BibTex RIS Cite

SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI

Year 2016, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 187 - 200, 28.07.2016

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, Kitsantas (2012) tarafından geliştirilen Çok Kültürlü Sınıflar için Öğretmen Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma 2014-2015 Eğitim-Öğretim Yılı Güz Dönemi’nde 214 öğretmenden oluşan bir çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini ortaya koymak için AFA ve DFA uygulanmıştır. AFA sonucunda, toplam varyansın %43.39’unu açıklayan ve ölçeğin orijinal formu ile paralellik gösteren tek faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. DFA sonuçları, ölçeğin orijinal formundaki tek faktörlü yapının Türk örnekleminde doğrulandığını göstermiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliği bileşik güvenirlik katsayısı ile hesaplanmış ve .85 olarak bulunmuştur. Madde analizi sonucunda, düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonlarının .48 ile .67 arasında değiştiği ve %27’lik alt-üst grupların ortalamaları arasındaki farkların ölçekte yer alan tüm maddeler için anlamlı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada ulaşılan sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir ölçümler üreten bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

References

  • Acar Çiftçi, Y. ve Aydın, H. (2014). Türkiye’de çokkültürlü eğitimin gerekliliği üzerine bir çalışma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 33, 197-218.
  • Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
  • Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Banks, J.A. (2010). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. J.A. Banks & C.H.M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: issues and perspectives (pp.3-30) (7th Ed.), Wiley.
  • Başbay, A. (2014). Çokkültürlü eğitim kapsamındaki derslerinin incelenmesi: Georgia State Üniversitesi Örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 585-608.
  • Başbay, A. ve Kağnıcı, D. (2011). Çokkültürlü yeterlik algıları ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 199-212.
  • Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
  • Bayram, N. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
  • Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25 (24), 3186-3191.
  • Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
  • Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
  • Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model Fit. In: K. Bollen & J. Long, (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). London: Sage Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  • Diamond, B.J. & Moore, M.A. (1995). Multicultural literacy. New York: Longman.
  • Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Gay, G. (1994). A Synthesis of scholarship in multicultural education. Urban Monograph No. RI88062012), OakBrook, Illinois, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
  • Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess, 6(4), 304-312.
  • Guyton, E.M., & Wesche, M.V. (2005). The multicultural efficacy scale: Development, item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(4), 21-29.
  • Hermans, P. (2002). Intercultural education in two teacher-training courses in the north of the Netherlands. Intercultural Education, 13(2), 183-199.
  • Irvine, J. (1990). Black students and school failure. Greenwood Press, New York.
  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
  • Kilmen, S. (2012). Madde analizi, madde seçimi ve yorumlanması. N. Çıkrıkçı Demirtaşlı, (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (363-385). Ankara: Elhan Yayınları.
  • Kitsantas, A. (2012). Teacher effıcacy scale for classroom dıversıty (TESCD): A valıdatıon study profesorado. Revista de Currículum Formación de Profesorado, 16(1), 35-44.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
  • Martin, C.R., & Newell, R.J. (2004). Factor structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in individuals with facial disfigurement. Psychology Health and Medicine, 9(3), 327- 336.
  • Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using spss for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Schriesheim, C.A., & Eisenbach, R.J. (1995). An exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic investigation of item wording effects on obtained factor structures of survey questionnaire measures. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1177-1193.
  • Siwatu, K.O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
  • Taylor, G.N., & Quintana, S.M. (2003). Teacher’s multicultural competencies (K-12). In D. B. Pope Davis, H.L.K. Coleman, W.M. Liu & R.L. Toporek (Eds)., Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology. California: Sage Publications.
  • Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
  • Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377-392.

The Turkish Adaptation of Teacher Efficacy Scale for Classroom Diversity

Year 2016, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 187 - 200, 28.07.2016

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to adapt the
teacher efficacy scale for classroom diversity to Turkish and to investigate
its psychometric properties. The research was conducted on a study group who
consisted of 214 teachers during 2014-2015 education year Fall semester.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were
performed in order to measure the scale's construct validity. As a result of
EFA, a structure which explains 43.39% of total variance with a single factor similar
to original version was obtained. The CFA results indicated that the
single-factor structure of the original form of the scale was confirmed in the
Turkish sample. The reliability of the scale was calculated via composite
reliability and it was found as .85. The item analysis reported that the
corrected item total correlations ranged from .48 and .67 and the differences
between the top and bottom 27% groups were significant for all the items
included in the scale. Based on these results could be argued that the Turkish
form of the scale is reliable and valid and can be used in order to determine teachers’
efficacy for classroom diversity. 

References

  • Acar Çiftçi, Y. ve Aydın, H. (2014). Türkiye’de çokkültürlü eğitimin gerekliliği üzerine bir çalışma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 33, 197-218.
  • Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
  • Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
  • Banks, J.A. (2010). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. J.A. Banks & C.H.M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: issues and perspectives (pp.3-30) (7th Ed.), Wiley.
  • Başbay, A. (2014). Çokkültürlü eğitim kapsamındaki derslerinin incelenmesi: Georgia State Üniversitesi Örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(2), 585-608.
  • Başbay, A. ve Kağnıcı, D. (2011). Çokkültürlü yeterlik algıları ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 199-212.
  • Baumgartner, H. & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
  • Bayram, N. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS ile veri analizi. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.
  • Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M.B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25 (24), 3186-3191.
  • Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
  • Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
  • Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model Fit. In: K. Bollen & J. Long, (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). London: Sage Publications.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  • Diamond, B.J. & Moore, M.A. (1995). Multicultural literacy. New York: Longman.
  • Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  • Gay, G. (1994). A Synthesis of scholarship in multicultural education. Urban Monograph No. RI88062012), OakBrook, Illinois, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
  • Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
  • Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychol Assess, 6(4), 304-312.
  • Guyton, E.M., & Wesche, M.V. (2005). The multicultural efficacy scale: Development, item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(4), 21-29.
  • Hermans, P. (2002). Intercultural education in two teacher-training courses in the north of the Netherlands. Intercultural Education, 13(2), 183-199.
  • Irvine, J. (1990). Black students and school failure. Greenwood Press, New York.
  • Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s guide. Chicago: Scientific Software.
  • Kilmen, S. (2012). Madde analizi, madde seçimi ve yorumlanması. N. Çıkrıkçı Demirtaşlı, (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (363-385). Ankara: Elhan Yayınları.
  • Kitsantas, A. (2012). Teacher effıcacy scale for classroom dıversıty (TESCD): A valıdatıon study profesorado. Revista de Currículum Formación de Profesorado, 16(1), 35-44.
  • Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
  • Martin, C.R., & Newell, R.J. (2004). Factor structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in individuals with facial disfigurement. Psychology Health and Medicine, 9(3), 327- 336.
  • Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using spss for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
  • Schriesheim, C.A., & Eisenbach, R.J. (1995). An exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic investigation of item wording effects on obtained factor structures of survey questionnaire measures. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1177-1193.
  • Siwatu, K.O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
  • Taylor, G.N., & Quintana, S.M. (2003). Teacher’s multicultural competencies (K-12). In D. B. Pope Davis, H.L.K. Coleman, W.M. Liu & R.L. Toporek (Eds)., Handbook of multicultural competencies in counseling and psychology. California: Sage Publications.
  • Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
  • Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377-392.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Articles
Authors

Mustafa İlhan

Melehat Gezer

Publication Date July 28, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Volume: 13 Issue: 2

Cite

APA İlhan, M., & Gezer, M. (2016). SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI. HAYEF Journal of Education, 13(2), 187-200.
AMA İlhan M, Gezer M. SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI. HAYEF Journal of Education. July 2016;13(2):187-200.
Chicago İlhan, Mustafa, and Melehat Gezer. “SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI”. HAYEF Journal of Education 13, no. 2 (July 2016): 187-200.
EndNote İlhan M, Gezer M (July 1, 2016) SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI. HAYEF Journal of Education 13 2 187–200.
IEEE M. İlhan and M. Gezer, “SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI”, HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 187–200, 2016.
ISNAD İlhan, Mustafa - Gezer, Melehat. “SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI”. HAYEF Journal of Education 13/2 (July 2016), 187-200.
JAMA İlhan M, Gezer M. SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2016;13:187–200.
MLA İlhan, Mustafa and Melehat Gezer. “SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI”. HAYEF Journal of Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 2016, pp. 187-00.
Vancouver İlhan M, Gezer M. SINIFTAKİ FARKLILIKLAR İÇİN ÖĞRETMEN YETERLİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASI. HAYEF Journal of Education. 2016;13(2):187-200.