Teacher is important (Boreham et al., 2006; Ngimbudzi, 2009; Seco, 2002; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010). When teachers enjoy their work they do not want to leave their schools, they are committed to their job and their profession – they are stimulated to perform their job very well to achieve school goals. Teachers with high job satisfaction could outperform those without high job satisfaction (Sargent and Hannum, 2005; Klassen and Chiu, 2010). ‘Satisfied teachers are likely to be more enthusiastic and to spend more time and energy on educating students' (Nguni et al., 2006, in Cerit, 2009). Accordingly, satisfied and productive teachers are a key factor in the success of education (Firman and Tola, 2008) and can contribute to students’ achievement as a key indicator for school performance; see for exam-ple, ‘Gender and experience in job satisfaction’ (Menon and Athanasoula-Reppa, 2011); and ‘the relevance of “personal mastery” to leadership’ (Retna, 2011). A teacher usually has to complete the following activities in teaching process: (1) explain the core knowledge of a problem; (2) show how to solve the problems with specific knowledge; (3) provide solutions and worked examples of a problem; (4) give targeted feedback to students in the process of their trying to solve the problem; (5) recommend related activities based on students' cognitive state. Student model is the core element of ITS, based on which ITS is able to select the most suitable teaching strategies, provide related examples according to the needs of students, and replace human teachers to some extent (Shi et al., 2002).

Decisions made prior to teaching might relate to organizing the content material or designing activities to maximize students’ interest and engagement. Decisions during teaching might focus on whether students are learning or the types of adjustments that are needed, and judgments made after teaching could determine the types of feedback or grades that students should receive or the need for follow-up activities. All of these decisions are influenced by the ongoing classroom context, as well as a teacher’s experiences, values, and knowledge of content, pedagogy, and individual students (Bernstein-Colton and Sparks-Langer, 1993). The act of making instructional decisions during and after the act of teaching requires several skills. First, teachers must assess students’ ongoing performance and learning by observing their responses, examining their writing, communicating, or interacting with students, and providing multiple choice, true/false, or similar forms of selected response assessments. These methods of formative assessment, which can be planned ahead of time or employed spontaneously, enable teachers to identify difficulties with students’ participation and/or learning (Bell and Cowie, 2001; Shepard, 2005). Second, teachers must interpret and react to information about student learning by providing richer explanations or demonstrations, altering students’ assignments, or adjusting their learning goals to add or subtract complexity from the lesson. Wilson et al. (1987) describe this process as ‘‘mediation’’ because the continuous adjustment of instruction enables the teacher to mediate students’ current understandings and the goals of a lesson.

Decision-making is important in organisations including schools because the success of an organisation depends on the quality of the decisions taken (Robbins et al., 2009). Different decision-making contexts can encourage the use of a different decision-making style to achieve the most desirable alternative outcome (Scott and Bruce, 1995).

How decisions are effectively made in a school are usually reliant on principals because they are the ones who are usually in charge of setting up the decision-making process (Nutt, 2008). This decision-making process can help accommodate inputs from teachers and achieve effective decision-making. Effective decision-making, according to Rausch (2005), involves the follow-ing steps: defining issues to be addressed, identifying alternatives, finding relevant information, evaluating the alternatives, selecting the most desirable alternative, implementing the alternative and monitoring the progress of the implementation towards the desired outcome. Effective decision-making will help teachers fulfil their job satisfaction.

Literature suggests a positive correlation between parti-cipative decision-making and staff’s productivity (Dickson, 1982; Driscoll, 1978). Extensively, many theories of job satisfaction have been proposed, but one of the most common  and   widely utilised in educational  settings has been that of Hersberg et al. (Saad and Isralowits, 1992; Derlin and Schneider, 1994; Dinham and Scott, 1996; 1998; 2000; Lester, 1987; Mercer, 1997; Scott et al., 1999). In terms of Research Question 2 (Can the model of the teacher-perceived principal decision-making styles significantly predict teacher job satisfaction?), we found that rational, intuitive, dependent and avoidant decision-making styles are significant predictors of teacher job satisfaction. In terms of Research Question 3 (Can the model of the teacher-perceived principal decision-making styles still significantly predict teacher job satisfaction after the possible effects of gender, marital status, teacher certification and school location are controlled?), we found that teacher-perceived princi-pal decision-making styles (except spontaneous decision-making style) are still significant predictors of teacher job satisfaction even after the possible effects of gender, marital status, teacher certification and school location are controlled.

Study universe and sample

This study investigates the self-esteem in decision-making and decision-making styles of the teachers in various branches, like math, physical education and sports, history, music and English, in terms of some of variables. The study is a descriptive study. The result obtained was restricted to 153 teachers. The study group of 168 teachers from 310 working in the central schools depending on Ministry of Education in Cat town of Erzurum province in 2014-2015 academic year was reached; but 15 was excluded from evaluation. It consisted of a total of 84 females and 69 males (Age (1.6536±0.72837) in 153 different branches (Physical education and sports teachers, math teachers, history teachers, music teachers and English teachers).

Data collection tool

In the study, 153 teachers working in Çat town of Erzurum City in Turkey were given questionnaires. In this research, a Personal Information Form and the Melbourne Decision Making Question-naire I-II, developed by Mann et al. (1998) and translated to Turkish by Deniz (2004) were used as a scale. A personal information form was developed in the study to determine participants’ gender, age, marital status, education status, the number of years worked in a school, the place of the teachers’ living, lesson hours of the teachers, the teachers’ working schools, the father and mother’s occupation, father and mother’s education status, doing sports of the teachers and also the teachers doing individual or team sports

Decision making questionnaire

The Melbourne Decision-Making Questionnaire consisted of two parts. The Decision-Making Questionnaire I (DMQ1) measured self-esteem as a decision maker. It consisted of six items (sample item: “I think I am a good decision maker”) to which the respondent checked “True for me” (score 2); “Sometimes true” (score 1); “Not true for me” (score 0). The maximum score was 12. Decision-Making Questionnaire II consisted of 22 items and used the same response format as DMQI. One scale measured vigilance (sample item: “When making decisions I like to collect lots of information”). Each of the six vigilance items related to a step in sound decision making, such as defining goals, collecting information, considering alternatives, and checking alternatives. The buck-passing scale consisted of six items (sample item: “I prefer to leave decisions to others”). The procrastination scale consisted of five items (sample item: “I put off making decisions”). The hyper vigilance scale con-sisted of five items (sample item “I feel as if I’m under tremendous pressure when making decisions”) (Mann et al., 1998). In data analysis, descriptive statistical methods, including frequency (n), percentage (%), mean (Χ ?) and standard deviation (SD) were used for personal information. Normal distribution was used to highlight the differences using analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, tukey test, t-test, which are non-parametric tests, used because of effectuation of homogeneity conditions.

Data analysis and ?nterpretation

To evaluate the statistics, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Windows version 21,00 package programme was used. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, Tukey test, T-test, mean frequency distribution and standard deviation were done.

On the first phrase of the research, demographic characteristics were analized. This study was done with the aim of presenting teachers’ making decision styles who were working in Cat town of Erzurum City in Turkey. The information obtained was interpreted as follows: in the first phase of the study, the demographic features of the participating teachers were determined. According to this, 84(54.9%) participants were females and 69(45.1%) were males. The age distribution of the teachers was as such: 76(49.7%) of them were between 20 and 25; 54(35.3%) of them were between 26 and 30, 23(15.0%) of them were between 31-35 and over (Age (1.6536±0.72837). The marital status dispersion of the teachers was such: 108(70.6%) were single, 35(70.6%) were married and 10(6,5%) were engaged. The education status dispersion of the participants was as such: 133(86.9%) of them had a master degree and 20(13.1%) of them graduated from university. The number of years worked in a school was as such:  130(85.0%) of them worked between 1 and 5 years, 23(15.0%) of them worked between 6 and 10 years. When the residence of the teachers was analyzed, rate of the teachers living in a metropole was 53(34.6%), in a city was 47(30.7%), in a town was 38(24.8%) and in a village and small town was 15(9.8%). Lesson hours of the teachers were; 17(11.1%) for below 15 h, 9(5.9%) for 15 and 18 h, 21(13.7%) for 19 and 22 h, 35(22.9) for 23 and 26 h and last one was 71(46.4%) for 27 h and over.  The rate of the teachers’ working schools was; 40(26.1%) of them work in a primary school and 88(57.5%) of them work in a secondary school and 25 (16.3%) of them work in a high school. The father’s occupation dispersion of the participants was: 26(17.0%) of them as an official, 29(19.0%) of them as a worker, 17(11.1%) of them as a tradesman,18(11.8%) of them as a farmer and 63(41.2%) of them as a retired. The mother’s occupation dispersion of the participants was: 15(9.8%) of them were farmers, 22(14.4%) of them were retired and great majority of them were housewives with the rate of 11.1% (116). The father’s education status dispersion of the participants was: 22(14.4%) of them were literate, 46(30.1%) of them were primary school graduate, 23(15.0%) of them were secondary school graduate, 42(27.5) of them were high school graduate and 20(13.1%) of them had four – year degree or two-year degree. The mother’s education status dispersion of the participants was: 18(11.8%) of them were illiterate, 15(9.8%) of them were literate, 75(49.0%) of them graduated from primary school, 23(15.0%) of them graduated from secondary school and 22(14.4%) of them graduated from high school. Doing sports rate of the teachers was: 60(39.2%) as Yes and 93 (60.8%) as No. The rate of the teachers’ doing individual sports was 32(20.9%) and team sports rate among the teachers was 28(18.3). On the second phase of the research, teachers’ problem solving levels were determined.

In the second part of the study, making decision styles of teachers were tried to be determined.

In Table 1, making decision self-esteem, making decision sub-dimensions and total points of teachers participating in the search were analyzed. At the end of this search, self –esteem dimesnsions of the teachers was found to be =9,1046 (min 0 – max 18). So self-esteem of the teachers’ rate is mid-level. When sub-dimentions of the making decision were looked, vigilance  making decision rate was = 8,8301 (min 0 – max 31). So it can be said that their points are low-level. Buck passing making decision rate was =10,6536 (min 0 – max 15). So their points are high level. Procrastination making decision rate was =10,8627 (min 0 – max15). So it can be said that their points are high level. Hyper vigilance making decision rate was =13,8562 (min 0 – max 18). From this result, their points were high level. The last one for the making decision of total points was  =53,3072 (min 0 – max79). So, it could be said that their points were over medium level. Finally, making decision total point was =53,3072. Making decision total point was regarding the minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 79 total point of the scale. When teachers’ total point was =53,3072 in the making decision inventory examined, it could be said that teachers participating in the research had over mid-level making decision styles. 

Evaluation of decision making styles, according to gender, are presented in Table 2. According to “gender variable”, the teachers’ points of Buck-Passing in making decision styles were =11,1159 for female and  =11,1159 for male, and there was a statistically meaningful difference in Buck-passing (t:-2,052 p<0,05).

Evaluation of decision making styles, according to teachers’ service year, are presented in Table 3. According to “teachers’ service year”, the teachers’ points of Buck-Passing in making decision styles were =10,8462  for between 1-5 years and  =9,5652 for between 6-10 years, and there was a statistically meaningful difference in buck-passing (t:2,247 p<0,05).

The teachers’ points of hyper vigilance in making decision styles were =14,0846 for between 1-5 years and =12,5652 for between 6-10 years, and and there was a  statistically  meaningful  difference  in  hyper  vigilance  (t: 2,093 p<0,05).

Evaluation of self-esteem in decision making and decision-making styles of teachers, according to Lesson hours the teachers having are presented in Table 4. According to “Lesson hours the teachers have”, the teachers’ points of  self esteem in making decision styles were = 10,4118 for less than 15 h, = 12,0000 for between 15-18 h, = 9,6667 for between 19-22 h, = 9,2286 for between 23-26 h and = 8,1972 for 27 h, and there was a statistically meaningful difference in self-esteem in decision making  (F:5,254 p<0,05).

The teachers’ points of  hyper vigilance in decision making  styles were = 12,1765 for less than 15 h, = 12,2222 for between 15-18 h, = 14,5238 for between 19-22 h, = 14,8857 for between 23-26 h and = 13,7606 for 27 h and over, and there was a statistically meaningful difference in hyper vigilance in decision making  (F:2,974  p<0,05).

Evaluation of decision-making styles of teachers, according to the father’s occupation are presented in Table 5. According to the father’s occupation, the teachers’ points of  vigilance in decision making styles were = 8,5769 for officers, = 9,2069 for workers, =8,7059 for tradesmans, =11,1667 for farmers and =8,1270 for retired and there was a statistically meaningful difference in vigilance in decision making  styles (F:3,221 p<0,05).

This study was carried out to find out whether or not the self-esteem in decision-making and decision-making styles of the teachers differ according to the variables of gender, age, marital status, educational status, pro-fessional service year, the place where he/she lives the most, secondary education institutions they work, father's occupation, mother’s occupation, parental education status, active sportive level of them, lesson hours they have entered in a the week and sports they have done.

As a result of study, the results obtained in this study in order to identify making decision self- esteem, making decision sub-dimensions and total points of  the  teachers were as follows; self esteem dimesnsions of the teachers was found as =9,1046 (min 0 – max 18). So self-esteem of the teachers’ rate is mid-level. When Sub-dimentions of the making decision were looked, vigilance making decision rate was = 8,8301 (min 0 – max 31). So it could be said that their points were low-level. Buck passing making decision rate was =10,6536 (min 0 – max 15). So their points were high level. Procrastination making decision rate was =10,8627 (min 0 – max15). So it could be said that their points were high level. Hyper vigilance making decision rate was =13,8562 (min 0 – max 18). From this result, their points were high level. The last one for the making decision of total points was  =53,3072 (min 0 – max79). So it could be said that their points are over medium level. Finally, making decision total point was =53,3072. Making decision total point was regarding the minimum score of 0 and maximum score of 79 total point of the scale. When teachers’ total point of =53,3072 in the making decision inventory was examined, it could be said that teachers participating in the research had over mid-level making decision styles.

On the other hand, A meaningful relationship was not found according to the teachers' age, marital status, educational status, the place where he/she lives the most, secondary education institutions they work, mother’s occupation, father and mother’s education status and doing sports of the teachers. But, a meaning-ful relationship was found according to gender, teachers’ service year, lesson hours of the teachers’ having and the father’s occupation. According to the evaluation of self-esteem in decision making and decision-making styles of teachers, we could say that self-esteem levels of teachers who entered lesson between 15-18 h were higher than teachers who entered lesson 27 h and over. Hyper vigilance levels of teachers who entered lesson between 23-26 h were higher than teachers who entered lesson less than 15 h. According to the evaluation of decision-making styles of teachers, levels of the vigilance approach of the teachers whose fathers were farmers were higher than the ones whose fathers were retired.

In the study of Mau (2000) on female students, it was reported that there was a difference on behalf of girl students. When other studies that were conducted with university students were analysed, for example: Sinangil (1993), Ta?delen (2002), Köse (2002), Kesici (2002), Deniz (2002), Av?aro?lu (2007) and Çetin (2009) they found no difference between students’ self-esteem in decision making and decision-making styles in terms of sex/gender variable. We are of the opinion that the  reason why our findings and findings of other studies were different may be due to the fact that our study was carried out with taekwondo athletes.

Campos (1993), Ripoll et al. (1995), McPherson (1999), Fontana (2007) all conducted studies with fresh and experienced athletes from different sportive branches and found positive results on behalf of experienced athletes. The study of Kioumourtzoglou et al. (1998), which was made with a national water polo team, and amateur basketball team and the study of Egesoy et al. (1999), which was made with professional and amateur football athletes, indicated that no difference was found among the experienced athletes in terms of correct and quick decision-making. As for the study of Çetin (2009), made with elite and non-elite athletes; it was discovered that no difference existed in terms of self-esteem in decision making and using decision-making styles; which is in agreement with our findings. It may be concluded that self-esteem in decision making and decision-making styles of the taekwondo athletes were similar, whether they performed training with authoritarian, democratic, stressful and innovative or easy-going trainer types.

The author has not declared any conflict of interest.