The Perception of Student-teachers and Their Instructors toward Each Other: A Transactional Analysis Evaluation

(1)

Abstract

The quality of communication between a teacher and a student is one of the major fac- tors that affects the efficiency of teaching-learning activities. In this research, the perceptions of student-teachers and their instructors at Marmara University, Atatürk Faculty of Education, have been comparatively investigated in terms of ideal/actual faculty- teacher and student. The sample consisted of 312 student-teachers and 33 fac- ulty-teachers. The research was theoretically based on Transactional Analysis, a theory that explains human behavior and communication with three ego states as Child, Adult and Parent. The data from the faculty-teachers and student- teachers were collected by The Ego State Inventory developed by Ar› (1989) and included perceptions toward each other, ideal /actual faculty-teacher and student. The major findings were as follows: The perceptions of student / faculty- teachers showed similarities regarding ideal faculty- teacher and student. Faculty teacher perceived actual students higher in Child ego state whereas student-teachers perceived actual faculty- teacher higher in Parent ego state.

Findings were discussed in relation to Transactional Analysis and their educational consequences.

Key Words

Transactional Analysis, Ego States, Faculty-teacher, Student-teacher, Communication.

The Perception of Student-teachers and Their Instructors toward Each

Other: A Transactional Analysis Evaluation

Müge AKBA⁄*, Levent DEN‹Z**

* Correspondence: Assist. Prof., Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Department of Educational Sciences, Göztepe 81040 ‹stanbul, Turkey.

E-mail: makbag@marmara.edu.tr

** Assist. Prof., Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education Department of Educational Sciences E-mail: ldeniz@marmara.edu.tr

(2)

The quality of teaching-learning activities mostly depend on the quality of teacher-student interactions. Mukhopadhyay and Saxena (1981) indicated that in the process of learning teachers not only facilitates the intellectual development but also the emotional and social developments. The interaction between a student and a teacher should be in harmony and far from any conflict. There are abundant research in the literature on the subject of student-teacher interactions within classroom. Whereas some of these studies are focused on the effect of teacher behavior on student achievement, learning, motivation, and student behavior (Kim, 1984; ﬁahin, 1997; Thomas, 1994), others investigated the effective teaching behavior and communication skills based on different theoretical bases (Bangir, 1997;

Hughes, Cavell & Willson, 2001; Öner, 1999; Özgit, 1991;

Simmons, 1993). One of these communication theories is Transactional Analysis (TA).

Transactional Analysis was developed by Eric Berne in the beginning of the 60’s. The theory tries to explain human behavior and communication process with ego states of the individuals. Berne (1988) explains ego state, in his book, What Do You Say After You Say Hello?, as …coherent systems of thought and feeling manifested by corresponding patterns of behavior. (p. 11). Ego states have been studied by different researchers and it has been found to be a meas- urable and observable phenomenon within general population (Dusay & Dusay, 1984; Heyer, 1987). Each person has three ego states that are separate and distinct sources of behavior: The Parent ego state, the Adult ego state and the Child ego state. In an other classification, in terms of interpersonal relations and communication psychology, ego states are divided into five categories as Critical Parent, Nurturing Parent, Adult, Natural Child and Adapted Child ego states (Berne, 1968; Dolliver & Mixon, 1977; James &

Jongeward, 1993). According to TA, human behavior should be under the control of Adult ego state, although we need the support of each ego states for a healthy personality.

Mukhopadhyay and Saxena (1981) investigated communication processes between students and teachers in terms of TA and recommended that teachers should mainly use the Adult ego state support- ed by both the Nurturing Parent and Natural Child ego states in order to motivate their students in reaching their educational goals.

It is also recommended that the Critical Parent and Adapted Child ego states should not be used widely in educational settings. Some TA-based group-studies lend support in increasing effective communication skills among teachers (Çam, 1997; Harbin, 1975; Patterson

& Sikler, 1974; Wolfgang & Brudenell, 1982). In these studies,

(3)

teachers realized that they commonly used the Parent ego state and at the end of the experiments learned how to use the Adult ego state to communicate with their students. In another study, student-teachers reported that they usually used the Nurturing Parent ego state and Adult ego state (Çam, 1997b). In most of these previous studies, data were collected only via the self-reports of the instructors.

However, in the present study, the data were collected from both students and faculty- teachers.. Therefore, the purpose of this study was investigate the perceptions of student-teachers and their instructors at Marmara University, Atatürk Faculty of Education, in terms of ideal /actual faculty- teacher and student.

Method

Sample

The sample of the study consisted of 312 student-teachers (42.3 % male and 57.4 % female) and 33 faculty teachers (42.4 % male and 57.6 % female) from different departments of Marmara University, Atatürk Faculty of Education. The mean age of the students was 22.25 (SD= 2.70) and 42.74 (SD= 10.30) for the faculty-teachers. In terms of the study majors, the distribution of the students were as follows: 15.4

% Counseling, 6.1 % Mathematics Education, 10.9 % Physics Education, 10.3 % Fine Arts Education, 7.4 % History Education, 10.6 % German Language Education, 8 % Music Education, 7.4 % Geography Education, 11,2 % Chemistry Education, and 12,8 % English Language Education. The faculty-teachers were also from different departments and they had different levels of teaching experience (24.2 % lower than 5 years, 75.8 % 5 years or higher).

Measures

The data were collected from the student-teachers and faculty-teachers in terms of their perceptions toward each other and themselves regarding the ideal and actual faculty-teacher and student by using The Ego State Scale (ESS). Demographic data, such as gender, age, teaching experiences, and etc., were collected using the Individual Information Sheet developed by the researchers.

The ESS was developed by Ar› (1989) and consists of 95 adverbs.

The scale has five subscales: Critical Parent, Nurturing Parent, Adult, Natural Child and Adapted Child ego states. Subjects are asked to choose the adverbs that describe them. Each adverb has a different value ranging 0 to 4 in each ego state and finally, five ego states scores are found. These total scores of each ego states are displayed in a bar chart called egogram.

(4)

The face and content validity of the scale have been provided by expert view. The correlation coefficients for the construct validity have been found ranging from 0.70 to 0.93 with the similar subscales of the Turkish version of the Adjective Check List (Akkoyunlu &

Bacanl›, 1988). Test re-test reliability scores were found to be ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 for the subscales. In the present study, the four ESS forms with different instructions were given each subject to describe ideal/actual faculty-teacher and student.

Results

The results of the study showed that student-teachers perceived the ideal faculty-teacher as having Adult (M = 0.25), Nurturing Parent (M = 0.25), and Natural Child (M = 0.19) ego states. On the con- trary, they perceived the actual faculty-teacher as having Critical

Parent ego state (M = 0.30) with the highest mean followed by Adapted Child ego state (M = 0.20). Paired t-test results showed statistical differences (p < .01) between the perception of students teachers ideal and actual faculty-teacher. Student-teachers perceived

the actual faculty-teacher lower in Adult, Nurturing Parent and Natural Child ego states and higher in Critical Parent and Adapted

Child ego states compare to ideal faculty -teacher.

The highest mean scores of the student-teachers about the ideal and actual student were Adult, Nurturing Parent, and Natural Child ego states, from the highest to the lowest. Students teachers’ perceptions about the ideal and actual student showed statistical differences (p <

.01), except for Natural Child ego state.

Faculty-teachers perceived the ideal student as in Adult ego state (M

= 0.25) and actual student as in Adapted Child ego state (M = 0.25) with the highest mean scores. Faculty-teachers’ perceptions about the ideal and actual student showed statistical differences (p < .01), except for Critical Parent and Natural Child ego states. Faculty- teachers perceived the ideal student lower in Nurturing Parent and Adult ego states and higher in Adapted Child ego state compared to the actual student.

Faculty-teachers perceived the ideal and actual faculty-teacher highest in Adult ego state followed by Nurturing Parent ego state, and lowest in Adapted Child ego state. Statistical differences were found (p < .05) between faculty teachers’ perceptions about the actual and ideal faculty-teacher, except for Critical Parent, Nurturing Parent, and Natural Child ego states.

(5)

The perceptions of faculty-teachers and student-teachers about the ideal faculty teacher showed similarities in their egograms. The highest mean scores were Adult and Nurturing Parent ego states, and the lowest score was Adapted Child ego state. Significant differences between the perceptions of faculty-teachers and student-teachers were found in Critical Parent and Nurturing Parent ego states (p <

.01). The results showed that faculty teachers described ideal faculty- teacher with higher scores in Critical Parent ego state and lower scores in Nurturing Parent ego state compare to student- teachers.

On the other hand, the perceptions of faculty-teachers and student- teachers about actual faculty-teacher were found to be different in their egograms. Faculty-teachers perceived actual faculty-teacher as in Adult (M = 0,24) and Nurturing Parent (M = 0,23) ego states with the highest mean scores, not in Adapted Child ego state (M = 0.17).

On the contrary, student-teachers perceived actual faculty-teacher as in Critical Parent (M = 0.30) and Adapted Child ego states (M = 0.20) with the highest mean scores, not in Nurturing Parent (M = 0.14) or Natural Child ego states (M = 0.17). Statistical analysis showed differences (p < .01) except Natural Child ego state.

The perceptions of faculty-teachers and student-teachers about the ideal student had similarities in their egograms. For both groups, the highest mean scores were in Adult and Nurturing Parent ego states and the lowest mean scores were in Adapted Child ego state.

Significant statistical differences were found between faculty-teachers’ and students-teachers’ perceptions about the ideal student, except for Natural Child ego state.

The perceptions of faculty-teachers and student-teachers about the actual student showed differences in their egograms. Faculty-teachers perceived actual student as in Adapted Child (M = 0.25) and Natural Child ego states (M = 0.20) with the highest mean scores, not in Adult ego state (M = 0.16). Student-teachers perceived the actual student as in Nurturing Parent ego state (M = 0.23) with the highest mean followed by Adult ego state (M = 0.22), not in Critical Parent ego state (M = 0.17) or Adapted Child ego state (M = 0.19).

Significant statistical differences were found, except Natural Child ego state, between faculty-teachers’ and student-teachers’ percep- tions about the actual student (p< .01). Faculty-teachers described the actual student with higher mean scores in Critical Parent and Adapted Child ego states and lower mean scores in Adult and Nurturing Parent ego states compare to student- teachers.

(6)

Discussion

Both faculty-teachers and student-teachers described the ideal faculty-teacher and student mostly with behavioral patterns of Adult, Nurturing Parent, and Natural Child ego states, whereas they described them with fewer behavioral patterns of Critical Parent and Adapted Child ego states. These findings are similar with the distribution of ego states for an ideal individual in Dusay’s (1984) egogram profile. Mukhopadhyay and Saxena (1981) also indicated that the ego states that contain the expected behaviors of teachers were Nurturing Parent, Adult, and Natural Child.

On the other hand, faculty-teachers perceived and described the actual student as passive, timid and obedient (i.e., Adapted Child ego state) and fun and impulsive (i.e., Natural child ego state). Student- teachers described the actual faculty-teacher as authoritarian, puni- tive, prejudicial, conventional, and judgmental (i.e., Critical Parent ego state) rather than problem solving, logical, adaptive, and objec- tive (i.e., Adult ego state).

It is surprising that student teachers and faculty-teachers described themselves (as actual faculty teacher and student) best fit to ideal patterns. These findings are consistent with the findings of Durmuﬂçelebi (1996) that faculty-teachers describe themselves close to ideal patterns. But students’ opinion about actual teacher was found to be different from the teachers point of view. In short, it is possible to con- clude that communication in the classroom far from the expected ideal level. Different research methods are recommended for further investigations such as observation and interviews based on case studies (using video/audio taping) in order to find out the source of different perceptions of faculty/student teachers.

Teacher behaviors and in-class communication should be investigated in terms of TA in primary and secondary school levels. The results of several studies (e.g., Çam, 1997; Harbin, 1975; Patterson &

Sikler, 1974) showed that TA-based communication courses helped teachers to develop their communicative skills. Therefore, TA-based communication courses should be incorporated into teacher training programs in order to help teachers use convenient ego states to communicate well with their students in their classrooms. Same efforts should be put in action for teachers in their in-service training programs as well.

(7)

Kaynakça/References

Akba¤, M. (2000). Stresle bafla ç›kma tarzlar›n›n üniversite ö¤rencilerinde olumsuz otomatik düflünceler, TA ego durumlar› ve baz› de¤iflkenler aç›s›ndan incelenmesi.

Yay›nlanmam›ﬂ doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi E¤itim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, ‹stanbul.

Akkoyun, F. & Bacanl›, H. (1990). ACL-S›fat Tarama Listesi’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlan- mas›: TA ego durumlar› ölçekleri ile bir çal›ﬂma. V. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi Psikoloji-Seminer Dergisi Özel Say›s›, 8, 637-643.

Akkoyun, F. (1995). Transaksiyonel analize giriﬂ. Ankara: 72TDFO.

Akkoyun, F. (1998). Transaksiyonel Analiz: Psikolojide iﬂlemsel çözümleme yaklaﬂ›m›. Ankara: Nobel.

Alisinano¤lu, F. (1995). Üniversite ö¤rencilerinin ben (ego) durumlar› ile ana-baba tutumlar›n› alg›lamalar›n› etkileyen baz› de¤iﬂkenlerin incelenmesi.Yay›nlanmam›ﬂ doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Ar›, R. (1989). Üniversite ö¤rencilerinin bask›n ben durumlar› ve baz› özlük nitelik- lerinin ben durumlar›, at›lganl›klar› ve uyum düzeylerine etkisi. Yay›nlanmam›ﬂ dok- tora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Bacanl›, H. (1991). S›fat tarama listesi el kitab›. Konya: Toplum Kitabevi Bacanl›, H. (1992, Eylül). Türk toplumunda gençlerin yaﬂl›lara bak›ﬂ›. VII. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresinde sunulan bildiri, Ankara.

Bacanl›, H. (1995a, Eylül). S›fat Tarama Listesi’nde be¤enilen ve be¤enilmeyen özel- likler-Konya Selçuk Üniversitesi ö¤rencileri üzerinde bir araﬂt›rma. II. E¤itim Bilimleri Kongresinde sunulan bildiri, Ankara.

Bacanl›, H. (1995b). Tanr› ve peygamber kavramlar› (Selçuk Üniversitesi’nde bir araﬂt›rma). Din E¤itimi Araﬂt›rmalar› Dergisi, 2, 155-163.

Bacanl›, H., Ahokas M., & Best D. L. (1994). Stereotypes of old adults in Turkey and Finland. In A. Bouvy van de Vijve, J.R. Boski P., & Schmitz, P. (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology (pp. 307-319). Lise: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Bangir, G. (1997). S›n›f içi iletiflime iliflkin ö¤retmen-ö¤renci davran›fllar› görüflleri ve önerileri. Yay›nlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Bafltu¤, G. (1993). Histerik kad›nlar›n ve efllerinin kendilerini ve birbirlerini alg›lamalar›n›n karfl›laflt›r›lmas› (TA ego durumlar› bak›m›ndan).Yay›nlanmam›fl yük- sek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Berne, E. (1988). What do you say after you say hello? California: Corgi Books.

Çam, S. (1995). Ö¤retmen adaylar›n›n ego durumlar› ile problem çözme becerisi alg›s›

iliﬂkisinin incelenmesi. Psikolojik Dan›ﬂma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2 (6), 37-42.

Çam, S. (1997a). ‹letiﬂim becerileri e¤itimi program›n›n ö¤retmen adaylar›n›n ego durumlar›na ve problem çözme becerileri alg›lar›na etkisi. Yay›nlanmam›ﬂ doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Çam, S. (1997b). Farkl› özellikler aç›s›ndan ö¤retmen adaylar›n›n ego durumlar›n›n incelenmesi. III. Ulusal Psikolojik Dan›ﬂma ve Rehberlik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitab›

içinde (s. 237-244). Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi .

(8)

Dolliver, R. & Mixon R. (1977). Classifiying occupations with ego states.

Transactional Analysis Journal, 7, 170-175.

Durmuflçelebi, M. (1996). Yüksekö¤retim kurumlar›nda ö¤retim elemanlar›ndan bek- lenen ve gözlenen davran›fllar›n düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Yay›nlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Dusay, J. M. (1972). Egogram and constancy hypothesis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 5 (3), 92-96.

Dusay, John M., & Dusay K. M. (1984). Transactional Analysis. In R. J.Corsini (Ed.), Current psychotherapies (3rd ed., pp. 392-444). Illinois FE: Peacock Publishers.

Harbin, S. L. (1975). The effects of a teacher workshop in Transactional Analysis of teacher flexibility in thinking, locus of control, flexibility in use of ego states, and on teacher-pupil interactions. Dissertation Abstracts, 35 ( 9), 4632-4633B.

Heyer, N. R. (1987). Empirical research on ego state theory. Transactional Analysis Journal, 17 (1), 286-293.

Hughes, J. N. , Cavell T. A., & Willson V. (2001). Further support for the develop- mental significance of the quality of the teacher-student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 289-301.

Jongeward, D. & James, M. (1993). Kazanmak için do¤ar›z (2. bask›, çev., Tülin ﬁenruh). ‹stanbul: ‹nk›lap Yay›nevi.

Kim, J. (1994). The roles of students’ interaction in classroom learning: A case study of a second-grade classroom in Korea. Dissertation Abstracts, DAI-A 55 / 03, p.467.

Mukhopadhyay, M. & Saxena A. B. (1981). Teacher classroom behaviour and trans- actional analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 213 665, 20) Öner, M. (1999). ‹lkö¤retim okullar› I. kademe ö¤retmenlerinin s›n›fta iletiﬂimi sa¤lama etkinlikleri. Yay›nlanmam›ﬂ yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, ‹stanbul.

Özgit, fi. (1991). ‹letiflim becerileri konusunda verilen e¤itimin iletiflim çat›flmalar›na girme e¤ilimi üzerindeki etkisi. Yay›nlanmam›fl yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniver- sitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, ‹stanbul.

Patterson, L. E., & Sikler, J.R. (1974, November). Teacher as helpers: Extending gu›dance contact. The School Counselor, 113-120.

Simmons, C. N. (1993). An investigation of the attitudes of educators concerning teacher nonverbal communication skills in relation to classroom management.

Dissertation Abstracts, MAI 31/ 01, P.63.

fiahin, T. (1997). ‹lkokul sosyal bilgiler ve matematik derslerinde ö¤retmen-ö¤renci etkileflim s›kl›¤›n›n ö¤renme düzeyine ve akademik benlik kavram›na etkisi. Yay›nlan- mam›fl doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Thomas, C. E. (1994). An analysis of teacher socio-communicative style as a predic- tor of classroom communication behaviours, student liking, motivation, and learning.

Dissertation Abstracts, AAI-A 55 / 06, p.1465.

Wolfgang ,C. H. & Brudennell, G. (1982). The many faces of praise. Early Child Development and Care, 9, 237-243.