Ways of communication between trainers and parents
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i4.5752Keywords:
Coach, parents, communication, sportsman, coach-family coorperationAbstract
The aim of this study is to determine the ways in which the coaches who work in different branches communicate with parents and to determine the importance and importance of using these communication paths in terms of different variables.The study population is the same as the sample of the study and consists of 70 (41 Male 29 Female) coaches (permanent, contracted) who work in İzmir.In this research, cross-sectional approach is adopted from general survey models. The data were collected by Coşkun (2010) by means of scale form m Parent-Teacher Communication Paths ”, which was conducted for validity and reliability. The scale is 5-point Likert, consisted of 47 items of behavior and eight sub-dimensions aiming to measure the level of care and realization of communication with parents.
As the data were normally distributed and n> 30, dependent t-test was used to compare the level of care with the parents, but the sub-groups were n <30 and non-parametric tests were preferred for the evaluation of other independent variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for Mann Whitney-U, education and coaching level independent variables.As a result of the analyzes, a statistically significant difference was found in all sub-scales and total scores between the level of care of the coaches and the way of communication with parents (p <0.05). In the case of caregivers of parents with regard to the ways of communicating with parents, in the sub-dimension of socio-cultural activities in terms of gender argument, in the parent visit sub-dimension in terms of the educational level argument, in terms of the instructor-level argument, in the sub-dimensions of telephone-internet, parent visits, information-informing there was a significant difference (p <0.05).In terms of gender independent variables, there is a statistically significant difference between the sub-dimensions of telephone-internet, parent visits, home visits sub-dimensions, co-operative level, and telephone-internet and parent visits (p <0.05).According to these results, it can be said that the coaches cannot perform as much as the value attributed to the parents. In addition, it can be said that women are more concerned with socio-cultural activities than the ways of communication, the group with low level of education gives more importance to parents' meetings, while those with high levels of coaching tend to pay more attention to telephone, parent visits and informing-informing ways. In terms of the phenomenon of conducting communication paths, it is observed that males are better in telephone-internet, parental hierarchy and home-visit. It has also been found that telephone-internet and parent meeting paths are better performed as the seniority of coaching increases.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Aydemir, İ. (2008). “Parent Activities Affecting Student and Teacher Performance in Primary Education” Master Thesis, Yeditepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul.
Çalık, C. (2007). “The Role of School-Environment Relation in School Improvement: A Conceptual Analysis” Journal of Gazi University Education Faculty, 27(3):123-129
Çamlıyer, H., Çamlıyer, H. (1998). Movement Education and Play in Children. İzmir: Can Ofset.
Ceyhan, E. (2008). Family Participation and Family Guidance in the Education Process. A.S. Türküm, (Ed.), Parents Education (153-176). Eskişehir: Anadolu University Open Education Publications.
D’Agelo, D., Adler, R. (1991). “A Catalyst for Improvıng Parent Involvement”, Phı Delta Kappan, 72 (5):350-354 .
Demirbulak, D. (2000). “A Study on Parent Teacher Interviews” National Education Journal, (146):53-55.
Ersanlı, K. (1989). « Fundamentals of Teacher-Student Relations in Secondary Education» Journal of Faculty of Education, Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Education Publication, 4: 40.
Güven, M., Güven, S. (2002). “Perceptions and Guidance Requirements of Mothers with Children in Primary Education”. Journal of Education for Life, 75: 56-59.
Kaşıkçı, M. (1996). “Opinions of Teachers on Their Qualifications in Cooperation with Parents in Primary Education”. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Ankara University, Institute of Social Sciences,Ankara.
Kolay, Y. (2004). “The importance of school-family-environment cooperation in education system” National Education Journal, (164):94-104 .
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations in context: parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, (38): 77-133.
Tutar, H. (2003). Organizational communication. Ankara: Seçkin Press.
Yıldırım, C., Dönmez, B. (2008). “A Study on School-Family Cooperation” Journal of Electronic Social Sciences, (23):98-115.
Yiğit, B. (2009). “School-Community Relations and Social Participation”. Turkish Education System and School Management Ed: Vehbi Çelik. Ankara: Pegem Publishing
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors can retain copyright, while granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which then permits authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons can be consulted for flexible copyright licenses.
©1999 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.