THE COMPARISON OF THE EDUCATIONAL STYLE IMPLEMENTATIONS BY EDUCATORS IN THE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S CLUBS IN TERMS OF SELECTED VARIABLES

Abstract

The educational work style of pedagogues, as declared by research (Jones et al., 2018; Muharam et al., 2019; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006), is a factor that conditions the development of students' personality. Considerable attention is paid to the educational style of teachers, while the educational work style of educators (e.g. in school children's clubs) is, unfortunately, on the periphery of the interest of pedagogical theory and research. On the one hand, there is a lack of a research instrument on the basis of which the appropriate educational styles of educators could be identified, and on the other hand, we lack variables that determine the inclination of educators to these styles. The aim of the paper was therefore to map preferences in the educational style implementations by the educators (educators expressed their level of agreement with statements describing individual styles; a higher score indicated a higher preference for implementation the given style) in the school children’s clubs. A self-designed scale questionnaire, whose items were undergone exploratory factor analysis was used. Based on its result, 6 dimensions is appropriate to consider (personal model, facilitator, expert, delegator, supporter, formal authority). The internal consistency was determined by Cronbach alpha, which ranged from 0.53 to 0.72. Relevance of the model was validated through confirmatory factor analysis (Diagonally Weighted Least Squares estimator), reporting indices such as CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, and GFI. Their values were withing an acceptable range. The research sample was composed of 473 respondents. Respondents’ average age is 45.18 years (SD = 10.01) and average length of their practice is 16.89 years (SD = 12.85). There was a statistically significant difference in the implementation of the educational style of the personal model and the expert in terms of motivation to pursue the educator profession in favour of educators whose primary interest in the profession prevailed, and a statistically significant difference in the implementation of the educational style of the facilitator and the delegator in terms of the predominance of Roma children in the educational groups in favour of educators who are confronted with a lower number of Roma children in the educational groups. However, the effect in differences in final values was weak. Other independent variables, such as the length of practice, way to achieve the qualification, type of school children’s club, and the children’s grade did not have a serious influence on the differences in the implementation of educational styles by educators. In further research of a descriptive nature, it would be appropriate to revalidate the scale questionnaire proposed by us without excluded items and to expand the independent variables with supporting factors (e.g. the educator's educational philosophy), which would certainly have an impact in the implementation of educational styles by educators in school children's clubs. After all, the results of the research indicated that the educational styles of educators are modifiable due to internal (motivation to pursue the educator profession) and external (working with students from a different socio-cultural environment) educational circumstances.

Full text

THE COMPARISON OF THE EDUCATIONAL STYLE
IMPLEMENTATIONS BY EDUCATORS IN THE SCHOOL
CHILDREN’S CLUBS IN TERMS OF SELECTED VARIABLES
M. Novocký1, S. Dulovics Sámelová2, S. Kollárová2, Š. Petrík3
1Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Faculty of Arts (SLOVAKIA)
2Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Education (SLOVAKIA)
3National Institute of Education and Youth (SLOVAKIA)
Abstract
The educational work style of pedagogues, as declared by research (Jones et al., 2018; Muharam et al.,
2019; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2006), is a factor that conditions the development of students'
personality. Considerable attention is paid to the educational style of teachers, while the educational work
style of educators (e.g. in school children's clubs) is, unfortunately, on the periphery of the interest of
pedagogical theory and research. On the one hand, there is a lack of a research instrument on the basis
of which the appropriate educational styles of educators could be identified, and on the other hand, we
lack variables that determine the inclination of educators to these styles. The aim of the paper was
therefore to map preferences in the educational style implementations by the educators (educators
expressed their level of agreement with statements describing individual styles; a higher score indicated a
higher preference for implementation the given style) in the school children’s clubs. A self-designed scale
questionnaire, whose items were undergone exploratory factor analysis was used. Based on its result, 6
dimensions is appropriate to consider (personal model, facilitator, expert, delegator, supporter, formal
authority). The internal consistency was determined by Cronbach alpha, which ranged from 0.53 to 0.72.
Relevance of the model was validated through confirmatory factor analysis (Diagonally Weighted Least
Squares estimator), reporting indices such as CFI, TLI, RMSEA, SRMR, and GFI. Their values were
withing an acceptable range. The research sample was composed of 473 respondents. Respondents’
average age is 45.18 years (SD = 10.01) and average length of their practice is 16.89 years (SD = 12.85).
There was a statistically significant difference in the implementation of the educational style of the personal
model and the expert in terms of motivation to pursue the educator profession in favour of educators whose
primary interest in the profession prevailed, and a statistically significant difference in the implementation
of the educational style of the facilitator and the delegator in terms of the predominance of Roma children
in the educational groups in favour of educators who are confronted with a lower number of Roma children
in the educational groups. However, the effect in differences in final values was weak. Other independent
variables, such as the length of practice, way to achieve the qualification, type of school children’s club,
and the children’s grade did not have a serious influence on the differences in the implementation of
educational styles by educators. In further research of a descriptive nature, it would be appropriate to
revalidate the scale questionnaire proposed by us without excluded items and to expand the independent
variables with supporting factors (e.g. the educator's educational philosophy), which would certainly have
an impact in the implementation of educational styles by educators in school children's clubs. After all, the
results of the research indicated that the educational styles of educators are modifiable due to internal
(motivation to pursue the educator profession) and external (working with students from a different socio-
cultural environment) educational circumstances.
Keywords: School children’s club, educational style, educator, children.
1 INTRODUCTION
In the last two decades of the 21st century, extracurricular childcare has come forward alongside rapid
changes in education. Durlak et al. [1], drawing on Afterschool Alliance, state that approximately 8.4
million school-age youth in the U.S. participate in extracurricular care programs, although exact numbers
are not available depending on what type of programs and activities are involved. The growth of
extracurricular childcare services has been noted in Australia [2] where one in three children is a
recipient of these services, in Japan [3] where number of extracurricular classes for children has
nationally increased, in Korea [4] where extracurricular programmes are not only widespread, but
cardinally, are seen as an alternative to private tutoring.
Proceedings of INTED2023 Conference
6th-8th March 2023
ISBN: 978-84-09-49026-4
0444

According to Plantenga and Remery [5], in the study where availability and quality of extracurricular
childcare in 27 member states of European Union have been analysed, only several countries have
well-developed infrastructure of extracurricular childcare services (e. g. the Austria, Germany).
Despite the fact that the Czech, and Slovak Republic have not achieved the same rating as some Western
European countries, the established networks of children's clubs (after-school clubs) at primary schools
cannot be neglected. Minárechová [6] states that the school children's club is one of the most widespread
educational facilities where educational activities for children take place outside school hours.
According to Act No. 245/2008 (School Act) Coll. [7], "the school children's club is a part of the school,
providing for children who are fulfilling compulsory school attendance at the primary school, activities
within the meaning of the educational programme of the school facility aimed at their preparation for
teaching and recreation in the time out of school and during school holidays.”
Bieliková and Bánovčanová [8] argue that the school children's club is an integral part of the life of
particularly employed parents. As their research suggests, parents enrol their children in school clubs
for both work and educational reasons. Parents recognize the importance of this educational facility for
children in the social, emotional, and educational areas, with the social and socialization function being
the most emphasized.
Three aspects determining the content of activities in the school children's club, which include key
competences (learning to learn, social, occupational, communication, civic and cultural), thematic areas
of education (educational, social-scientific, occupational-technical, natural-environmental, aesthetic-
educational, physical education, health, and sports) [9] and the psychological characteristics of the pupil,
which are comprehensively captured by the KEMSAK (cognitivisation, emotionalisation, motivation,
socialisation, axiologisation, creativity) model [10].
The educator has several roles in educational activities. They function as a counsellor of children and a
diagnostician of their characteristics, a stimulator of their personality development, a facilitator, an
arbitrator, an emotional satisfactor, a coordinator and a re-educator [11]. To work effectively with children
in extracurricular time, it is useful if the educator knows and reviews their educational style [12].
Two aspects are mostly considered in the educational style. According to Zelina [10] it is determined by
the personality of the educator. It is the enforcement of invariant ways of influence on the child. On the
other hand, external factors are involved in the change of educational style [13], most often educational
conditions, when these are biological (age of children and associated ontogenetic peculiarities,
temperament), psychological (mental level of children, distinctness of interests, attitudes, value
orientation), social (relationships between children in the educational group, relations between the
children and the educator, the general atmosphere of the educational environment) and the material
circumstances of education (the level and equipment of the environment in which education takes place,
by which is meant not the quantity of things, but their quality, manifested in the stimulation of pupils of
younger school age to activity).
Greater attention is, indeed, paid to teachers' teaching styles. It indicates that this is a tool that should
not be underestimated even by educators when considering the successive formation of children's
personality. This is proven by several studies.
Study by Opdenakker and Van Damme [14] has indicated the dependence between the presence of
effective school practice, and a learner-centred teaching style and the ability to manage the classroom
effectively. According to Hickson and Bradford [15], knowledge of different teaching styles can be expected
to enable teachers to identify and modify their teaching practices in order to improve pupil learning.
The fact that classroom management style is a critical factor in effective teaching, especially in terms of
student achievement, is supported by the research findings of Djigic and Stojiljkovic [16], who
demonstrated the benefits of an interactive style of classroom management compared to an
interventionist style. Teaching styles based on modern practices, such as work in groups or class
discussion, are associated with higher student achievement compared to teaching styles that rely on
the use of traditional educational tools and individual student work. This is presented more explicitly in
the research findings of Hidalgo-Cabrillana and Lopez-Mayan [17].
2 METHODOLOGY
In developing the research instrument, we were inspired by a scaled questionnaire created by Grasha
[18] for the purpose of mapping teachers' teaching styles. The content of the items in the Teaching Style
0445

Inventory was followed, but with the emphasize on the noncognitive aspects in educational activities
instead of focusing on the cognitive aspects in teaching. The numbers of items were narrowed down as
not all of them could be transformed into activities performed by the educator in terms of describing the
educator's activities.
Novotná [19] also affirms that the extracurricular educational process must not be a continuation of teaching
and a substitute for the work of the teacher. Children need to learn to listen, to take a stand, to express their
opinion, to be able to defend it and to become familiar with elementary work and physical activities. The
child's school performance is to be replaced by improved social relationships to peers and self.
The clarity of the items and their content correspondence with the educational reality in school clubs was
clarified through consultation with two experts in educational practice and piloting the instrument (n = 10) with
educators in school children's clubs. A traditional Likert 5-point scale was used (1 – Strongly disagree; 2 –
Disagree; 3 – Neither agree nor disagree; 4 – Agree; 5 – Strongly agree).
In order to understand the structure of the research instrument, exploratory factor analysis was used (see
Table 1). KMO test for sampling adequacy rate (0.825) and Bartlett's test of sphericity (p < 0.001) indicated
the appropriateness of applying factor analysis to the data obtained. The principal components method with
orthogonal quartimax rotation, which among the other orthogonal rotations (varimax, equamax) proved to be
adequate for elucidating the significance of the emergent latent variables, was preferred. Based on Kaiser
criterion (eigenvalue greater than 1), one could consider 8 factors, however the scree plot indicated the
eventuality of working with only 6 factors. Thus, based on Gavora's [20] assertion that there is a compromise
in such situations, where it is up to the researchers to prioritize what course of action to take, considering the
overall spent variability of the variables and the interpretative possibilities, the second alternative was
selected. The minimum factor loading for an item to be included in one of the factors was 0.40. Completely,
6 items were excluded. Factor loadings of three items was lower than 0.40 (The content of the topics
addressed with children is often much more than I am able to cover in the time allotted.; My expectations of
the children are clearly defined in the curriculum; I usually only use my knowledge to address what I will be
discussing with the children or what we will be focusing on.) and the other three had factor loadings higher
than 0.40 on two factors at the same time (I always show the children how to learn the skills we will need for
future work as easily as possible; My standards and expectations help keep kids disciplined; When kids are
working on more challenging tasks, I show them multiple options and alternatives to inspire them).
Validity of the model designed by exploratory factor analysis was verified by using confirmatory factor
analysis. The Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator was preferred to maximum likelihood
as it provides more accurate parameter estimates and stability of the model to failure of the normality criterion
of the data distribution [21]. The basis of assessing the model adequacy was composed of indices such as
CFI (0.978), TLI (0.974), RMSEA (0.026), SRMR (0.052), and GFI (0.961). It is noted that our designed
hypothetical model presents a good level of correspondence with the real data, although the statistical
significance of the chi-squared test result (p=0.002) was demonstrated. The internal consistency was
determined by Cronbach alpha (ranged for dimensions from 0.53 to 0.72). For the entire research instrument,
Cronbach's alpha indicates a value of 0.820.
Table 1: Educational Styles of the Educators (rotated matrix of factor loadings).
Items Saturating Factors
Factors
α
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
(I) Personal Model
0.722
I show the children clearly and comprehensibly
how to complete the tasks.
0.764
-0.020
0.159
0.138
0.102
-0.059
Instructing and explaining is an essential part of
my educational style.
0.745
0.042
0.198
0.056
0.079
0.193
I am obliged to assess what the children must
accomplish and how they must accomplish it.
0.618
0.288
0.162
0.018
0.089
0.066
When working with children, I use examples from
my personal experience to make the activities
easier for them.
0.590
0.242
0.021
0.193
0.229
-0.009
0446

(II) Facilitator
0.670
I encourage the exchange of opinions and
discussion between children.
0.154
0.760
-0.155
0.067
-0.064
-0.066
I attempt to have the children work on the tasks
independently with as little support from me as
possible.
-0.093
0.575
0.302
0.081
0.081
0.259
Developing children's ability to think and work
independently is extremely important.
0.261
0.554
0.101
0.183
0.123
0.033
Sharing knowledge and experience with children is
key for me.
0.207
0.552
0.354
0.001
0.187
0.011
I always give the children the opportunity to consult
me for more difficult tasks (they work on them for
several days or a week).
-0.021
0.510
0.293
0.140
0.241
-0.033
(III) Expert
0.606
The acquisition of different skills by the children in
the after-school clubs is the most important thing.
0.084
0.106
0.699
0.074
0.124
-0.072
I have high demands on the children in my
educational group (strict instructions following,
thorough performing of a certain activity, etc.).
0.180
0.074
0.682
0.003
0.015
0.114
I tend to adjust the educational methods to suit
most children.
0.267
0.360
0.536
-0.048
0.055
-0.065
I have no problem giving negative feedback to
children whose work has been poor or inadequate.
0.112
0.053
0.518
0.160
-0.058
0.319
(IV) Delegator
0.616
I encourage the children to set their own time to
work on individual or group tasks.
-0.006
0.088
0.011
0.731
-0.053
0.187
I allow the children to choose activities (tasks) to
meet the requirements I set.
0.149
0.008
0.053
0.703
-0.010
0.048
I require the children to tell me what they would like
to do.
0.161
0.090
0.028
0.669
0.129
-0.009
I try to get the children to take responsibility for
leading some of the activities or tasks.
0.011
0.229
0.113
0.495
0.260
-0.015
(V) Supporter
0.632
I perceive myself as a resource that is available to
the children at any time.
0.157
0.166
-0.027
0.054
0.721
0.027
I provide a lot of personal support for the children
to achieve the desired performance.
0.175
0.169
0.091
0.128
0.721
-0.095
I would be described by the children as a coach
who works with individuals and tries to help them
think and act.
0.098
0.013
0.104
0.030
0.705
0.173
(VI) Formal Authority
0.525
First, I would be described by the children as a
storehouse of commands and knowledge.
0.198
-0.032
0.000
0.021
-0.014
0.760
The children would describe my expectations
(attitude) and standards towards them as strict.
-0.049
0.094
0.310
0.026
-0.080
0.638
My educational style is similar to a work group
manager who delegates responsibilities to his
subordinates.
-0.010
0.019
-0.054
0.173
0.260
0.630
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (Total)
2.29
2.21
2.07
1.93
1.92
1.70
Variance %
9.96
9.60
9.01
8.39
8.33
7.40
The following research questioned were designated:
Is there a statistically significant relationship between implementation of educational styles by educators
and length of their practice?
Is there a statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles by educators in terms
of way to achieve the qualification?
0447

Is there a statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles by educators in terms
of motivation to practise the profession of educator?
Is there a statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles by educators in terms
of type of school children’s club in which they work?
Is there a statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles by educators in terms
of in what grade are the children they work with?
Is there a statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles by educators in terms
of predominance of Roma children in educational groups?
2.1 Characteristics of the Research Sample
The research file was created based on the available sample. The research was conducted in the school
children’s club in all regions of Slovakia (February – March 2020). The questionnaire was conducted online
to the respondents. The respondents were contacted via e-mail addresses of principals and primary
schools available on the website of the Centre for Educational Information and Forecasting (nowadays as
“Centre of Scientific and Technical Information”). A total of 578 respondents participated in the research.
After selecting respondents for whom completing the questionnaire was irrelevant (short practice of a few
months and one year) and respondents whose answers in the questionnaires were unclear
(inconsistencies in answers to demographic items), the research file of 473 respondents was created
(average age was 45.18 years, SD = 10.01; average length of practice was 16.89 years, SD = 12.85).
Detailed information about the research sample is presented in the Table 2. With respect to the regions, it
can be said that there is a regular proportion of respondents from the western (n=175; 37.00%), central
(n=137; 28.96%) and eastern (n=161; 34.04%) parts of Slovakia.
Table 2: Division of the Research File in Terms of Independent Variables.
Demographic Characteristics of the Research Sample
N
%
Sex
Female
464
98.10
Male
9
1.90
Length of the pedagogical practice
1,5 – 2
40
8.46
3 – 5
92
19.45
6 – 10
83
17.55
11 – 15
45
9.51
16 – 20
38
8.03
21 – 25
27
5.71
26 – 30
42
8.88
31 and more
106
22.41
Achieving the qualification of educator
University study in the field of education and pre-school and elementary pedagogy
167
35.31
Completing complementary pedagogical study
193
40.80
Graduating from the pedagogical and social academy
90
19.03
Without the qualification of educator
23
4.86
Motivation to practice the profession of educator
Primary
310
65.54
Secondary
163
34.46
Type of the school children’s club
Public
423
89.43
Independent (private, religious)
50
10.57
Grades of the children
Mixed
406
85.84
Always one grade
67
14.16
Predominance of Roma children in the educational groups
Yes
35
7.40
No
438
92.60
0448

2.2 Data analysis
Non-parametric tests such as Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-
Whitney U test were used to evaluate statistically significant differences and relationships between
variables, as the normality of the distribution of variables for subsamples was not confirmed, which was
verified by Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test (p < 0.05). The chosen level of significance was
0.05. The eta-squared (η2) was used to determine the substantive significance of the differences. From
the descriptive statistics, the median (Me) was used. Statistical analysis of the data was performed using
SPSS 20.0 and JASP 0.14.1 software.
3 RESULTS
Table 3 demonstrates that there is a statistically significant difference in the implementation of educational
style of personal model (0.000 ≤ 0.05) and expert (0.024 ≤ 0.05) by educators in terms of motivation to
practise the profession of educator. Respondents whose primary decision was to pursue a career as an
educator scored higher on the personal model (Me=4.00; Me=3.75) and expert (Me=3.75; Me=3.50)
dimensions. In both instances, a weak effect in the differences of the final values (η2=0.033; η2=0.011)
was observed.
Table 3 also demonstrates that there is a statistically significant difference in the application of the
educational style of the facilitator (0.002 ≤ 0.05) and the delegator (0.009 ≤ 0.05) by the educators in terms
of the predominance of Roma children in the educational group. Respondents who work with a larger
number of Roma children in their educational group had lower scores (Me=4.00; 4.20; 3.25; 3.50) for these
dimensions compared to respondents who have a smaller number of Roma children in their educational
groups. A weak effect in the differences of the final values (η2=0.019; η2=0.014) was identified.
Table 3: Educational Style Implementations by Educators in Terms of Independent Variables.
Variables
Dependent variables
Independent variables
Personal
Model
Facilitator
Expert
Delegator
Supporter
Formal
Authority
length of the
practice
Spearman’s
correlation
coefficient
0.036
-0.024
0.029
0.015
0.052
0.000
p-value
0.436
0.610
0.527
0.741
0.256
0.992
way of
achieving the
qualification
Kruskal-Wallis
H test
1.722
2.786
1.563
0.865
1.431
0.932
p-value
0.632
0.426
0.668
0.834
0.698
0.818
motivation to
practise the
profession
Mann-Whitney
U test
19,668.500
24,402.500
22,111.500
24,036.000
22,935.000
25,138.500
p-value
0.000***
0.538
0.024*
0.379
0.094
0.928
type of the
school
children’s
club
Mann-Whitney
U test
10,400.500
9,492.000
10,359.500
9,739.000
10,388.000
10,013.000
p-value
0.847
0.232
0.812
0.387
0.835
0.532
grades of the
children
Mann-Whitney
U test
13,562.500
11,933.500
13,086.000
11,749.000
13,424.500
12,080.000
p-value
0.970
0.105
0.616
0.071
0.863
0.136
predominanc
e of Roma
children
Mann-Whitney
U test
6,178.000
5,312.500
7,635.500
5,655.000
7,627.000
6,620.500
p-value
0.054
0.002**
0.969
0.009**
0.960
0.173
4 CONCLUSIONS
Educators' work style represents one of the constitutive factors that have an impact on cognitive outcomes
[22] and affective expressions [23] of pupils. What educational tools are prioritized and what approach to
pupils is prioritized makes a central condition that determines the quality of educational work.
0449

The findings of the research indicate that there is no statistically significant relationship between the
length of educators’ practice and the implementation of educational styles. Similar findings were reached
by Baleghizadeh and Shakouri [24], demonstrating that the length of ESP (English for Specific
Purposes) teachers' practice is not a factor that has a statistically significant impact on the
implementation of teaching styles. A correlation analysis between EFL (English as a foreign language)
teachers' age, length of experience, and teaching styles was conducted by Rahimi and Asadollahi [25],
concluding that these two variables showed trivial indirect dependence and direct dependence with the
selected teaching styles.
Statistically significant difference in implementation of educational styles was also not confirmed in terms
of how educators were qualified. Fan and Ye [26] found no statistically significant differences between
the teaching styles of teachers who graduated from university and those who graduated from secondary
normal school. The only statistically significant difference was observed in the dimension of executive
style in favour of teachers with a college degree as compared to teachers who had completed secondary
normal school. The findings of Jabaar's [27] research indicate that teachers' teaching styles are not
statistically significantly different in terms of qualifications.
Neither was the type of school children's club positioned as a variable that had more significant effect
on the scores for educational styles. Abbas and Hussain [28] in their research focused on analysing the
differences in the implementation of teaching styles in public and private schools. No statistically
significant difference was observed between these types of schools in teaching styles such as expert,
facilitator, and delegator. A statistically significant difference was found only in the teaching style of
formal authority in favour of teachers teaching in public schools, and the personal model in favour of
teachers who worked in private schools.
The aforementioned findings lead us to believe that the educational style is initially the stable
characteristic of the educator, which, with regard to experience and acquired knowledge, is not
significantly modified. Korthagen and Wubbels [29] present research, concluding that experiences with
teachers at a young age contribute to their conceptions of teaching. Some influenced them in a positive
direction, making them want to follow their example, while others influenced them in a negative direction,
where they refused to identify with the way they approached pupils. How educators will approach pupils
often seems to be decided earlier, and undergraduate training, representing learned theories and
experienced practice, may not bear much of a part in this.
The type of school children’s club also remains controversial, although the research described above
suggests that some educational styles are more strongly represented in selected settings (schools).
This may be caused by the culture of the school carrying with it a philosophy of education, which, as it
is known, is in the position of a filter conditioning the selection and exploitation of specific educational
goals and tools uniting in the style of education used. Saritaş's [30] research indicated the existence of
a positive correlation between the adopted philosophy of education and the teaching styles of teachers
who work in grades 1 to 4 of elementary schools.
Motivation to practise the profession as an educator appears to be the essential independent variable.
Respondents whose primary motivation for educating was predominant showed statistically significant
higher scores for the personal model and expert dimensions. Vermote et al. [31] indicated that
autonomous motivation in teachers was positively associated with supportive approach to students,
while on the other hand, amotivation in teachers showed a positive association with demanding and
directive approach to students.
The grade of the children was not the factor that was statistically significant in changing the scores
achieved in the implementation of educational styles by the educators. The aforementioned research by
Fan and Ye [26] confirms that there is no statistically significant difference in teachers' preference for
teaching styles by subject area and grade taught.
A statistically significant difference in the scores for the educational style of the facilitator and the
delegator was demonstrated in terms of whether the respondents had a greater representation of Roma
pupils in their educational groups. Those who worked predominantly with Roma pupils were, in their
opinion, less inclined towards these two styles. This may also be explained by the fact that in the
research file there was a significant representation of educators who had either completed high school
or had qualified as an educator in complementary pedagogical study.
Research by Novotná and Portik [32] highlighted the importance of teachers' qualifications for working
with Roma pupils. Teachers qualified to work with Roma pupils did show statistically significant higher
scores on the authoritarian leadership index, they exploited more positive evaluation of pupils,
0450

instructed, and clarified more in teaching, avoiding negative motivation. They prioritized praise,
expressions of trust, stimulating input into the curriculum and pupils' self-assessment. Teachers qualified
to work with Roma pupils also asked them more questions in the direction of more demanding cognitive
processes and not only in the area of sensorimotor skills and memory, which were the dominant skills
of teachers who were not trained to work with these pupils. These were the statistically significant
differences.
The research findings suggest that one can acknowledge the existence of several relatively stable
alternative approaches to children among educators. The school children's club is focused on revitalizing
after school and developing those aspects of children's personality that are not a priority in the
educational process in schools. The educator guides the children's motivation and efforts, but also tend
to cultivate their abilities, skills, knowledge, habits, and attitudes in a goal-appropriate manner.
Among the independent variables that significantly interacted with the implementation of educational
styles by educators, it was especially the motivation to practise the profession of educator and the
predominance of pupils with respect to the social and cultural environment (Roma pupils). Educational
style thus does not need to be a once-and-for-all closed domain (created, for example, in undergraduate
education), but, on the contrary, it is creatable with respect to educational conditions that are situated
outside the participants of education, as well as within them. The substantive significance in the
differences, on the other hand, indicates to us that the inclination to a different educational style based
on modification of conditions is not a straightforward matter, but a rather complex process.
Lapides [33], developing Mosston's idea, argues that teachers can be trained in teaching styles since
teaching style is a learned characteristic. Antoniou and Kalinoglou [34] answered the question of
whether teaching style is changeable through research. The teaching style of special educators involved
in an intervention program where they are exposed to the theoretical basis of best instructional practices
through the design of instructional models may be moving in a better direction. One can believe, this
also applies to educators.
Indeed, the research has its limitations. The first is the available sample of respondents, which makes it
difficult to generalise the research findings to the population of childcare educators. As the involvement
of respondents in the research throughout Slovakia was surprising, comparing it with the experience
with teachers, the idea of conducting the research with validity of the results for the population of
educators in selected regions (e.g., Prešov and Košice regions) is achievable. The second possible
limitation is the use of the scaled questionnaire by Grasha [18] for the creation of items in the self-
designed research instrument. This tool, evidenced by the research presented in the theoretical
background and discussion, has been developed and adapted towards teachers. Focusing on the items
saturating the dimensions, the functional names were admittedly followed in denominating the
dimensions, but it implies that this was not a deviation. The dimension of the supporter has been
introduced, which may also indicate a different representation, perhaps of other, educational styles.
Here, in our opinion, there is an area for conducting qualitative-quantitative research where the items in
the research instrument would be refined and revised while observing the activities of the educators with
the children in the school children's clubs. The third limitation is also the comparison of the findings with
research on similar issues, conducted in different educational settings (primary and secondary schools,
colleges). As this is a "terra incognita", it could not be selected another object of comparison. Although,
this is not a definitive comparison, it may serve as a suggestion to consider what independent variables
are appropriate to work with in future similar research.
REFERENCES
[1] J. A. Durlak, J. L. Mahoney, A. M. Bohnert, M. E. Parente, “Developing and Improving After-
School Programs to Enhance Youth’s Personal Growth and Adjustment: A Special Issue of
AJCP,“ Am J Community Psychol, vol. 45, no. 3-4, pp. 285–293, 2010. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9298-9.
[2] J. Cartmel, A. Hayes, “Before and After School: Literature Review about Australian School Age
Child Care,“ Children Australia, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 201–207, 2016. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2016.17.
[3] F. Kanefuji, “Evaluation of School-Based After-School Programs in Japan: Their Impact on
Children’s Everyday Activities and Their Social and Emotional Development“ IJREE, vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 52–70, 2015. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3224/ijree.v3i1.19581.
0451

[4] S. H. Bae, S. B. Jeon, “Research on Afterschool Programs in Korea: Trends and Outcomes,“ IJREE,
vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 53–69, 2013. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1251739.
[5] J. Plantenga, C. Remery, “Out-of-school childcare: Exploring availability and quality in EU member
states,“ Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 25–39, 2017. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928716672174.
[6] M. Minárechová, “Organizácia režimu dňa v školskom klube detí,“ Pedagogika.sk, vol. 8, no. 1, pp.
30–38, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.casopispedagogika.sk/studie/minarechova-michaela-
organizacia-rezimu-dna-v-skolskom-klube-deti.html.
[7] Act no. 245/2008 Coll. on education and training (School Act) and on amendment of certain acts.
[8] M. Bieliková, Z. Bánovčanová, “Využívanie Školských klubov detí a ich vplyv na dieťa z pohľadu
rodičov,“ e-Pedagogium, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 64–77, 2018. Retrieved from
DOI: 10.5507/epd.2018.033.
[9] Creation of educational programs in school facilities (sample). Bratislava/Slovenská republika:
Štátny pedagogický ústav, 2009. Retrieved from: https://www.minedu.sk/data/att/4107.pdf
[10] M. Zelina, Stratégie a metódy rozvoja osobnosti dieťaťa. Bratislava/Slovenská republika: IRIS, 2011.
[11] M. Zelina, Výchova tvorivej osobnosti. Bratislava/Slovenská republika: Pedagogická fakulta
Univerzity Komenského, 1995.
[12] M. Kouteková, “Pedagogická autorita vychovávateľa v jeho výchovnom štýle a štýle riadenia
výchovy mimo vyučovania“ in Pedagogika voľného času v teórii a praxi (2. diel) (G. Citterbergová
ed.), pp. 55–68, Banská Bystrica/Slovenská republika: Univerzita Mateja Bela, 2014.
[13] M. Kouteková, L. Nemcová, M. Furinová, G. Citterbergová, Pedagogika voľného času v teórii a praxi
(2. diel). Banská Bystrica/Slovenská republika: Univerzita Mateja Bela, 2014.
[14] M-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme, “Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness
enhancing factors of classroom practice,“ Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–
21, 2006. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008.
[15] C. Hickson, B. D. Bradford, “Teaching Styles in Elementary School Physical,“ The International
Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum: The Effect on Children's Learning, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1–17,
2014. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v20i03/48965.
[16] G. Djigic, S. Stojiljkovic, “Classroom management styles, classroom climate and school
achievement,“ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 29, pp. 819–828, 2011. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.310.
[17] A. Hidalgo-Cabrillana, C. Lopez-Mayan, “Teaching Styles and Achievement: Student and Teacher
Perspectives,“ Social Science Research Network, pp. 1–52, 2015. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2569020.
[18] A. F. Grasha, Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by Understanding
Teaching and Learning Styles. San Bernadino/California: Alliance Publishers, 1996.
[19] E. Novotná, Pedagogika voľného času: Teória výchovy mimo vyučovania a vo voľnom čase.
Prešov/Slovenská republika: Rokus, 2017.
[20] P. Gavora, Tvorba výskumného nástroja pre pedagogické bádanie. Bratislava/Slovenská republika:
SPN, 2012.
[21] D. Mîndrilă, “Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) Estimation
Procedures: A Comparison of Estimation Bias with Ordinal and Multivariate Non-Normal Data,“
International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 60–66, 2010. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2010.0010.
[22] S. Jones, S. Gopalakrishnan, C. A. Ameh, B. Faragher, B. Sam, R. R. Labicane, H. Kanu, F. Dabo,
M. Mansary, R. Kanu, N. van den Broek, “Student evaluation of the impact of changes in teaching
style on their learning: a mixed method longitudinal study,“ BMC Nursing, vol. 17, no. 1, 24, 2018.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-018-0293-z.
0452

[23] L. O. Muharam, I. Ihjon, W. O. Hijrah, S. T, “The Effect Of Teaching Style On Students' Motivation
And Academic Achievement: Empirical Evidence From Public Senior High School In Konawe
Selatan Regency,“ International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, vol. 8, no. 9, pp.
1934–1938, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.ijstr.org/research-paper-
publishing.php?month=sep2019.
[24] S. Baleghizadeh, M. Shakouri, “The Effect of Gender and Teaching Experience on Iranian ESP
Instructors’ Teaching Styles,“ Journal of Education and Human Development, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 979–
989, 2014. Retrieved from http://jehdnet.com/journals/jehd/Vol_3_No_2_June_2014/59.pdf.
[25] M. Rahimi, F. Asadollahi, “Teaching Styles of Iranian EFL Teachers: Do Gender, Age, and
Experience Make a Difference?,“ International Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 157–
164, 2012. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n2p157.
[26] W. Fan, S. S. Ye, “Teaching Styles among Shanghai Teachers in Primary and Secondary
Schools,“ Educational Psychology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 255–272, 2007. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066750.
[27] S. O. Jabaar, “Teaching Styles and Educational Philosophies of Secondary School Teachers in
Kano Metropolis, Nigeria,“ African Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 37–49, 2018.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v7i3.4333.
[28] Q. Abbas, S. Hussain, “Comparative Study of Teaching Styles of Various School Groups at
Secondary Level in District Chiniot of Punjab,“ Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, vol.
2, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2018. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.9734/AJESS/2018/40360.
[29] F. Korthagen, T. Wubbels, “Learning From Practise“ in Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy
of Realistic Teacher Education, pp. 32–50, New York/New York: Routledge, 2001. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600523.
[30] E. Saritaş, “Relationship between philosophical preferences of classroom teachers and their
teaching styles,“ Educational Research and Reviews, vol. 11, no. 16, pp. 1533–1541, 2016.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2016.2787.
[31] B. Vermote, N. Aelterman, W. Beyers, L. Aper, F. Buysschaert, M. Vansteenkiste, “The role of
teachers’ motivation and mindsets in predicting a (de)motivating teaching style in higher education:
a circumplex approach,“ Motivation and Emotion, vol. 44, pp. 270–294, 2020. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09827-5.
[32] E. Novotná, M. Portik, “Teaching Styles in Teachers Educating Romany Pupils,“ The New
Educational Review, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 256–269, 2012.
[33] J. Lapides, “Teaching styles in adult education. An exploratory essay,“ Revue ATEE Journal, vol. 3,
no. 4, pp. 191–205, 1980. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976960030404.
[34] F. Antoniou, F. Kalinoglou, “Teaching Style: Is it Measurable and Changeable?,“ Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 93, pp. 1618–1623, 2013. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.090.
0453