BibTex RIS Cite

Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 23, 01.06.2014

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışlarının sıklığını betimleyen geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Manisa, Yozgat, Ankara, Adana, İzmir, Van ve Batman illerinde kamu ve özel okullarında çalışan 984 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Ölçme aracının geçerliği kapsamında açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri; güvenirlik kapsamında ise Cronbach’s Alfa katsayısı, madde toplam korelasyonları, maddelerin alt ve üst % 27’lik gruplarda t-testi ile karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. 23 ifadeden oluşan taslak ölçme aracı üzerinde yapılan açımlayıcı faktör analizinde ölçme aracının hem tek boyutlu hem de iki boyutlu olarak kullanılmasının mümkün olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Buna göre ölçme aracının iki boyutlu kullanılması durumunda, birinci boyuta “öğretimi ve öğretmeni geliştirme”, ikinci boyuta ise, “sınıf ziyaretleri ve geri bildirim sunma” isimleri verilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizinin ardından yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi de kabul edilebilir düzeyde uyum indeksleri vermiştir. Yapılan analizler okul müdürü öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu ortaya koymuştur

References

  • Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (2003). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and incervice applications (6th Ed.). New York: Wiley. PthP
  • Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R. & Basom, M. (1991). Instructional leadership: Supervision that makes a difference. Theory into Practice, 30 (2), 97-101.
  • Arnau, L., Kahrs, J. & Kruskamp, B. (2004). Peer coaching: Veteran high school teachers take the lead on learning. NASSP The Bulletin, 88 (639), 26-41.
  • Bloom, G. & Goldstein, J. (Eds) (2000). The peer assistance and review reader. Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center at the University of California.
  • Bruce, T. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002a). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002b). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Chao, C. Y. & Dugger, J. C. (1996). A total quality management model for instructional supervision in vocational technical programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 33, 23-35.
  • Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  • Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Pnd P Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Creemers, B. P. M. & Scheerens, J. (1994) Developments in the educational effectiveness research programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 121–140.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • English, F. W. (2006). Encylopedia of educational leadership and administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Floyd, F. J. & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 286-299.
  • Gall, M. D. & Acheson, K. A. (2010). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and inservice applications. (6th Ed.). New Jersey: Wiley & Sons Publishing. PthP
  • Glanz, J. (2005). Action research as instructional supervision: Suggestions for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (643), 17-27.
  • Glanz, J. & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2000). Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and postmodern perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
  • Glatthorn, A. A. (1997) Differentiated supervision (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for PndP Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd Ed). Boston: PndP Allyn and Bacon.
  • Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P. & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. PthP
  • Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Gordon, S. P. (1997). Has the field of supervision evolved to the point that it should be called something else? Yes. Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. (Edt: J. Glanz & R. F. Neville). Norwood, MA: Christopher- Gordon. pp. 114-123.
  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Grimm, L. G. & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. PndP Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J. & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990) Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94–125.
  • Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325-344.
  • Holland, P. E. & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 5 (3), 227-247.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). Faktor analizi. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri.(Edt: Ş. Kalaycı). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti. ss. 321-331.
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Ed.). New York: PndP Guilford.
  • Kutsyuruba, B. (2003). Instructional supervision: Perceptions of Canadian and Ukrainian beginning high-school teachers. Unpublished Master Dissertation. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
  • Lunenburg, F. C. (1998). Techniques in the supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications. Education, 118 (4), 521-525.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 130-149.
  • Memduhoğlu, H. B. & Zengin, M. (2012). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi modeli olarak öğretimsel denetimin Türk Eğitim Sisteminde uygulanabilirliği. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi. 5 (1), 131-142.
  • McDonald, R. P. & Moon-Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psyhological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
  • Nolan, J. (1997) Can a supervisor be a coach? Educational Supervision: Perspectives, issues and controversies. (Edt: J. Glanz & R. Neville). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. pp. 100-108.
  • Olivia, P. F. & Pawlas, G. E. (2004). Supervision for today’s schools. (7th Ed). New Jersey: Wiley PthP & Sons Publishing.
  • Pajak, E. (1993). Approaches to clinical supervision: Alternatives for improving instruction. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
  • Palandra, M. (2010). The role of instructional supervision in district-wide reform, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 221-234.
  • Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, (5th Ed.). Boston, PthP MA: Pearson.
  • Schulman, V., Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11 (4), 407-425.
  • Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L. & Willse, J. T. (2010). The search for optimal cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling, 74 (3), 267-288.
  • Stronge, J. H. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager. NASSP Bulletin, 77 (553), 1-7.
  • Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-74.
  • Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Thobega, M. & Miller, G. (2003). Relationship of instructional supervision with agriculture teachers’ job satisfaction and their intention to remain in the teaching profession. Journal of Agriculture Education, 44 (4), 57-66.
  • Tunison, S. D. (2001). Instructional supervision: The policy-practice rift. Journal of Educational Thought, 35 (1), 83-108.
  • Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (3rd Ed.). Larchmont, PrdP NY: Eye on Education.
  • Zepeda, S. J. (2011). Instructional supervision, coherence, and job-Embedded learning. International handbook of leadership for learning. (Edt: T. Townsend & J. MacBeath). London: Springer. pp. 741-756.
  • Wahne, R. L. (2010). The effect of instructional supervision on principal trust. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
  • Wang, J. & Odell, S. J. (2002) Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72 (3), 481-546.
  • Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice (4th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Worthington, R. L. & Whittaker, T. A. (2006), “Scale development research: a content analysis PthP and recommendations for best practices”, The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6), 806-838.

[A validity and reliability study of the principals’ instructional supervision behavior scale]

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 1 - 23, 01.06.2014

Abstract

References

  • Acheson, K. A. & Gall, M. D. (2003). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and incervice applications (6th Ed.). New York: Wiley. PthP
  • Andrews, R. L., Basom, M. R. & Basom, M. (1991). Instructional leadership: Supervision that makes a difference. Theory into Practice, 30 (2), 97-101.
  • Arnau, L., Kahrs, J. & Kruskamp, B. (2004). Peer coaching: Veteran high school teachers take the lead on learning. NASSP The Bulletin, 88 (639), 26-41.
  • Bloom, G. & Goldstein, J. (Eds) (2000). The peer assistance and review reader. Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center at the University of California.
  • Bruce, T. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002a). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002b). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Chao, C. Y. & Dugger, J. C. (1996). A total quality management model for instructional supervision in vocational technical programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 33, 23-35.
  • Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
  • Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Pnd P Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Creemers, B. P. M. & Scheerens, J. (1994) Developments in the educational effectiveness research programme. International Journal of Educational Research, 21, 121–140.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  • English, F. W. (2006). Encylopedia of educational leadership and administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Floyd, F. J. & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 286-299.
  • Gall, M. D. & Acheson, K. A. (2010). Clinical supervision and teacher development: Preservice and inservice applications. (6th Ed.). New Jersey: Wiley & Sons Publishing. PthP
  • Glanz, J. (2005). Action research as instructional supervision: Suggestions for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 89 (643), 17-27.
  • Glanz, J. & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2000). Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision: Modern and postmodern perspectives. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
  • Glatthorn, A. A. (1997) Differentiated supervision (2nd Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for PndP Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Glickman, C. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd Ed). Boston: PndP Allyn and Bacon.
  • Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P. & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2009). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach (8th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. PthP
  • Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Gordon, S. P. (1997). Has the field of supervision evolved to the point that it should be called something else? Yes. Educational supervision: Perspectives, issues, and controversies. (Edt: J. Glanz & R. F. Neville). Norwood, MA: Christopher- Gordon. pp. 114-123.
  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Grimm, L. G. & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. PndP Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J. & Marcoulides, G. A. (1990) Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94–125.
  • Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 5-44.
  • Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11, 325-344.
  • Holland, P. E. & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 5 (3), 227-247.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). Faktor analizi. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri.(Edt: Ş. Kalaycı). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım Ltd. Şti. ss. 321-331.
  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd Ed.). New York: PndP Guilford.
  • Kutsyuruba, B. (2003). Instructional supervision: Perceptions of Canadian and Ukrainian beginning high-school teachers. Unpublished Master Dissertation. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
  • Lunenburg, F. C. (1998). Techniques in the supervision of teachers: Preservice and inservice applications. Education, 118 (4), 521-525.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 130-149.
  • Memduhoğlu, H. B. & Zengin, M. (2012). Çağdaş eğitim denetimi modeli olarak öğretimsel denetimin Türk Eğitim Sisteminde uygulanabilirliği. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi. 5 (1), 131-142.
  • McDonald, R. P. & Moon-Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psyhological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
  • Nolan, J. (1997) Can a supervisor be a coach? Educational Supervision: Perspectives, issues and controversies. (Edt: J. Glanz & R. Neville). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. pp. 100-108.
  • Olivia, P. F. & Pawlas, G. E. (2004). Supervision for today’s schools. (7th Ed). New Jersey: Wiley PthP & Sons Publishing.
  • Pajak, E. (1993). Approaches to clinical supervision: Alternatives for improving instruction. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
  • Palandra, M. (2010). The role of instructional supervision in district-wide reform, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 221-234.
  • Sergiovanni, T. J. (2006) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, (5th Ed.). Boston, PthP MA: Pearson.
  • Schulman, V., Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: Consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11 (4), 407-425.
  • Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L. & Willse, J. T. (2010). The search for optimal cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling, 74 (3), 267-288.
  • Stronge, J. H. (1993). Defining the principalship: Instructional leader or middle manager. NASSP Bulletin, 77 (553), 1-7.
  • Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2000). Supervision that improves teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-74.
  • Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Thobega, M. & Miller, G. (2003). Relationship of instructional supervision with agriculture teachers’ job satisfaction and their intention to remain in the teaching profession. Journal of Agriculture Education, 44 (4), 57-66.
  • Tunison, S. D. (2001). Instructional supervision: The policy-practice rift. Journal of Educational Thought, 35 (1), 83-108.
  • Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Instructional supervision: Applying tools and concepts (3rd Ed.). Larchmont, PrdP NY: Eye on Education.
  • Zepeda, S. J. (2011). Instructional supervision, coherence, and job-Embedded learning. International handbook of leadership for learning. (Edt: T. Townsend & J. MacBeath). London: Springer. pp. 741-756.
  • Wahne, R. L. (2010). The effect of instructional supervision on principal trust. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
  • Wang, J. & Odell, S. J. (2002) Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72 (3), 481-546.
  • Wiles, J. & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision: A guide to practice (4th Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
  • Worthington, R. L. & Whittaker, T. A. (2006), “Scale development research: a content analysis PthP and recommendations for best practices”, The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6), 806-838.
There are 57 citations in total.

Details

Other ID JA73NG24HM
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Abdurrahman İlğan This is me

Publication Date June 1, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014 Volume: 4 Issue: 1

Cite

APA İlğan, A. (2014). Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 1-23.
AMA İlğan A. Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. EBAD - JESR. June 2014;4(1):1-23.
Chicago İlğan, Abdurrahman. “Okul müdürünün öğretimsel Denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik Ve güvenirlik çalışması”. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 4, no. 1 (June 2014): 1-23.
EndNote İlğan A (June 1, 2014) Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 4 1 1–23.
IEEE A. İlğan, “Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması”, EBAD - JESR, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2014.
ISNAD İlğan, Abdurrahman. “Okul müdürünün öğretimsel Denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik Ve güvenirlik çalışması”. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 4/1 (June 2014), 1-23.
JAMA İlğan A. Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. EBAD - JESR. 2014;4:1–23.
MLA İlğan, Abdurrahman. “Okul müdürünün öğretimsel Denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik Ve güvenirlik çalışması”. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 4, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-23.
Vancouver İlğan A. Okul müdürünün öğretimsel denetim davranışları ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. EBAD - JESR. 2014;4(1):1-23.