Bem-estar institucional em uma escola da Rede Marista

• Main Author: Dohms, Karina Pacheco
• Other Authors: Stob?us, Claus Dieter
• Format: Others
• Language: Portuguese
• Published: Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul 2016
• Subjects: AFETIVIDADE; BEM-ESTAR PESSOAL; EDUCA??O B?SICA; EDUCA??O MARISTA; EDUCA??O; CIENCIAS HUMANAS::EDUCACAO
• Online Access: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/6575

Submitted by Setor de Tratamento da Informa??o - BC/PUCRS ([e-mail]) on 2016-04-07T18:03:45Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_KARINA_PACHECO_DOHMS_COMPLETO.pdf: 2656095 bytes, checksum: e00f279108486376d11154508124eaf3 (MD5) === Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-07T18:03:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_KARINA_PACHECO_DOHMS_COMPLETO.pdf: 2656095 bytes, checksum: e00f279108486376d11154508124eaf3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-01-06 === Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES === The institutional well-being was investigated based on the answers of teachers, students, managers and employees to the Institutional Well-being Questionnaire (IWQ). It was applied between the beginning and end of 2014 school year, following the implementation of Course Curriculums and development of actions from the Strategic Planning from a Marist school in Porto Alegre. In the literature review were listed elements about ill-being and well-being, Bildung, influences of Positive Psychology, affection, educational environment and their contexts. The research was descriptive, using a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative), with 220 participants who answered the Questionnaire (IWQ) with open-ended questions complemented with field notes, collected by the researcher, from observation records made during the school year. To the quantitative data analysis from the questionnaires, it was used a statistical software, SPSS 17.0 for Windows, analyzing data thought descriptive statistics, comparison of average between the first and second data collection, paired T-Test, Pearson's correlation and variables logistic regression. The research result shows stable indexes at the begging and end year, it was also verified significant statistical differences in the positive and negative affection scale, in the negative affection factor of teachers (M1=4,42, M2= 4,06, p= 0,025) and students (M1=4,04, M2= 3,91, p= 0,020); in the spiritual well-being scale the personal domain (M1=18,40, M2= 16,40, p= 0,000) and common domain in the students (M1=18,12, M2= 15,97, p= 0,000), reflecting then in this scale total average (M1=64,14, M2= 59,54, p= 0,005); in the cultural perception and organizational climate scale (FOCUS) on the support dimensions (M1=43,22, M2= 39,78, p= 0,049), rules dimensions (M1=36,56, M2= 33,56, p= 0,007) and goals dimensions (M1=32,48, M2= 29,04, p= 0,021) from teachers, and for the students in the rules dimension (M1=33,58, M2= 32,37, p= 0,049) and goals dimensions (M1=30,69, M2= 28,80, p= 0,000); and to the affection organizational support perception dimension of teachers (M1=21,52, M2= 19,91, p= 0,053) and to the cognitive dimension (M1=18,37, M2= 16,82, p= 0,000) and to the total average (M1=36,15, M2= 34,45, p= 0,013) of the students. It was verified that the BEI had an adequate internal credibility of its scales and, using the Stepwise method to the logistic regressions resulting in a ROC curve of 0,916. To the open-ended questions answers analysis it was used the technique of content analysis (categorization), complemented with data from the field notes (initial stage from fluency read), it has resulted of five categories: well-being definition, aspects that generate well-being, actions from the well-being, relations perceptions in the institution and well-being promotion. The participants had stand out positive features of the institution (such as the family atmosphere, the open dialogue between people, the cleanness and organization of the site) and they had stand out improvements (such as relationship between all members of the institution, which should be healthier and based on respect; work appreciation and recognition of faculty and staffs, and students performance; more feedbacks and effective dialogue means). Based on the research results it was suggested a proposition for the institution though the Marist educational model. It was highlighted that if the person does more positive self-analysis the institution analysis is also better. That means that better subjective levels of well-being reflect on better levels of institutional well-being. === Investigamos o Bem-estar Institucional a partir das respostas de docentes, discentes, gestores e funcion?rios ao Question?rio de Bem-estar Institucional (QBEI), no in?cio e final do ano letivo de 2014, acompanhando a implementa??o das Matrizes Curriculares e desenvolvimento de a??es oriundas do Planejamento Estrat?gico de um col?gio marista de Porto Alegre. No referencial elencamos elementos sobre mal/bem-estar docente, Bildung, Psicologia Positiva, afetividade, ambiente educacional. Na pesquisa, de n?vel descritivo, utilizamos o m?todo misto (quanti-qualitativo), com 220 participantes , aplicando o Question?rio, com perguntas de resposta fechada/aberta, complementando com Di?rio de Campo da pesquisadora, registrando observa??es realizadas durante o ano letivo. Para an?lise dos dados quantitativos do QBEI utilizamos o programa estat?stico SPSS 17.0-Windows, com estat?stica descritiva, compara??o entre m?dias (primeira/segunda coleta), Teste-t pareado, correla??o de Pearson e regress?o log?stica das vari?veis. Os resultados da pesquisa apontaram que os ?ndices se mantiveram est?veis no in?cio e final do ano, constatando diferen?as estatisticamente significativas na Escala de Afetos Positivos e Negativos, fator de Afetos Negativos dos docentes (M1=4,42, M2= 4,06, p= 0,025) e discentes (M1=4,04, M2= 3,91, p= 0,020); na de Bem-estar Espiritual nos dom?nios pessoal (M1=18,40, M2= 16,40, p= 0,000) e comunit?rio dos discentes (M1=18,12, M2= 15,97, p= 0,000), o que reflete na m?dia global destes (M1=64,14, M2= 59,54, p= 0,005); na percep??o cultural e clima organizacional (FOCUS) nas dimens?es apoio (M1=43,22, M2= 39,78, p= 0,049), regras (M1=36,56, M2= 33,56, p= 0,007) e objetivos (M1=32,48, M2= 29,04, p= 0,021) dos docentes, e para os discentes nas dimens?es regras (M1=33,58, M2= 32,37, p= 0,049) e objetivos (M1=30,69, M2= 28,80, p= 0,000); e na Percep??o do Suporte Organizacional na dimens?o afetiva dos docentes (M1=21,52, M2= 19,91, p= 0,053) e na dimens?o cognitiva (M1=18,37, M2= 16,82, p= 0,000) e na m?dia global (M1=36,15, M2= 34,45, p= 0,013) dos discentes. Verificamos que o BEI apresenta consist?ncia interna adequada em suas escalas e, utilizado o m?todo Stepwise, na regress?o log?stica o resultado sob a curva de ROC foi de 0,916. Na an?lise das resposta ?s quest?es abertas utilizamos a T?cnica de An?lise de Conte?do (categoriza??o), que foram complementados com elementos do Di?rio de Campo (etapa inicial de leitura flutuante), originando cinco categorias: Defini??o de Bem-estar, Aspectos que geram Bem-estar, A??es para o Bem-estar, Percep??o das rela??es na Institui??o, Promo??o do Bem-estar; em que os participantes ressaltaram caracter?sticas positivas da institui??o (clima familiar, possibilidade de di?logo entre as pessoas, ambiente limpo e organizado) e pontos a melhorar (rela??es interpessoais entre todos aqueles que fazem parte da institui??o, que deveriam ser mais saud?veis e baseadas em respeito, valoriza??o e reconhecimento do trabalho dos docentes e funcion?rios e desempenho dos estudantes; necessidade de mais momentos de feedback e espa?o para de fato dialogar). A partir dos resultados, tamb?m sugerimos propostas para a institui??o baseadas no modelo marista de educar. Ressaltamos ainda que, quanto mais positiva a avalia??o que a pessoa realiza de si mesma, melhor ? a avalia??o que realiza sobre a Institui??o. Ou seja, melhores graus de Bem-Estar Subjetivo refletem em melhores e mais positivos graus de Bem-estar Institucional.