Matematikte öğretim sürecine yönelik algı ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Nelson, Demers ve Chris (2004) tarafından öğretim sürecinde öğretmenlerin davranışlarını ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilmiş olan Öğretim Sürecine Yönelik Algı Ölçeği’ni matematik dersi özelinde Türkçeye uyarlamak ve yapı geçerliliği ile ölçekten elde edilen puanların güvenirlik düzeylerini belirlemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu ortaokul altıncı sınıfa devam eden 302 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Ölçeğin Türkçeye uyarlanmasında ilk olarak etik kurallar çerçevesinde gerekli izinler alınmış ve ölçek Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Dilsel geçerlilik boyutunda gerekli uzman görüşü alınmış ve ardından ölçek 302 kişilik bir gruba uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapısal geçerliliğinin test edilmesi için keşfedici faktör analizi ve elde edilen modelin geçerliliğini doğrulamak için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Keşfedici faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin Türkçe formu üç faktör ve 18 maddeden oluşmuş ortaya konulan bu model doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile de teyit edilmiştir. Ölçekten elde edilen puanların güvenirliği için Cronbach Alfa katsayısı hesaplanmış ve ölçeğin geneli için (α) ,89 olarak bulunmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar doğrultusunda öğretim sürecine yönelik algı ölçeğinin matematik dersinde öğretmenlerin öğretim sürecine yönelik davranışlarını belirlemek için gerekli niteliklere sahip bir ölçme aracı olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Öğretim sürecine yönelik algı
• Öğrenci algıları
• Matematik öğretimi

Adaptation of the perception of instructional process in maths scale into Turkish

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt the The Responsive Environmental Assessment for Classroom Teaching Scale [REACT], which was developed by Nelson, Demers, and Chris (2004) to measure teachers' behaviors in the teaching process, into Turkish specifically for the mathematics lesson, and to determine the construct validity and reliability levels of the scores obtained from the scale. The study group of the research consists of 302 students attending the sixth grade of secondary school. In the adaptation of the scale to Turkish, first of all, necessary permissions were obtained within the framework of ethical rules and the scale was translated into Turkish. Necessary expert opinion was taken in the required linguistic validity dimension, and then the scale was applied to a group of 302 people. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test the structural validity of the scale and confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the validity of the model obtained. As a result of exploratory factor analysis, the Turkish form of the scale consisted of three factors and 18 items, and this model was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated for the reliability of the scores obtained from the scale, and (α) was found to be .89 for the overall scale. In line with the results obtained, it has been seen that the perception scale for the teaching process is a measurement tool with the necessary qualifications to determine the behaviors of teachers towards the teaching process in mathematics lessons.

Keywords

• Perception of instructional process
• Mathematic teaching
• Student perceptions

References

1. Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V. & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher turn over, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54-76.
2. Allen, D. & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Parent and student perceptions of classroom learning environment and its association with student outcomes. Learning Environments Research, 10, 67–82.
3. Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y. & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034– 1037. doi:10.1126/science.1207998
4. Al-Shara, I. (2015). Learning and teaching between enjoyment and boredom asrealized by the students: A survey from the educational field. European Scientific Journal, 11(19), 146-168.
5. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
6. Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W. & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30(4), 377-392.
7. Book, W. F. (1905). The high school teacher from the pupil's point of view. The Pedagogical Seminary, 3(13), 239-288.
8. Bozkurt, E. ve Bircan, M. A. (2015). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik motivasyonları ile matematik dersi akademik başarıları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2015(5), 201-220.

9. Buellesfield, H. (1915). Causes of failures among teachers. Educational Administration and Supervision, 439-451.
10. Burić, I. & Kim, L. E. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy, instructional quality, and student motivational beliefs: an analysis using multi level structural equation modeling. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101-302.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
12. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J. & Tarver, S. G. (2010). Direct instruction reading. (5th ed.). Pearson.
13. Charters, W. W. & Waples, D. (1929). The commonwealth teacher –training study. The University of Chicago Press.
14. Conley, A. G. (2014). Positive reinforcement behavior plans and the effects on student behavior. [Master’s Theses], The College of Education and Human Development. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/346/
15. Cornell, F. G., Lindvall, C. M. & Saupe, J. L. (1952). An exploratory measurement of individualities of schools and classrooms. University of Illinois Press.
16. Çakır, S. G. ve Erdoğan, M. (2014). Öğrenen güçlenmesi ölçeğinin uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(25), 297-307.
17. Day, C. (2002). School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research,37(8), 677-692.
18. Elliott, E. S. & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
19. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi. (2019). PISA 2018 ne diyor? https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/pisa-2018-ne-diyor adresinden erişildi.
20. Fraser, B., Anderson, G., & Walberg, H. (1982).Assessment of learning environments: Manual for learning environment inventory (LEI) and my class inventory (MCI). (Third version). Western Australian Institute of Technology.
21. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. (4th edition). Allyn & Bacon.
22. Gettinger, M. & Ball, C. (2008). Best practices in increasing academic engaged time. A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Ed), Best practices in school psychology (ss. 1043- 1058). National Association of School Psychologists.
23. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
24. Gilligan, K. A. Flouri, E. & Farran, E. K. (2017). The contribution of spatialability to mathematics achievement in middle childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 163, 107-125.
25. Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 21– 43. doi:10.1177/0272431693013001002
26. Gregory, A., Allen, J. P., Mikami, A. Y., Hafen, C. A. & Pianta, R. C. (2014).Effects of a professional development program on behavioral engagement of students in middle and high school. Psychology in The Schools, 51, 143–163.
27. Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,19(38), 104-112.
28. Hall, T., Strangman, N. & Meyer, A. (2009). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
29. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O'Brien, D. M. & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. National Bureau of Economic Research.
30. Harris, D. N. & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 798-812.
31. Hart, F.W. (1934). Teachers and teaching by ten thousand high school seniors. Macmillan Co.
32. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
33. Hattie, J. &Yates, G. C. R. (2012) Visible learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning. Routledge.
34. Heil, L.M. (1960). Characteristics of teacher behavior related to the achievement of children in several elementary grades. City Univ. of New York.
35. Hendroanto, A., Istiandaru, A., Syakrina, N., Setyawan, F., Prahmana, R. C. I. & Hidayat, A. S. E. (2018). How students solves PISA tasks: an overview of students’ mathematical literacy. International Journal on Emerging Mathematics Education, 2(2), 129-138.
36. Imants, J. & Van der Wal, M. M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1-14.
37. Jayne, C. D. (1945). A study of the relationship between teaching procedures and educational outcomes. Journal of Experimental Education, 14(2), 101-134.
38. Kelly, J. & Pohl, B. (2018). Using structured positive and negative reinforcement to change student behavior in educational settings in order to achieve student academic success. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 5(1), 17-29.
39. Kim, J. (2018). School accountability and standard-based education reform: the recall of social efficiency movement and scientific management. International Journal of Educational Development, 60, 80-87.
40. Kim, L. E., Dar-Nimrod, I. & MacCann, C. (2018). Teacher personality and teacher effectiveness in secondary school: Personality predicts teacher support and student self-efficacy but not academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 309.
41. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.(3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
42. Koğar, H. ve Yılmaz Koğar, E. (2017). Öğretmenlerin matematik konularına yönelik hazırlık düzeylerinin matematik başarısı ile ilişkisi: TIMSS 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur örneği. Başkent University Journal Of Education, 4(2), 108-121.
43. Kratz, H. E. (1896). Characteristics of the best teacher as recognized by children. The Pedagogical Seminary, 3(3), 413-460.
44. Lam, S., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H. & Liu, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Ed.), Handbook of research on student engagement (ss. 403– 419). Springer.
45. Lepper, M. R. & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 217–230.
46. Mahler, D., Großschedl, J. & Harms, U. (2018). Does motivation matter? The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and enthusiasm and students’performance. PloSOne, 13(11), 1-18.
47. Martin, D. P. & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2015). Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math. Journal of School Psychology, 53(5), 359-373.
48. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf adresinden erişildi.
49. Medley, D. M. & Mitzel, H. E. (1958). A technique for measuring classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(2), 86-92.
50. Moriarity, J., Pavelonis, K., Pellouchoud, D. & Wilson, J. (2001). Increasing student motivation through the use of instructional strategies. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED455962).
51. Nelson, P. M., Demers, J. A. & Christ, J. T. (2014). The responsive environmental assessment for classroom teaching (REACT): The dimensionality of student perceptions of the instructional environment. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 182–197.
52. Newark, D. (1929). Students' opinions of their best and poorest teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 29(8), 576-585.
53. Nguyen, T. D. & Hunter, S. (2018). Towards an understanding of dynamics among teachers, teacher leaders, and administrators in a teacher-led school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 19(4), 539-565.
54. Özdamar, K. (2015). Paket Programlar İle Veri Analizi (Cilt1). Nisan Kitabevi Yayınları.
55. Özkan, U. B. (2019). Matenatik ve fen başarısının belirleyicisi olarak öğretmenlerin eğitim düzeyi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(6), 29-43. doi:10.18506/anemon.521669
56. Özkan, U. B. (2020). Öğrencilerde eudaimonianın ve akademik başarının yordayıcısı olarak ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel düzey. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 34(2), 344-359. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2020342208
57. Praetorius, A. K.,Lauermann, F., Klassen, R. M., Dickhäuser, O., Janke, S. & Dresel, M. (2017). Longitudinal relations between teaching-related motivations and student-reported teaching quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 241-254.
58. Quina, J. (1989). Effective secondary teaching: going beyond the bellcurve. Harper & Row.
59. Schumacker R.E. & Lomax, R.G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Taylor& Francis Group.
60. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.
61. Smith, L R. & Cotten, M. L. (1980). Effect of lesson vagueness and discontinuity on student achievement and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 670-675.
62. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. (Sixth edition). Pearson Education.
63. Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C. & Armstrong, M. (1968). Production and elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by systematically varying teacher's behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 35-45.
64. Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. M. C. Witrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching, (ss. 214–229). American Educational Research Association.
65. Waxman, H. C. & Eash, M. J. (1983). Utilizingstudents’ perceptions and context variables to analyze effective teaching: a process-product investigation. The Journal of Educational Research, 76,321–325.
66. Wills, H. P., Caldarella, P., Mason, B. A., Lappin, A. & Anderson, D. H. (2019). Improving student behavior in middle schools: results of a classroom management intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(4), 213-227.
67. Withall, J. (1951). The development of a climate index. Journal of Educational Research, 45(2), 93-100.
68. Wood, A. M. (1998). The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student motivation,selective attention, and text memory. [Doctoral Dissertation], University of Western Ontario.
69. Wright, C. J. & Nuthall, G. (1970). Relationships between teacher behaviors and pupil achievement in three experimental elementary science lessons. American Educational Research Journal, 7(4), 477-491.
70. Yıldırım, S. (2011). Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, anxiety and mathematics achievement: Findings from Turkey, Japan and Finland. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 277-291.