacione strategije (r = 0,22) i interpersonalne motivacione strategije (r = 0,23), kao i posredno, preko autonomne radne motivacije nastavnika, sa sve tri motivacione strategije (Taylor et al., 2008).17 Očekivali smo da će se i u specifičnoj oblasti nastavnog rada, kakva je uspostavljanje i održavanje razredne discipline, potvrditi postojanje povezanosti nastavničkog osećaja zadovoljenosti potrebe za autonomijom u školi i postupaka koje nastavnici primenjuju kako bi održavali disciplinu na časovima.

17 Korelacije radne motivacije nastavnika i primene strategija su nešto jače: r = 0,34 / r = 0,35 / r = 0,49 (za proceduralnu strategiju).


23

Tabela 5. Povezanost strategija razredne discipline i autonomije nastavnika u školi

Autonomija nastavnika: Strategija:

Kontrola i

pritisak

Participativnost i sloboda mišljenja

Strategija razgovora, interesovanja i pozitivnih potkrepljenja –0,017 0,218**

Strategija autoritarnih odnosa –0,045 0,084 Strategija kazni, striktnih pravila i uputstava

0,057 0,063

** Korelacija je značajna na nivou p < 0,01 (dvosmerno)

Pirsonov koeficijent korelacije sugeriše da je samo primena strategije razgovora, interesovanja i pozitivnih potkrepljenja (strategija autonomnog tipa) povezana sa stepenom autonomije koju nastavnik oseća u školi, i to konkretno samo sa faktorom participativnost i sloboda mišljenja (Tabela 5). Navedena povezanost je relativno niska (r = 0,218). Moglo bi se tvrditi sledeće: što nastavnik ima veću slobodu da izrazi svoje mišljenje i da učestvuje u donošenju za njega bitnih odluka u školi, to on u svom radu više koristi razgovor, pozitivna potkrepljenja i uvažava interesovanja učenika kako bi održao disciplinu. Preostale dve dimenzije strategija razredne discipline (obe su kontrolišućeg tipa) nisu povezane sa dimenzijama nastavnikove autonomije u školi. Ovakvi rezultati odgovaraju navedenim rezultatima ranijeg ispitivanja povezanosti nastavničkog osećaja zadovoljenosti osnovnih potreba (sve tri: autonomija, kompetentnost, bliskost) i motivacionih strategija koje primenjuju nastavnici fizičkog vaspitanja (Taylor et al., 2008). Prethodno smo naveli rezultate o korelacijama dimenzija autonomije nastavnika u školi sa dimenzijama strategija razredne discipline. U nastavku ćemo međusobnu povezanost svih navedenih dimenzija prikazati shematski (Shema 1), što će nam poslužiti za završnu interpretaciju dobijenih rezultata u pogledu korelacija među ovim varijablama.


24

Shema 1. Povezanost autonomije nastavnika u školi sa vaspitnim konceptom, modelima i strategijama razredne discipline

* Korelacija je značajna na nivou p < 0,05 (dvosmerno) ** Korelacija je značajna na nivou p < 0,01 (dvosmerno) Kao što smo očekivali, utvrđena je pozitivna povezanost dimenzije autonomije nastavnika u školi (participativnost i sloboda mišljenja – nastavnik izveštava da školska klima podstiče aktivno uključivanje svih članova kolektiva u donošenje odluka i da ima osećaj da drugi članovi kolektiva uvažavaju njegova mišljenja i osećanja) sa jedinom dimenzijom strategija razredne discipline autonomnog tipa (strategija razgovora, interesovanja i pozitivnih potkrepljenja – nastavnik razgovara sa učenicima i dogovara rešenja problematičnih situacija, sprečava nedisciplinovano ponašanje nastojanjem da se učenici zainteresuju za gradivo i primenom pohvala učenika za pozitivna ponašanja), ali je njihova povezanost relativno niska. S druge strane, nije potvrđena pretpostavka o direktnoj povezanosti nastavničkog doživljaja kontrole i pritiska u školi sa primenom postupaka kontrolišućeg tipa u nastojanju da uspostave i održe razrednu disciplinu. Dobijene korelacije nisu značajne, što ukazuje da načini na koje nastavnici uspostavljaju i održavaju razrednu disciplinu verovatno više zavise od nekih drugih varijabli (ličnosti nastavnika, njihovih uverenja, lokusa kauzalnosti, osećaja kompetentnosti i uspešnosti i sl.), nego od nastavničkog doživljaja školske klime. Moguće je i da postoji povezanost osećaja kontrole i pritiska u školi sa ispitivanim varijablama kontrolišućeg tipa, ali indirektna, preko posredujućih faktora. Mi to ovim istraživanjem nismo mogli da utvrdimo. Čak i da je kao varijabla korišćena autonomna radna motivacija, ne mislimo da bi se mogla dobiti visoka korelacija sa postupcima nastavnika s obzirom na utvrđene modele povezanosti i jačine veza među varijablama utvrđene u ranijim istraživanjima (Pelletier et al., 2002; Roth et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2008).

strategija razgovora, interesovanja i pozitivnih

potkrepljenja

strategija autoritarnih odnosa

participativnost i sloboda mišljenja

kontrola i pritisak

strategija kazni, striktnih pravila i uputstava

0,332**

0,411**

–0,487**

0,218**


25

*** Poslednji istraživački zadatak odnosio se na ispitivanje povezanosti stepena zadovoljenosti potrebe za autonomijom nastavnika u školi sa kontrolnim varijablama – sociodemografskim i profesionalnim karakteristikama nastavnika (pol, nastavni predmet i dužina radnog staža). Ispitivanja u pogledu povezanosti autonomije nastavnika u školi sa kontrolnim varijablama nisu potvrdila postojanje statistički značajnih razlika, pa rezultate tih analiza nećemo prikazivati.

Zaključak

Pretpostavka o postojanju povezanosti strategija razredne discipline sa nastavničkom percepcijom stepena zadovoljenosti vlastite potrebe za autonomijom u školi samo je delimično empirijski potvrđena. Kao što je očekivano, utvrđena je pozitivna povezanost dimenzije autonomije nastavnika u školi participativnost i sloboda mišljenja sa jedinom dimenzijom strategija razredne discipline autonomnog tipa. Njihova povezanost je relativno niska. S druge strane, nije potvrđena pretpostavka o direktnoj povezanosti nastavničkog doživljaja kontrole i pritiska u školi ni sa jednom izdvojenom dimenzijom strategija razredne discipline kontrolišućeg tipa. Metodološka rešenja u sprovedenom istraživanju, u pogledu ispitivanih varijabli, korišćenih instrumenata, mogu se koristiti u daljim istraživanjima u ovoj oblasti kojima bi se omogućila emprijska provera dobijenih rezultata i došlo do novih saznanja o fenomenima nastavničkih potreba i nastavnih strategija u odnosima sa učenicima u razredu. Značajno bi, u tom smislu, bilo realizovati istraživanja koristeći i druge adekvatne istraživačke tehnike, prvenstveno sistematsko posmatranje i intervjuisanje. Smatramo da bi se na taj način prevazišli mogući nedostaci upotrebe skala za ispitivanje stavova nastavnika, posebno oni vezani za davanje društveno poželjnih odgovora ili odgovaranja o fenomenu pritiska na nastavnike pod uticajem percepcije takvog eventualnog pritiska. Sprovedenom istraživanju nedostaje ispitivanje radne motivacije nastavnika i povezanosti ove sa ispitivanim varijablama. Međutim, na osnovu rezultata prethodnih istraživanja može se pretpostaviti da bi njihove korelacije bile značajne (ne i visoke). Takav rezultat naglasak bi stavio na potrebu usmeravanja aktivnosti kreatora obrazovnih politika i članova uprave škole na motivisanost nastavnika za posao autonomnog tipa, kako bi se postigli pozitivni efekti i na orijentaciju nastavnika ka postupcima kojima se podržava autonomija učenika na nastavnom času. Kao značajnu temu za dalja istraživanja, kao i u realizaciji programa profesionalnog obrazovanja nastavnika, vidimo mogućnosti i strategije prepoznavanja i menjanja kontrolišućih kontekstualnih i intrapersonalnih faktora stila ponašanja od strane zaposlenih nastavnika i studenata nastavničkih fakulteta. Smatramo da kretanje školske kulture ka podržavanju autonomije nastavnika može značajno povećati kod nastavnika identifikaciju sa uvođenjem promena, inovacija i novih reformskih programa u nastavni rad, doprineti njihovom ličnom i profesionalnom razvoju. Na taj način stvorili bi se značajni preduslovi i za suštinsku podršku autonimiji učenika u razrednom okruženju.


26

Literatura

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, 227–268.

Đerić, I., Bodroža, B. i Lalić-Vučetić, N. (2012). Inicijativa i autonomna motivacija. U J. Šefer i S. Ševkušić (urednici), Stvaralaštvo, inicijativa i saradnja – Novi pristup obrazovanju, I deo (125–152). Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.

Đorđić, V. i Tubić, T. (2010). Teorija samoodređenja i razumevanje motivacije učenika u nastavi fizičkog vaspitanja. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, Vol. 42, Br. 1, 128–149.

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, 331–362.

Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 27, 199–223.

Havelka, N. (1996). Pitanje odnosa autonomije nastavnika i autonomije učenika. U S. Gašić-Pavišić (urednik). Autonomija ličnosti i vaspitanje (167–180). Beograd: Pedagoško društvo Srbije.

Johnston, M. M. & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 35, 280–296.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F. & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on children’s intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, No. 3, 233–248.

Lalić-Vučetić, N., Đerić, I., Đević, R. (2009). Učenička autonomija i interpersonalni stil nastavnika u teoriji samodeterminacije. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, Vol. 41, Br. 2, 349–366.

Niemiec, C. P. & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, 133–144.

Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education based on self-determination theory, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97, 444–453.

Pelletier, L. G. & Sharp, E. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, 174–183.

Pelletier, L.G., Séguin-Lévesque, C. & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 94, 186–196.

Pšunder, M. (2005). How effective is school discipline in preparing students to become responsible citizens: Slovenian teachers' and students' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, 273–286.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y. & Kaplan, H. (2007): Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to selfdetermined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 4, 761–774.

Tadić, A. (2015). Nastavnički modeli i strategije razredne discipline. Beograd: Učiteljski fakultet. Taylor, I., Ntoumanis, N. & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding

antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 75–94.


27

Prilog 1: Skala ZPAN18 Poštovani, pred Vama se nalazi niz tvrdnji u vezi sa vašim poslom i odnosima u

kolektivu. Molimo Vas da pažljivo pročitate svaku tvrdnju, razmislite i da iznesete stepen svog slaganja, odnosno neslaganja sa svakom tvrdnjom. Ovde nema “tačnih” i “netačnih” odgovora, svi odgovori su dobri ako su iskreni. Vaše slaganje ili neslaganje sa tvrdnjom pokazaćete tako što ćete zaokružiti broj 1, 2, 3, 4 ili 5, a brojevi imaju sledeće značenje: 1 – ne slažem se; 2 – uglavnom se ne slažem; 3 – neodlučan sam; 4 – uglavnom se slažem; 5 – slažem se.

1. Ponekad osećam pritisak da uskladim svoje kriterijume ocenjivanja prema zahtevima kolektiva.

2. Članovi uprave škole raspoređuju nadležnosti na brojne zaposlene u kolektivu kako bi svi imali osećaj da su aktivno uključeni u upravljanje školom.

3. Imam osećaj da se u našoj školi više bavimo postavljenim vremenskim rokovima, pripremama za evaluiranje nastave i ocenama učenika nego onime što je suština vaspitanja i obrazovanja.

4. U školi osećam slobodu da samostalno odlučujem kako ću raditi svoj posao.

5. Često osećam pritisak od strane svojih kolega (direktora i/ili kolektiva) da promenim svoje odluke ili način rada.

6. Kolege iz kolektiva se trude da shvate kako se osećam u vezi sa situacijama sa kojima se svakodnevno susrećem u školi.

7. Često na poslu stvari moram da radim onako kako mi drugi kažu.

8. Mišljenja i želje roditelja učenika ne doživljavam kao pritisak na lični stil rada na nastavnom času.

9. U školi nemam puno prilika da samostalno odlučujem šta i kako treba da radim.

10. U svakodnevnim situacijama u školi mogu da budem onakav/va kakav/va stvarno jesam. 11. Zvanični nastavni programi ograničavaju moju kreativnost i fleksibilnost u radu na času.

12.Članovi uprave naše škole stalno insistiraju na dostizanju postavljenih vaspitno-obrazovnih ciljeva.

13.Na sastancima kolektiva (nastavnog veća, stručnog aktiva...) osećam potpunu slobodu da izrazim svoje ideje i mišljenja.

14.Kada dobijem neko zaduženje od nadređenih na poslu, obično moram da ga obavim baš onako kako mi kažu.

15.Roditelji učenika sve češće vrše pritisak na mene u pogledu toga šta bi učenici trebalo da uče, koje ocene zaslužuju ili kako treba da se ophodim prema njima.

16.Uprava škole podstiče učešće zaposlenih u donošenju značajnih odluka koje utiču na rad nastavnika.

17. Zadatke i zahteve članova uprave škole doživljavam kao pritisak na lični stil rada.

18.Članovi uprave škole često odlučuju u ime kolektiva šta i kako treba da se radi u školi, bez konsultovanja sa ostalim zaposlenima.

18 Ovde prikazana skala predstavlja finalnu verziju instrumenata koja je korišćena u istraživanju posle sprovedenog pilot istraživanja i logičke analize instrumenta. Nakon validacije, primenom faktorske analize, iz instrumenata su eliminisane stavke r. br. 3 i 12. Konačna verzija upitnika ima 16 stavki.


28

Biografska nota

Aleksandar Tadić (1981) je doktorirao 2014. god. na temu Savremeni modeli i strategije uspostavljanja i održavanja razredne discipline, na Filozofskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu (odeljenje za pedagogiju). Docent je na Učiteljskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, nastavnik je na predmetu Opšta pedagogija. U svojim radovima bavi se istraživanjem problema u oblasti razredne discipline, upravljanja razredom, savremenih koncepcija vaspitanja i drugih pedagoških tema koje su direktno ili idirektno povezane sa vaspitanjem i savremenim modelima razredne discipline. Učestvovao je u naučno-istraživačkom projektu Promene u osnovnoškolskom obrazovanju – problemi, ciljevi, strategije (2007–2010), a nakon 2011. i u naučno-istraživačkom projektu Koncepcije i strategije obezbeđivanja kvaliteta bazičnog obrazovanja i vaspitanja.

Tadić: SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS’ NEED FOR AUTONOMY AND THEIR STRATEGIES OF CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

14

Aleksandar Tadić1 University of Belgrade Original scientific paper Teacher Education Faculty UDK: 371.213.1

DOI: 10.17810/2015.02

==============================================================================

SATISFACTION OF TEACHERS’ NEED FOR AUTONOMY AND THEIR STRATEGIES OF CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE2

Abstract: This paper points to the necessity to conduct researches of contextual conditions of teachers’ behavior in classroom, using the framework of the self-

determination theory, according to which styles of teachers’ behavior toward students is correlated with their satisfaction of psychological need for autonomy in school. We analyzed different hypothetical models of correlation between teachers’ perception of pressure at work, which undermines their autonomy, and intrinsic work motivation with controlling styles of teachers’ behavior. Therefore, the aim of this research was to determine the existence of correlation between satisfying the teachers’ need for autonomy at school and strategies of classroom discipline used by teachers. Two instruments were constructed and validated for the purpose of the research. The research included 444 primary school teachers in the primary schools in Serbia. Results of the research show the positive, relatively low correlation between one of two component of teachers’ autonomy at work place (the teachers’ perception that school climate supports the active involvement of all collective members in decision-making and their sense that other members of the collective respect their opinions and feelings – component of autonomy type) with one of three components of teachers’ strategies of classroom discipline (teachers are using the techniques of negotiation the solutions of conflict situations with students, preventing discipline problems trough the efforts to get students interested in the subject matter and encouraging positive students’ behavior – component of autonomy type). It is not empirically acknowledged assumption about the existence of negative correlation between teacher’s perception of the control and pressure in school with teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviors in the process of establishing and maintaining classroom discipline. Key words: teacher’s autonomy, job pressure, classroom discipline, styles of teachers’ behavior, self-determination theory.

Introduction

The behavior of teachers in classroom may be due to the real environment in which teachers do their job. It should be born in mind that teaching practice is also determined by both narrow and broad social context, values that are promoted in school and society, relations

1 E-mail: [email protected] 2 Note. The paper is a result of the Project (number 179020) entitled Concepts and strategies of providing

quality basic education and pedagogical work. of Teacher education faculty, University of Belgrade (2011-2015), whose realization is funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15

between the colleagues and the possibility for teachers to be able to influence the decisions on important matters of personal act at work. Today, it is being stated more often that "the school system can pressure teachers which simultaneously affects the reduction of teacher’s and student’s motivation, as well as the quality of their interactions" (Deric & Devic, Lalic-Vucetic, 2009: 360). Conceptual assumption of self-determination theory and the empirical results of the corresponding researches are increasingly directing researches of pedagogues and psychologists to examine the contextual determination of teachers’ behavior in the classroom. It is pointed out that the behavior style of teachers in class is associated with the satisfaction of basic teacher’s needs (autonomy, relatedness and competence) at school. The autonomy of teachers in the school context, as well as the autonomy of the students in the classroom environment, is seen as a necessity of people to act according to their own will, choice and integrity and that their behaviors and the ultimate results of those behaviors (rather than under the influence or control of external pressure) are self-determined and freely chosen (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Johnston & Finney, 2010). Controlling contextual conditions (related to the character of the work and the context in which the job is performed), and controlling intrapersonal conditions (related to the climate in the collective and interpersonal style of school administration) undermine the sense of autonomous action of teachers in school and intrinsic motivation of teachers for teaching. It is believed that it is more likely that in such circumstances the teacher will use the controlling behavioral style towards students (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Dordic & Tubic, 2010, Tadic, 2015). Teachers more often choose disciplinary techniques with a higher degree of teacher control over the students, based on power (such as directive statements, threats of consequences, modeling, reinforcement and physical intervention), then those that support students' autonomy (Psunder, 2005). They often use disciplinary activity based on the control and restriction of students, although they can be communicated without undermining quality and creativity in children's performance (Koestner et al., 1984). The fact that they are also exposed to external pressures is one of the main reasons why teachers use external control, instead of procedures that support students' sense of autonomy in the classroom (Bodroza, Deric & Lalic-Vucetic, 2012; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Review of relevant research that will be presented in the next section is aimed at more comprehensive understanding of major correlates of the controlling teachers’ behaviors in the classroom, especially when we talk about the phenomenon of classroom discipline3. This problem is examined in several studies from the standpoint of the perceived locus of control of behavior of students. Below we will show the results of studies that have, more or less explicitly, examined the correlation between the job pressure and their activities for establishing and maintaining classroom discipline (to manage classroom). In the study of Luc Pelletier, Chantal Séguin-Lévesque and Louise Legault it was presumed that it is more likely that teachers who perceive pressure at work feel less autonomous in regard to their teaching work, which results that their relationships with students become more controlling. “It is possible that these conditions may directly affect teachers’ behaviors or that they may undermine teachers’ motivation toward their own work that, in turn may

3 We use the term classroom discipline viewing it as a pedagogical phenomenon reintegrated into the whole educational process, which includes all proactive and preventive activities aimed at creating the conditions for a undisturbed, successful learning in classroom (Tadic, 2015). In contemporary literature often used term classroom management corresponds in substance thus defined term classroom discipline.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

16

lead them to be more controlling with their students“ (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque & Legault, 2002: 187). In this regard, the study measured four theoretical constructs and examined different models of relations across these potential determinants. The study examined: 1) teachers’ perceptions of pressure experienced at work, 2) teachers’ perception of students’ intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and autonomous regulation, 3) teachers’ own intrinsic or extrinsic motivation and autonomous regulation toward work and 4) teacher’s disposition to control students or to support their autonomy (Pelletier et al., 2002). Instrument used to measure pressure experienced at work was constructed especially for this study (The

Constraints at Work Scale) which consists of three subscales (each with three items) and each of them measure teachers’ perception of: а) pressure associated with conforming to colleagues’ teaching (e.g. “You have to conform to your colleagues teaching methods“), b) pressure coming from the school administration regarding discipline in class (e.g. “You are evaluated in function of the degree of ‘control’ you have on your class.“) and c) pressure associated with the importance of conforming to the school curriculum and performing up to standards (e.g. “It is important to complete the entire school curriculum.“). For measuring teachers’ autonomy-support versus control orientation (the way teacher treats his students), it is used the instrument Problems in Schools Questionnaire (published in: Deci et al., 1981, according to: Pelletier et al., 2002). No direct correlation was determined between the pressure at work and behavior of teachers toward students, but their correlation is mediated by the motivation of teachers toward their work. This paper does not include information about the strength of the correlation. So, is obtained that the behavior of teachers supporting the autonomy of students in class is directly related to their motivation toward their work of autonomous type (Pelletier et al., 2002). Ian Taylor and associates have realized several related studies out of which we have analyzed one particularly relevant for the problem that we research. This study (Taylor, Ntoumanis & Standage, 2008) is considered important for two reasons: a) research problem is related to the testing of correlation between the pressure that teachers feel at school and their behaviors toward students during the class (applying autonomy-supportive actions) and b) descriptions of three measured teacher motivational teaching strategies in the classroom4 (structure5, interpersonal involvement6 and autonomy support7) in the explanation of the theoretical framework of the research significantly correspond to the classification of the main three strategies of classroom discipline that we used – procedural, interpersonal and

4 The authors note that these three basic types of teacher motivational teaching strategies that they use in the classes are earlier defined and tested (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; according to: Taylor et al., 2008). 5 Structure of the learning environment is defined by the amount and quality of information that the teacher provides the students about the consequences of their behavior, as well as in terms of clarifying ways with which students can achieve the desired outcomes (which includes the provision of instrumental support, setting and clarifying the expectations and guidance by the teacher). This description corresponds to the understanding of procedural strategy of autonomous type in the field of classroom discipline (Tadic, 2015). 6 Refers to the teachers’ showing of interest and providing emotional support to students. As examples are given: “building an understanding of students and maintaining close physical proximity” (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; according to: Taylor et al., 2008: 76). This description corresponds to the understanding of interpersonal strategy of classroom discipline of autonomous type (Tadic, 2015). 7 Refers to a variety of teaching strategies that enhance students’ feelings of volition and promote an internal locus of causality, e.g., “providing students with a meaningful rationale and giving them responsibility” (Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003; according to: Taylor et al., 2008: 76). This description corresponds to the understanding of didactical strategy of autonomous type in the field of classroom discipline (Tadic, 2015).


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17

didactical strategy (defined in: Tadic, 2015). Referring to the conclusions of study presented earlier (Pelletier et al., 2002) that the pressure at work is directly correlated with teachers’ motivation toward their own work, it is assumed here that such correlation is not direct. The authors start from the point of view of the theory of self-determination that social context influences motivational regulations via the satisfaction of innate psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness). Therefore, as an indirect variable the satisfaction of

the three psychological needs was tested (Taylor et al., 2008). So, the following hypothetical model was tested: teachers’ perceived job pressure, teachers’ perceptions of student self-

determination and teachers’ autonomous causality orientation (each one individually) are directly correlated with teachers’ perceptions of psychological need satisfaction; those perceptions are directly correlated with teacher self-determined motivation; which is directly correlated with use of the three motivational strategies. Perceived Job Pressure was measured using the instrument in the form of seven point Likert scale with 10 items constructed especially for this research to measure the job pressure regarding deadlines, teaching evaluation and students’ achievements, as well as the pressure from the school administration regarding use of certain teaching methods. The psychological

need satisfaction was measured using the instrument Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSAW, published in: Deci et al., 2001; according to: Taylor et al., 2008). The instrument consists of three subscales. Autonomy was measured with 7 items, competence with 6 items, and relatedness with 8 items. Use of the three motivational strategies was measured using the revised version of the instrument Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire (TASCQ; published in: Wellborn et al., 1988; according to: Taylor et al., 2008) which consists of 10 items. On seven point Likert scale, teachers responded on statements about use of the three motivational

strategies – structure (3 items), interpersonal involvement (4 items) and autonomy support (3 items). Participants were physical education teachers. Among the many data about the correlation between these variables, we will emphasize the most relevant for our study. The authors’ assumption that the pressure at work correlated with teachers' sense of satisfaction of basic needs was confirmed (r = –0,44). There was indirect and direct correlation between teachers' perceptions of satisfaction of basic needs with the use of some motivational strategies: indirect correlation through the teacher self-determined motivation8 and direct correlation with the procedural motivational strategy (r = 0,22) and interpersonal motivational strategy (r = 0,23). The authors concluded: ”The more teachers’ needs were satisfied and the more self-determined they reported to be, the more they tried to gain an understanding of their students and provide them with instrumental help and support“ (Taylor et al., 2008: 88). In addition, authors emphasized indirect negative influence of teachers’ perception of job pressure on their self-determined motivation and, consequently, it is less likely that they will use motivational strategies of autonomous type. Teachers’ psychological needs satisfaction is directly associated with their motivation, conditioning their effort to provide meaningful rationale, help and support to students, as well as the effort to understand their students, their needs, perspectives and values. The authors interpreted controlling teachers’ behaviors towards students as a lack of teachers’

8 Positively correlated with teachers’ psychological needs satisfaction (r = 0,39) and with all of three motivational strategies: understanding their students (interpersonal involvement, r = 0,35), procedural, instrumental support (structure, r = 0,49) and providing meaningful rationale (autonomy support, r = 0,34).


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

18

motivation to invest effort which is required for the use of autonomy-supportive behavior toward students. Luc Pelletier and Elizabeth Sharp (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009) published review of results from several relevant studies which measured how much the perceived job pressure affects the behavioral style of teacher toward students (autonomy-supportive teachers / controlling teachers). The authors suggest that one of the major reasons why teachers behave in a controlling manner toward students is that they feel the pressure from school administration. Teachers' perceptions of pressure lead to reduction of their motivation for teaching which results in: increasing the controlling teachers' behaviors in the classroom, reduction of students' motivation for work and their low educational achievements. “The behaviors of controlling administrations are similar to those of controlling teachers“ (Pelletier & Sharp, 2009: 176). The school administration may emphasize responsibility of teachers for their students' achievements and impose to teachers: high requirements with deadlines for achieving them, teaching evaluation, compliance with certain teaching methods and the like.

Methodology

In many studies so far the assumption was confirmed that teachers who perceive job pressure, pass that pressure on their students, which floats in controlling styles of teachers’ behavior. Based on the above, we thought it was significant to examine correlation between teachers’ strategies for establishing and maintaining classroom discipline with their perception of their own autonomy in school, using the framework of the self-determination theory for the theoretical-methodological basis of scientific research. In this research, the term teachers' autonomy in school refers to their sense that they can autonomously make decisions in the school, that they are the initiators of their own activities in school, that school administration provides them with opportunities for making choice, that their opinions, suggestions and vision of certain problems in school are respected and that their behaviors at school are self-motivated, instead of being under the influence or control of external pressure (obligation, command, punishment, reward, salary, etc.). Under the teachers' strategies of classroom discipline, in this study we understand the basic actions (ways, procedures, steps) that teachers use with the aim of establishing and maintaining discipline during the class. Thus, the strategy of classroom discipline indicates the way in which teachers apply specific knowledge, skills, abilities, organizational mechanisms of the disciplining, in order to successfully establish and maintain classroom discipline. Three key strategies for establishing and maintaining classroom discipline (individually or combined) are named as: procedural, interpersonal and didactical strategy (s. Tadic, 2015)9. All three strategies of classroom discipline are observed on the continuum that ranges between control of students' behavior and support of their autonomy in classroom.

9 Procedural strategy refers to elaboration of various procedures for establishing and maintaining classroom discipline: rules of behavior and a system of positive and negative reinforcement. Interpersonal

strategy emphasizes the quality of interpersonal relationships whose developing in the classroom has a positive effect on establishing and maintaining classroom discipline. Didactical strategy refers to understanding that the process of establishing and maintaining classroom discipline is directly dependent on the characteristics of the curriculum, as well as on the organization of of teaching process.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

19

The goal of this research is to gain insight into the correlation between satisfying the teachers’ need for autonomy at school and strategies of classroom discipline used by teachers. The main tasks were to examine: 1) the teachers' opinions about satisfaction of their own need for autonomy in school, 2) the correlation between teachers' strategies of classroom discipline with their perceptions of need for autonomy satisfaction in school and 3) the correlation between socio-demographic and professional characteristics of teachers with the satisfaction of the teachers' need for autonomy. We started from the assumption that the strategies of classroom discipline which teachers use are correlated and that they reflect their own sense of autonomy at school, i. e., classroom discipline strategies of controlling type is used by teachers who feel low degree of autonomy in their own school. In this research10 we used instruments which consist of the survey type questions (for testing socio-demographic and professional characteristics of teachers) and scales. We applied two scales: scale TNAS11 and scale TSCD12. Data on instrument validation and on content of components of variable TSCD were published in the book Teachers' Models and Strategies of Classroom Discipline (Tadic, 2015)13. Items in self-report scale TNAS (Appendix 1) are indicators of teachers' autonomy in

school14. Some of the 18 items were formulated on the basis of theoretical assumptions, partly empirically acknowledged, about the basic factors of teachers’ perception of being controlled and under pressure in school (No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18). The remaining items reflect the teachers' experience of autonomous acting in school. The scale measures the

10 The results that we are presenting were obtained in the context of a broader research project whose aim was to examine: 1) the characteristics of teachers' beliefs about education and classroom discipline, 2) characteristics of actions for establishing and maintaining classroom discipline, and 3) correlates of these variables. The research was conducted in May 2013 (published in: Tadic, 2015). 11 Abbreviation for instrument: The Teachers' Need for Autonomy Satisfaction. 12 Abbreviation for instrument: The Teachers' Strategies of Classroom Discipline. 13 Based on results of factorial analysis we identifie three components: 1) the strategy of authoritarian

relations, 2) the strategy of punishment, rigorous rules and directions (classroom discipline strategies of controlling type) and 3) the strategy of conversations, interest and positive reinforcement (classroom discipline strategy of autonomous type). The strategy of autonomous type is independent of strategy of

authoritarian relations, and moderately strong correlated with strategy of punishment, rigorous rules and

directions (Scheme 1). Two strategies of controlling type are strongly correlating mutually. All three dimensions of classroom discipline strategies were slightly more expressed than the theoretical average, especially the strategy of autonomous type (Tadic, 2015). 14 The starting point for the construction of the scale TNAS was The Basic Needs in General Satisfaction

Scale (BNSG-S). The scales of satisfaction of basic needs are similar scales, some of them measure the general level of satisfaction of basic needs (theoretical basis is self-determination theory, basic needs are: autonomy, competence and relatedness) in someone's life, while others are aimed at measuring the degree of the basic needs satisfaction in certain areas. The original scale (Johnston & Finney, 2010: 294) has 21 items: 7 items are indicators of satisfaction of basic need for autonomy, 8 items are indicators of of satisfaction of basic need for relatedness and 6 items are indicators of satisfaction of basic need for competence. The general scale was used, with some adaptations, in numerous studies in the field of sports, psychology, psychotherapy, gender studies and other (according to: Johnston & Finney, 2010). When we talk about researches in the field of education, adapted versions of the general scale, which measures the satisfaction of basic needs have been used in researches in the field of physical education (Ntoumanis, 2005) and in the field of students’ engagement in prosocial activities (Gagné, 2003); in both cases the students were asked to answer. Adapted versions of scale (The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work

Scale: BNSW-S) were often used in researches realized in jobs in other fields (available at: http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/basic-psychological-needs-scale), but in researches in the field of basic needs satisfaction of the teachers in the schools, we found that it was used only in research that we alredy described in review of relevant researches (Taylor et al., 2008). In our version of the instrument we have adapted items from the general scale specified as indicators of satisfaction of basic need for autonomy, adapting them to the school context.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20

expression of teachers' sense of autonomy in the school regarding: participation in decision-

making (e.g., “I do not have many opportunities in school to decide autonomously what to do and in which way“), pressure from school administration (e.g., “Members of the school administration allocate responsibilities to many employees in the collective making everyone feel that they are actively involved into managing school.“), pressure from colleagues (e.g., “Colleagues are trying to understand how am I feeling about the situations I face every day at school.“), pressure from parents (e.g., “Parents of students more often pressure me about what students should learn, which grade they deserve or how I should treat them.“), teaching

methods (e.g., “The official teaching curriculum are limiting my creativity and flexibility about work in classroom.“) and assessment of student achievement (e.g., “Sometimes I feel pressure to align my assessment criteria according to the requirements of the collective.“). The sample was composed of primary school subject matter teachers in Serbia (N=444). Regarding gender, the sample has the following structure: 337 (75,9%) were female and 107 (24,1%) were male teachers. The average school teaching experience was 16 years. For further analysis, the respondents were divided into four groups depending on the length of their working experience: less than 10 years – 159 teachers (35,8%), from 11 to 20 years – 145 teachers (32,7%), from 21 to 30 years – 82 teachers (18,4%) and more than 30 years – 58 teachers (13,1%). The structure of the sample according to the subjects that teachers teach in school is as follows: mathematical-technical-natural sciences – 243 teachers (54.7%) and social sciences and humanities – 201 teachers (45.3%) In the study we used quantitative techniques of data collection. We applied parametric and nonparametric statistical techniques. Besides descriptive data analyzing by frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency and dispersion, we applied correlation, t-test, analysis of variance and chi-square test.

Results of research and discussion We presumed that the teachers' need for autonomy satisfaction can be measured using scale TNAS. A Principal Component method of extraction with Promax rotated factors was performed on the data. Regarding the number of factors, the criteria of Eigenvalue higher than one (Table 1), suggested three factors. The same number of factors suggested Scree test (Figure 1). However, it was decided that to retain the two-factor model is more interpretable solution. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0,865) confirmed that the data and sample size were adequate for factor analysis.

Table 1: The squared factors and percent of variance for the two-factor solution

for components of Teachers' need for autonomy satisfaction

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation solution Components

Total % of

Variance Cumulative % of

Variance Total

Control and pressure 4,762 29,765 29,765 4,293

Participation and freedom of thought

1,661 10,379 40,144 3,589


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21

Figure 1: Scree plot of the factorial validation of the scale TNAS

The first construct (Table 2) saturate items that suggest that teachers in the school feel pressure from colleagues, principals, parents and curriculum. The teacher has feeling that he has to do what others expect of him, that he is not independent, that has no opportunities for making choice, nor the possibility of being himself. We named this component Control and

pressure. The second construct (Table 2) saturate items related to the school climate which encourages teachers` participation in decision-making, active involvement of all members of the collective, their freedom of speech and thought. In such atmosphere the teacher has a perception that other collective members accept and respect his opinions and feelings. We named this component Participation and freedom of thought. The correlation between the extracted components was moderately strong and negative (r = –0,487), which suggests that schools, with more expressed teachers` perception of job pressure on employees, are often characterized by lower participation of all members of the collective in decision-making and reduced freedom of expression of their own opinions.

Table 2: Factor Structure of the scale TNAS

Factorial saturation Items

1.15 2.16

07. At work I often have to do things the way I am told. 0,851 05. I often feel pressure by colleagues (principal and / or collective) to change main

decisions or way of working. 0,697

09. I do not have many opportunities in school to decide autonomously what to do and in which way.

0,611

01. Sometimes I feel pressure to align my assessment criteria according to the requirements of the collective.

0,600

15 Control and pressure 16 Participation and freedom of thought


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22

15. Parents of students more often pressure me about what students should learn, which grade they deserve or how I should treat them.

0,587

04. At school I feel freedom to decide independently how I do my job. –0,557 10. In everyday situations at school I can be who I really am. –0,501 08. The opinions and wishes of students’ parents I do not see as pressure on the

personal style of teaching. –0,424

11. The official teaching curriculum are limiting my creativity and flexibility about work in classroom.

0,419

14. When I get an assignment from my superiors at work, I usually have to do it exactly as I am told.

0,374

16. The school administration encourages employees’ participation in important decision-making that affect the teachers' work.

0,868

02. Members of the school administration allocate responsibilities to many employees in the collective making everyone feel that they are actively involved into managing school.

0,771

06. Colleagues are trying to understand how am I feeling about the situations I face every day at school.

0,650

18. Members of the school administration often decide on behalf of the collective what should they do in school and in which way, without consultation with other employees.

–0,623

13. At collective meetings I feel completely free to express my ideas and opinions. 0,527

17. Tasks and requirements of school administration I perceive as pressure on personal work style.

0,343 –0,451

The extracted components and their contents allow the comparison of our research results with presented results of relevant studies. In the first place, with the results of study that examined the correlation between use of the three motivational strategies with teachers’ perceived job pressure and teachers’ autonomous causality orientation (Taylor et al., 2008). Descriptive information about the components of teachers' need for autonomy satisfaction are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Data of descriptive statistics for components of Teachers' need

for autonomy satisfaction

Components Min Max AM SD SkewnessKurtosis

Control and pressure –1,657 3,510 0 1 6,678 2,000

Participation and freedom of thought –3,466 1,775 0 1 –5,818 1,594

Distribution of component named Participation and freedom of thought is curved to the left (larger number of respondents achieve high scores), while component named Control and

pressure is curved to the right (larger number of respondents achieve low scores). Normalization of distribution was performed, after which the normalized data were used in further analyzes. In order to determine whether the average values of the results for components of Teachers'

need for autonomy satisfaction is higher or lower than the theoretical arithmetic mean (AMtheor = 3), we used the one sample t-test. The results show that the Control and pressure is statistically significantly lower than the theoretical average, while Participation and freedom of

thought is statistically significantly higher than theoretical arithmetic mean (Table 4).


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

23

Table 4: The significance of the score deviation for the components of Teachers' need for

autonomy satisfaction from theoretical arithmetic mean

Components AM AMtheor t (443) p

Control and pressure 2,23 3 –25,805 0,001

Participation and freedom of thought 3,79 3 22,454 0,001

When it comes to component Control and pressure 88,7% of respondents achieved a score that is below theoretical arithmetic mean, while the remaining 11,3% achieved a score that is above this value. At component Participation and freedom of thought the situation was reversed: 16,2% of respondents achieved a score below, while 83,8% score above the theoretical average. These results suggest that the majority of teachers perceived that there is no control and pressure in their schools and that there is an atmosphere that supports the involvement of all members of the collective in activities related to decision-making and the free expression of opinions. We believe that for the explanation of this data (which we did not expect) would be useful to consider the difference that stands out Nenad Havelka between certain components of the concept of teacher’s autonomy in the school. He stated that the teacher’s autonomy may be related to his position and roles in the school, whereby in many aspects and components (particularly the most important) of the teacher's work they leave no autonomy to him, but these are determined outside the school by "wide spread system of decisions on which he had no influence“ (Havelka, 1996: 173). On the other hand, he believes that, for many teachers, the autonomy that they have in their work (didactical autonomy) is major and very important and that it is the only good side of their calls. We suppose that a very high percentage of teachers who achieved score on the component Participation and freedom of thought that is above the theoretical average could be explained by the assumption that teachers primarily had in mind this type of personal autonomy while answering. Especially important for our research problem is Havelka’s explanation of the way this kind of didactical autonomy is transformed into didactical conformism (we do well if we have in mind the conditions in which we are working), whose result is "didactical uniformity - the predominance of routines and uniformity in the work of the majority of teachers" (Havelka, 1996: 177), which does not allow the development of the action autonomy of students. This interpretation is in accordance with the data we obtained in terms of the significance of deviations of scores on the components of classroom discipline strategies (Tadic, 2015), where over 88% of respondents in all three scales achieved scores that were above the theoretical average value. Of course, these results can be interpreted from the point of formulation of items from the instrument, and lead to a doubt about the sincerity of the respondents in completing the instruments. Otherwise, the data showing that a significant percentage of teachers in the component Participation and freedom of thought achieve a score that is above the theoretical average could be interpreted in two ways: either that our schools really have an atmosphere that supports the involvement of teachers in activities related to decision-making and freedom of expression, or that teachers have lowered their assessment criteria of school as a work environment that satisfies their need for autonomy.

***


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

24

In the relevant researches that have examined the correlation between the socio-contextual conditions and interpersonal behavior style in the school environment, the obtained data show that controlling behavior of teachers in classes is not directly correlated with their perception of job pressure in school. The conclusion based on the responses of teachers shows that the correlation is indirect, through teachers’ motivation toward work (Pelletier et

al., 2002). These conclusions were confirmed also when students reported on the behavior of teachers (Roth et al., 2007). It turned out that teachers' perception of basic needs satisfaction is directly (positively) related with the use of procedural motivational strategies (r = 0,22) and interpersonal motivational strategies (r = 0,23), as well as indirectly, through the autonomous

work motivation of teachers, with all three motivational strategies (Taylor et al., 2008) 17. We expected that in a specific field of teaching, such is establishing and maintaining classroom discipline, the existence of a correlation will also be confirmed between teachers' perception of satisfaction of need for autonomy in school and actions that they use to maintain discipline in the classes.

Table 5: Correlation between dimension of Teachers' strategies of classroom discipline and

Teachers' need for autonomy satisfaction

Teachers' Autonomy:

Strategies of discipline:

Control and pressure


Strategy of conversations, interest and positive reinforcement

–0,017 0,218*

Strategy of authoritarian relations –0,045 0,084

Strategy of punishment, rigorous rules and directions

0,057 0,063

* Indicate statistical significance p < 0,01

Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggests that only the use of the strategy of conversations,

interest and positive reinforcement (strategy of autonomous type) is correlated with the teachers’ perceptions of autonomy in school, specifically only with a component Participation

and freedom of thought (Table 5). This correlation is relatively low (r = 0,218). It could be claimed that the more a teacher has freedom to express his/her own opinions and participates in decision-making at school, the more he or she uses conversation, positive reinforcement and respects the interests of the students in order to maintain discipline. The other two components of classroom discipline strategies (both of controlling type) are not correlated with the components of teacher’s autonomy in school. These results correspond to the presented results of earlier study of correlation between teacher’s perception of satisfaction of basic needs (all three: autonomy, competence, relatedness) and motivational strategies applied by physical education teachers (Taylor et al., 2008). We have previously presented the results of the correlation between components of teachers’ autonomy in schools with components of classroom discipline strategies. Below we will show schematically the correlation between all these components (Scheme 1), which will

17 Correlation between work motivation of teachers and use of motivational strategies are slightly stronger: r = 0,34 / r = 0,35 / r = 0,49 (for procedural motivational strategy).


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

25

be used for final interpretation of the results obtained in terms of the correlation between these variables.

Scheme 1: Significant correlation between components of Teachers' strategies of classroom

discipline and Teachers' need for autonomy satisfaction

* Indicate statistical significance p < 0,01

As we expected, a positive correlation was determined between component of teachers’ autonomy in school (participation and freedom of thought – teacher reports that school climate encourages the active involvement of all members of collectives in decision-making and that have feeling that other collective members respect his opinions and feelings) with the only component of classroom discipline strategies of autonomous type (strategy of

conversations, interest and positive reinforcement – a teacher is speaking with students and negotiates the solutions of conflict situations with students, preventing discipline problems trough the efforts to get students interested in the subject matter and encouraging positive students’ behavior), but their correlation is relatively low. On the other hand, the assumption about the existence of direct correlation between teacher’s perception of the control and pressure in school with their use of actions of the controlling type in an effort to establish and maintain classroom discipline is not empirically acknowledged. This correlations are not significant, indicating that the ways in which teachers are establishing and maintaining classroom discipline are probably more dependent on other variables (personality of the teacher, their beliefs, locus of causality, feelings of competence and success, etc.), rather than teachers’ perception of the school climate.

Strategy of conversations, interest and positive

reinforcement

Strategy of authoritarian relations


Control and pressure

Strategy of punishment, rigorous rules and

directions

0,332*

0,411*

–0,487*

0,218*


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26

It is possible that there is a correlation between sense of control and pressure at school with the tested variables of controlling type, but indirectly, through the mediating factors. We could not determine this with our research. Even if an autonomous work motivation of

teachers was used as a variable, we don’t think we could get a high correlation with the behavior of teachers, considering the obtained models of correlation and strength of correlation between the variables identified in earlier researches (Pelletier et al., 2002; Roth et

al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2008).

*** The last research task was to test the correlation between the satisfaction of the teachers' need for autonomy in schools with the control variables – socio-demographic and professional characteristics of teachers (gender, subjects that teachers teach in school, school teaching experience). Tests regarding correlation between the autonomy of teachers in schools with control variables have not confirmed the existence of statistically significant differences, and the results of these analyzes will not be presented.

Conclusion The assumption about the existence of correlation between the classroom discipline strategies with teachers' perception of satisfaction of their need for autonomy in school was only partially empirically confirmed. As expected, the positive correlation was confirmed between one component of teachers’ autonomy in school, participation and freedom of

thought, with the only component of classroom discipline strategies of autonomous type. This correlation is relatively low. On the other hand, the assumption about the direct correlation between teachers' perception of control and pressure at school with neither separate component of classroom discipline strategies of controlling type. Methodological solutions in our research, regarding tested variables, used instruments, can be used in further researches in this area which would allow the empirical verification of the results and come up with new knowledge about the phenomena of teachers' needs and teaching strategies in dealing with students in the classroom. It would be significant, in this sense, to do research using also the other appropriate research techniques, class observation and interviewing. We believe that in this way possible disadvantages of the use of scales for testing the attitudes of teachers could be overcome, especially those related to the provision of socially desirable responses or responding on the phenomenon of pressure on teachers influenced by the perception of such eventual pressure. The conducted research misses the testing of teachers’ work motivation and it’s correlation with the tested variables. However, based on the results of previous researches, it can be assumed that their correlations would be significant (but not too strong). Such result would put emphasis on the need for directing the activities of educational policies creators and members of the school administration on autonomy-supportive type of motivation of teachers for work, in order to achieve positive effects also on the orientation of teachers to the autonomy-supportive actions toward students in class. As important topic for further researches, as well as in the realization of programs of professional teacher education, we see opportunities and strategies for recognizing and changing the controlling contextual and intrapersonal factors of style of behavior by in-service teachers and students of teacher education faculties. We believe that the movement of school


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

27

culture toward supporting teachers’ autonomy can significantly increase the teachers’ identification with the introduction of changes, innovation and new reform programs in teaching, contributing to their personal and professional development. In this way, significant conditions could be created for substantial support to students’ autonomy in the classroom.

References

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, 227-268.

Bodroza, B., Deric, I. i Lalic-Vucetic, N. (2012). Inicijativa i autonomna motivacija. U J. Sefer i S. Sevkusic (urednici), Stvaralastvo, inicijativa i saradnja – Novi pristup obrazovanju, I deo (125-152). Beograd: Institut za pedagoska istrazivanja.

Dordic, V. i Tubic, T. (2010). Teorija samoodredenja i razumevanje motivacije ucenika u nastavi fizickog vaspitanja. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, Vol. 42, Br. 1, 128-149.

Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 26, 331-362. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior

engagement. Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 27, 199-223. Havelka, N. (1996). Pitanje odnosa autonomije nastavnika i autonomije ucenika. U S. Gasic-Pavisic (urednik).

Autonomija licnosti i vaspitanje (167-180). Beograd: Pedagosko drustvo Srbije. Johnston, M. M. & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and

conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 35, 280-296.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F. & Holt, K (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on children’s intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, No. 3, 233-248.

Deric, I., Devic, R. i Lalic-Vucetic, N., (2009). Ucenicka autonomija i interpersonalni stil nastavnika u teoriji samodeterminacije. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja, Vol. 41, Br. 2, 349-366.

Niemiec, C. P. & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, 133-144.

Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education based on self-determination theory, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 97, 444-453.

Pelletier, L. G. & Sharp, E. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, 174-183.

Pelletier, L.G., Séguin-Lévesque, C. & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 94, 186-196.

Psunder, M. (2005). How effective is school discipline in preparing students to become responsible citizens: Slovenian teachers' and students' view. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 21, No. 3, 273-286.

Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y. & Kaplan, H. (2007): Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to selfdetermined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 4, 761-774.

Tadic, A. (2015). Nastavnicki modeli i strategije razredne discipline. Beograd: Uciteljski fakultet. Taylor, I., Ntoumanis, N. & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding

antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 75-94.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

28

Appendix 1: Scale TNAS 18

Instruction: Dear teacher, in front of you is a series of statements related to your job and relationships in the collective. Please read carefully each statement, consider each of them and express extent to which you agree with each statement. There are no "correct" and "incorrect" responses, all answers are good if they are sincere. Your agreement or disagreement with the statement, you'll present by rounding the number 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, and the numbers have the following meanings: 1 – Disagree strongly; 2 – Generally disagree; 3 – I am undecided; 4 – Generally agree; 5 – Agree strongly.

1. Sometimes I feel pressure to align my assessment criteria according to the requirements of the collective.

2. Members of the school administration allocate responsibilities to many employees in the collective making everyone feel that they are actively involved into managing school.

3. I have feeling that in our school we deal more with deadlines, preparing for the evaluation of teaching and student' assessment, than with the essence of education.

4. At school I feel freedom to decide independently how I do my job.

5. I often feel pressure by colleagues (principal and / or collective) to change mein decisions or way of working.

6. Colleagues are trying to understand how am I feeling about the situations I face every day at school.

7. At work I often have to do things the way I am told.

8. The opinions and wishes of students’ parents I do not see as pressure on the personal style of teaching.

9. I do not have many opportunities in school to decide autonomously what to do and in which way.

10. In everyday situations at school I can be who I really am.

11. The official teaching curriculum are limiting my creativity and flexibility about work in classroom.

12. The school administration permanently insist on achieving the set educational goals.

13. At collective meetings I feel completely free to express my ideas and opinions.

14. When I get an assignment from my superiors at work, I usually have to do it exactly as I am told.

15. Parents of students more often pressure me about what students should learn, which grade they deserve or how I should treat them.

16. The school administration encourages employees’ participation in important decision-making that affect the teachers' work.

17. Tasks and requirements of school administration I perceive as pressure on personal work style.

18. Members of the school administration often decide on behalf of the collective what should they do in school and in which way, without consultation with other employees.

18 Presented scale represents the final version of the instrument used in research after conduction of pilot research and logical analysis of instrument. After validation, using factor analysis, the items no. 3 and 12 are eliminated from instrument. The final version of the scale has 16 items.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

29

Biographical note:

Aleksandar Tadic (1981) defended his doctoral thesis (2014) entitled Contemporary Models and

Strategies of Establishing and Maintaining Classroom Discipline at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade (Pedagogy Department). He is employed at the Faculty of Teachers’ Education in Belgrade, teaching the subject General Pedagogy. In his professional papers, he researches the problems within the field of classroom discipline, classroom management, contemporary educational theory, but also some other pedagogical themes which are directly or indirectly related to education and contemporary models of classroom discipline. He participated in the research project Changes in Primary School Education – Problems, Aims and Strategies (2007-2010), and since 2011 he has been a researcher in the project: Concepts and strategies of

providing quality basic education and pedagogical work.

Documents

POVEZANOST STEPENA ZADOVOLjENOSTI POTREBE ZA