Adaptation of Teacher Support Adaptivity Scale into Turkish

Year 2023, Issue: 58, 2797 - 2813, 27.12.2023

Muhammet Davut Gül , Zekai Ayık

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1325891

Abstract

The aim of this study is to adapt the Teacher Support Adaptivity Scale developed by van de Pol (2022) into Turkish language. The existing scales in the Turkish literature are generally tools that aim to reveal the teacher's competencies in providing academic support to students within their own self-perceptions, but there is no tool in Turkish that collects data from the student's perspective. In addition, this study will provide the Turkish literature with a tool that can measure the quality of support provided by teachers to students in special education classrooms. In the adaptation process, data were collected from a total of 300 students, 163 (54.3%) female and 137 (45.7%) male, for exploratory factor analysis (EFA); and 219 students, 113 (51.5%) female and 106 (48.5%) male, for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). English-Turkish and Turkish-English back translations were applied to test language equivalence. As a result of EFA analyses, a 17-item structure with a variance of 64.7% and four factors similar to the original scale was obtained. The CFA result shows that the model has good fit indices. Finally, the reliability coefficient of both the scale (.78) and the sub-dimensions of the scale (.78 to .87) were evaluated through Cronbach α internal consistency coefficient and it was determined that the scale was reliable. As a result, a valid and reliable scale suitable for Turkish culture and the Turkish sample emerged.

Keywords

Teacher support, adaptivity, scaffolding, teacher competency

Öğretmenlerin Öğretim Sürecinde Sundukları Akademik Desteği Uyarlayabilme Yetkinlikleri Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, van de Pol 2022 tarafından geliştirilen öğretim sürecinde sundukları akademik desteği uyarlayabilme yetkinlikleri ölçeğini Türkçe diline uyarlamaktır. Türk alan yazınında mevcut olan ölçeklerin genel olarak öğretmenin öğrencilere akademik destek verme yetkinliklerini kendi öz algıları içerisinde ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlayan araçlar olduğu ancak öğrencinin gözünden veri toplayan bir aracın Türkçe’de olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca bu çalışma, özel eğitim sınıflarında da öğrencilere öğretmenler tarafından sunulan desteğin kalitesini ölçebilecek bir aracı da Türkçe alan yazına kazandıracaktır. Uyarlama sürecinde açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) için 163 (%54,3)’ü kız ve 137 (%45,7)’i erkek olmak üzere toplam 300 öğrenciden; doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) için 113 (%51,5)’I kız ve 106 (%48,5)’sı erkek toplam 219 öğrenciden veri toplanmıştır. Dil eşdeğerliğini test etmek için İngilizce-Türkçe; Türkçe-İngilizce geri çeviriler uygulanmıştır. AFA analizleri sonucunda varyansı %64,7 olan ve orijinal ölçekle benzer dört faktörlü 17 maddelik bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Yapılan DFA sonucunda ise modelin iyi uyum endekslerine sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Son olarak Cronbach α iç tutarlık katsayısı üzerinden hem ölçeğin (.78) hem de ölçeğin alt boyutlarının (.78 ile .87 arasında) güvenirlik katsayısı değerlendirilmiş, ölçeğin güvenilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak Türk kültürüne ve Türkiye örneklemine uygun, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek elde edilmiştir.

Keywords

Öğretmen desteği, uyarlama, yapı iskelesi, öğretmen yetkinliği

References

• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for Windows: a guide for social scientists. Taylor & Francis US.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25th ed.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Taylor and Francis.
• Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Öğretmen Özyeterlik İnancı Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.319209
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Devellis, R. F. (2023). Ölçek geliştirme: Kuram ve uygulamalar (T. Kotan, Ed.). Nobel Publishing.
• Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Wiley.
• Erkuş, A. (2014). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler. Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
• Güvenç, H. (2015). Öğretmen güdüsel desteği ölçeği geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.1-5000128598
• Hardy, I., Decristan, J., & Klieme, E. (2019). Adaptive teaching in research on learning and instruction. Journal for educational research online, 11(2), 169-191. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:18004
• Hermkes, R., Mach, H., & Minnameier, G. (2018). Interaction-based coding of scaffolding processes. Learning and Instruction, 54, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.003
• Kara, F. M., Kazak, F. Z., & Aşcı, F. H. (2018). Algılanan öğretmen geribildirim ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 29(2), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.17644/sbd.306544
• Kayış, A. (2010). Güvenirlik Analizi. In Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Istatistik Teknikleri (pp. 403–419). Asil Yayıncılık.
• Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
• Kline, Rex. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guiford Press.
• Krämer, S., & Zimmermann, F. (2021). Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorder and Teachers’ Stereotypes–Effects on Teacher Judgments. Journal of Experimental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1934809
• Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7
• Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
• Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Using instructional discourse analysis to study the scaffolding of student self-regulation. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_3
• Murphy, N., & Messer, D. (2000). Differential Benefits from Scaffolding and Children Working Alone. Educational Psychology, 20(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/014434100110353
• Oǧuz, A. (2013). Öǧrenen özerkliǧini destekleme ölçeǧi’nin geliştirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 13(4), 2187–2194. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.4.1870
• Oh, S. P. (2005). Discursive roles of the teacher during class sessions for students presenting their science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1825–1851. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239714
• Pfister, M., Moser Opitz, E., & Pauli, C. (2015). Scaffolding for mathematics teaching in inclusive primary classrooms: a video study. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1079–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0713-4
• Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
• Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2015). Scaffolding learning for independence: Clarifying teacher and teaching assistant roles for children with special educational needs. Learning and Instruction, 36, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.005
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, 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.
• Stone, A. C. (1998). The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100404
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using Multivariate Statistics, 3, 402–407.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. Nobel Publishing.
• Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
• van de Pol, J., de Vries, N., Poorthuis, A. M. G., & Mainhard, T. (2022). The Questionnaire on Teacher Support Adaptivity (QTSA): Reliability and Validity of Student Perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2022.2100732
• van de Pol, J., & Elbers, E. (2013). Scaffolding student learning: A micro-analysis of teacher-student interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.12.001
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. In Educational Psychology Review (Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp. 271–296). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2014). Teacher Scaffolding in Small-Group Work: An Intervention Study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 600–650. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.805300
• Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and instruction, 9(3), 257-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher pedagogical proceses. Harvard University Press.
• Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Helmke, A., Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2013). Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments. Learning and Instruction, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.003
• Winn, J. A. (1994). Hammill Institute on Disabilities Promises and Challenges of Scaffolded Instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 1.
• Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420
• Wood, D., & Middleton, D. (1976). A study of assisted problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 181–191.
• Wood, D., Wood, H., & Middleton, D. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131–147.