Öğretim Elemanlarının Teknoloji Destekli Sınıflardaki Yeterliklerine İlişkin Öğrenci Algıları Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 67 - 93, 28.02.2018

Selma Şenel , Bülent Pekdağ , Mustafa Tuncay Sarıtaş

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.363938

Cited By: 3

Abstract

DOI: Bu araştırmada, Shih ve Chuang (2013) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğretim Elemanlarının Teknoloji Destekli Sınıflardaki Bilgilerine İlişkin Öğrenci Algıları Ölçeği”nin Türkçeye uyarlanarak, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarının yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin, öğretim elemanlarının teknoloji destekli sınıflardaki bilgisinin öğrenciler tarafından nasıl algılandığı üzerine odaklanması çalışmanın önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında; (i) çeviri, (ii) geri çeviri, (iii) uzman görüşü, (iv) 25 kişilik bir öğrenci grubuna ilk uygulama ve son inceleme aşamalarından geçirilerek oluşturulan ölçeğin uyarlama formu; (v) geçerlik ve güvenirlik incelemeleri için 430 üniversite öğrencisinden oluşan çalışma grubuna uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliğini incelemek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda iyi uyum değerleri elde edilmiştir (χ2/sd=3.94, RMSEA=0.083, NFI=0.91, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.94, RMR=0.074). Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı 0.945, Spearman Brown güvenirlik katsayısı 0.742 ve Guttmann iki yarı güvenirlik katsayısı 0.725 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar, uyarlanan ölçeğin iç tutarlılığının yüksek olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin, orijinal ölçekteki gibi 4 alt boyuta sahip olduğu ve toplam 50 maddeden oluştuğu gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPACK), öğrenci algıları, ölçek uyarlama, öğrenme ortamı

Turkish Adaptation of Instrument for Assessing Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Knowledge in Technology-Supported Class Environments

Abstract

This study is aimed at adapting an instrument for “Assessing College Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Knowledge in Technology-Supported Class Environments” developed by Shih and Chuang (2013) into Turkish by conducting validity and reliability procedures. This study is crucial due to the fact that it focuses on how students perceive teacher’s knowledge in technology-supported classrooms. The adaptation procedure has such stages as (i) translation, (ii) back translation, (iii) experts’ opinion, (iv) pilot assessment to 25 students and final modification, and (v) implementation of the instrument to 430 undergraduate students for validity and reliability studies. For construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis was done. The results showed medium and high goodness-of-fit indices (χ2/df=3.94, RMSEA=0.083, NFI=0.91, NNFI=0.93, CFI=0.94, RMR= 0.074). In terms of the reliability, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is found to be 0.945; Spearman Brown reliability coefficient is 0.742; and Guttmann split-half reliability coefficient is 0.725. These results showed evidence for a high internal reliability for the instrument. Like the original version of the instrument, Turkish adaptation has also 4 constructs including a total of 50 items.

Keywords

technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), student perceptions, instrument adaptation, learning environments

References

• Akgün, F. (2013). Öğretmen adaylarının web pedagojik içerik bilgileri ve öğretmen öz-yeterlik algıları ile ilişkisi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 48-58.
• Akın, A., Uysal, R., & Çitemel, N. (2013). Çocukluk deneyimleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(4), 1541-1550.
• Aksoy, H. H. (2003). Eğitim kurumlarında teknoloji kullanımı ve etkilerine ilişkin bir çözümleme. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 1(4), 4-23.
• Allan, W. C., Erickson, J. L., Brookhouse, P., & Johnson, J. L. (2010). Teacher professional development through a collaborative curriculum project – An example of TPACK in Maine. TechTrends, 54(6), 36-43.
• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292-302.
• Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
• Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
• Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2014). The role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(12), 397-410.
• Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534.
• Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Cakir, H. (2013). Use of blogs in pre-service teacher education to improve student engagement. Computers & Education, 68, 244-252.
• Campbell, T., & Abd-Hamid, N. H. (2013). Technology use in science instruction (TUSI): Aligning the integration of technology in science instruction in ways supportive of science education reform. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 572-588.
• Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi ve özyeterlikleri [The pre-service science teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and their self-efficacy]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
• Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. (2013). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerine teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi kazandırma amaçlı eğitim uygulamaları [Instructional practices of technological pedagogical content knowledge for pre-service science teachers]. TÜBİTAK 4005 Programı: Bilim ve Toplum Yenilikçi Eğitim Uygulamaları. Proje No: 113B254. [http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/duyuru/4005-yenilikci-egitim-uygulamalari-cagrisi-sonuclandi]. Accessed 13 September 2013.
• Chen, Y.-H., & Jang, S.-J. (2014). Interrelationship between stages of concern and technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge: A study on Taiwanese senior high school in-service teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 79-91.
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hlilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Deniz, K. Z. (2007). Psikolojik ölçme aracı uyarlama [The Adaptation of Psychological Scales]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 1-16.
• Hao, Y. (2016). The development of pre-service teachers’ knowledge: A contemplative approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 155-164.
• Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320-341.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Hsu, C.-K., Hwang, G.-J., Chuang, C.-W., & Chang, C.-K. (2012). Effects on learners’ performance of using selected and open network resources in a problem-based learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 606-623.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-88). London: Sage Publications.
• Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 Update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., Clair, L. S., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.
• Gülbahar, Y., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Değerlendirme tercihleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of assessment preferences inventory to Turkish]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 148-161.
• Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
• Karadeniz, Ş., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Çakmak, E. K., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12-18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 108-117.
• Kaya, S., & Dağ, F. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerine yönelik teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Turkish adaptation of technological pedagogical content knowledge survey for elementary teachers]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(1), 291-306.
• Kaya, Z., Kaya, O. N., & Emre, İ. (2013). Teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi (TPAB) ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale to Turkish]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(4), 2355-2377.
• Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. California: Sage Publications.
• Knight, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (1991). Students’ cognition and classroom instruction. In H. C. Waxman, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 239-255). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2012). Using the TPACK image. http://tpack.org/. (Accessed 14 December 2015).
• Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
• Kuşkaya Mumcu, F., Haşlaman, T., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2008). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi modeli çerçevesinde etkili teknoloji entegrasyonunun göstergeleri [Indicators of Effective Technology Integration Based on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model]. 8th International Educational Technology Conference (p. 396-400), 6-8 May 2008, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
• Lee, D. Y. (2011). Korean and foreign students’ perceptions of the teacher’s role in a multicultural online learning environment in Korea. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 913-935.
• Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38(1), 1-21.
• Maindal, H. T., Sokolowski, I., & Vedsted, P. (2010). Adaptation, data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish version of the PACIC questionnaire. European Journal of Public Health, 22(1), 31-36.
• Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Facebook and the others. Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Computers & Education, 95, 216-230.
• Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29-40.
• MEB [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı] (11 Mayıs 2013). Ulusal öğretmen strateji belgesi taslağı [Draft of national strategy document for teache]. [http://www.memurlar.net/haber/373146]. Accessed 18 February 2017. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
• Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
• Öztürk, E. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi [Prospective Classroom Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assessment in Terms of Some Variables]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 223-228.
• Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M. B. (2011). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlaması [Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale to Turkish]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 255-278.
• Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425-439.
• Pekdağ, B. (2010). Kimya öğreniminde alternatif yollar: Animasyon, simülasyon, video ve multimedya ile öğrenme [Alternative Tools for Chemistry Education: Animation, Simulation, Video and Multimedia]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 79-110.
• Pekdağ, B. (2015). Deney videoları ile kimya öğretimi [Chemistry teaching with experimental videos]. In A. Ayas & M. Sözbilir, Kimya öğretimi: Öğretmen eğitimcileri, öğretmenler ve öğretmen adayları için iyi uygulama örnekleri (ss. 653-678). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technologi¬cal pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mat¬hematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.
• Preston, J. P, Wiebe, S., Gabriel, M., McAuley, A., Campbell, B., & MacDonald, R. (2015). Benefits and challenges of technology in high schools: A voice from educational leaders with a Freire Echo. Interchange, 46(2), 169-185.
• Rabah, J. (2015). Benefits and challenges of information and communication technologies (ICT) integration in Québec English schools. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 24-31.
• Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Shih, C.-L., & Chuang, H.-H. (2013). The development and validation of an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Computers & Education, 63, 109-118.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation models: Basic concepts and practices]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik [Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measures]. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS ] (4th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• TED [Türk Eğitim Derneği] (2009). Öğretmen yeterlikleri özet rapor: Öğretmene yatırım, geleceğe atılım [Teacher competencies summary report: Investment in teacher]. Ankara: Adım Okan Matbaacılık.
• Timur, B., & Taşar, M. F. (2011). Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Öz Güven Ölçeğinin (TPABÖGÖ) Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması [The Adaptation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Confidence Survey into Turkish]. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 839-856.
• Tuan, H.-L., Chang, H.-P., Wang, K.-H., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). The development of an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of teachers’ knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 385-398.
• Tüzün, H., & Özdinç, F. (2016). The effects of 3D multi-user virtual environments on freshmen university students’ conceptual and spatial learning and presence in departmental orientation. Computers & Education, 94, 228-240.
• Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1999). Measurement essentials (2nd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
• Yılmaz, M., Gürçay, D., & Ekici, G. (2007). Akademik özyeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Adaptation of the academic self-efficacy scale to Turkish]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33, 253-259.
• Yılmaz, M., Köseoğlu, P., Gerçek, C., & Soran, H. (2004). Yabancı dilde hazırlanan bir öğretmen öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Adaptation of a teacher self-efficacy scale to Turkish]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 260-267.
• Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2016). The effects of an online student-constructed test strategy on knowledge construction. Computers & Education, 94, 89-101.