Öğretim Programlarındaki Değişime Uyum Ölçeği'nin Geliştirilmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 23 Issue: 3, 245 - 262, 29.10.2022

Yasemin Karsantık , Esed Yağcı

https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1108797

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin öğretim programlarındaki değişime uyum düzeylerini ortaya koymak için güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Bu doğrultuda eğitsel değişim ve program değişimi konusunda yapılan çalışmalara ve program değişimine yönelik öğretmenlerden elde edilen verilere dayalı olarak hazırlanan madde havuzu kapsam ve anlaşılırlık bakımından uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda incelenerek bir deneme formu oluşturulmuştur. Öğretim Programlarındaki Değişime Uyum Ölçeği (ÖPDU) deneme formu aracılığıyla farklı alanlardan 253 öğretmenden elde edilen verilerle ölçeğin yapısını belirlemek için açımlayıcı faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda 29 maddeden ve yedi faktörden oluşan bir yapı ortaya konulmuştur. İş birliği (1) değişimi yönetme (2), değişimin etkisi (3), değişim endişesi (4), bilgi edinme (5), geribildirim (6) ve değişim farkındalığı (7) boyutlarından oluşan ölçek toplam varyansın %68.68’ini açıklamaktadır. 303 öğretmenden elde edilen veriler ile yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ise ölçeğin yedi faktörlü yapısını doğrulamıştır (χ2/sd = 2.11, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06, GFI = .85, AGFI = .82, NFI = .87, NNFI[TLI] = .91, CFI = .92). Yapılan güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda iki ayrı örnekleme uygulanan ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı sırasıyla .84 ve .86 şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak geliştirilen ölçeğin öğretmenlerin öğretim programlarında gerçekleştirilen değişime yönelik uyum düzeylerini belirlemek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Keywords

Öğretim programlarının değişimi, Değişime uyum, Ölçek geliştirme, Programa bağlılık, Program uyarlama

Supporting Institution

-

Thanks

Bu çalışma ilk yazarın “İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Öğretim Programlarındaki Değişime Uyum Süreci” isimli doktora tezinden üretilmiştir. [This study was produced from the first author’s PhD dissertation entitled “Adaptation Process of English Language Teachers to Curriculum Change”.]

Development of the Adaptation to Curriculum Change Scale

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to develop a reliable and valid tool to measure level of teachers’ adaptation to curriculum change. A trial form with draft items were prepared based on previous research on educational (curriculum) change and written feedbacks obtained from teachers. The trial form was analyzed by experts regarding content and clarity. Explanatory factor analysis was conducted on the data collected from 253 teachers through the trial form to establish factor structure of scale. A 29-item scale with seven factors was obtained. The scale explained 68.68% of total variance and had dimensions of cooperation (1), change management (2), effect of change (3), concerns about change (4), information seeking (5), feedback (6) and change awareness (7). Confirmatory factor analysis on the data obtained from 303 teachers confirmed seven-factor structure of the scale (χ2/df = 2.11, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06, GFI = .85, AGFI = .82, NFI = .87, NNFI[TLI] = .91, CFI = .92). Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the scale administered to two different samples was found .84 and .86, respectively. The study concluded that Adaptation to Curriculum Change Scale for Teachers was a reliable and valid instrument to identify level of teachers’ adaptation to curriculum change.

Keywords

Curriculum change, Adaptation to change, Scale development, Curriculum fidelity, Curriculum adaptation

References

• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2), 155-173.
• Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.
• Banning, E. I. (1954). Teacher attitudes toward curriculum change: The effect of personal relationships on the degree of favorableness. The Journal of Experimental Education, 23(2), 133-147. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1954.11010499
• Bümen, N. T., Çakar, E. ve Yıldız, D. G. (2014). Türkiye’de öğretim programına bağlılık ve bağlılığı etkileyen etkenler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(1), 203-228. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.1.2020
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Genişletilmiş 18. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Carl, A. (2005). The “voice of the teacher” in curriculum development: A voice crying in the wilderness?. South African Journal of Education, 25(4), 223-228.
• Carless, D. R. (1998). A case study of curriculum implementation in Hong Kong. System, 26, 353-368.
• Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York, NY: Plenum.
• Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Effectiveness of curriculum change in school: An organizational perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), 26-34.
• Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 584-594.
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, J. D. A., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). The revised Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(4), 257-268.
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
• 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 and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Di Fabio, A., & Gori, A. (2016). Developing a new instrument for assessing acceptance of change. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(802). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00802
• Doğanay, A., & Sarı, M. (2008). The new social studies curriculum from the teachers’ point of view: A study in the Adana province of Turkey. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 468-484.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 1-9). Abington, OX: Routledge.
• Fuller, F (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207-226.
• George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: SEDL.
• Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381-391. doi: 10.1080/135406002100000512
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Hall, G. E. (1974, April). The concerns-based adoption model: A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Oral Presentation, Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
• Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process. SUNY Series in Educational Leadership. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of use. (3rd ed.). Texas: SEDL.
• Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 52-56.
• Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• 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 Jounal, 6, 1-55.
• Janı́k, T., Janko, T., Pešková, K., Knecht, P., & Spurná, M. (2018). Czech teachers’ attitudes towards curriculum reform implementation. Human Affairs, 28, 54-70. doi: 10.1515/humaff-2018-0006 pp.54-70
• Karavas‐Doukas, E. (1995). Teacher identified factors affecting the implementation of an EFL innovation in Greek public secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(1), 53-68. doi: 10.1080/07908319509525188
• Kilpatrick, J. (2009). The mathematics teacher and curriculum change. PNA, 3(3), 107- 121.
• Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551-567. doi: 10.1080/00220270010016874
• Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
• Koyuncu, İ. ve Kılıç, A. F. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanımı: Bir doküman incelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198), 361-388.
• Lee, J. C. K. (2000). Teacher receptivity to curriculum change in the implementation stage: The case of environmental education in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 95-115. doi: 10.1080/002202700182871
• Liu, W., & Wang, Q. (2019). Walking with bound feet: Teachers’ lived experiences in China’s English curriculum change. Language, Culture and Curriculum. doi:10.1080/07908318.2019.1615077
• Loucks, S., & Pratt, H. (1979). A concerns-based approach to curriculum change. Educational Leadership, 37(3), 212-215.
• Macdonald, D. (2003). Curriculum change and the post-modern world: Is the school curriculum-reform movement an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2), 139-149. doi: 10.1080/00220270210157605
• Marsh, C. J. (1984). Implementation of a curriculum innovation in Australian schools. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 6(1), 37-58.
• McNeil, J. D. (2009). Contemporary curriculum: In thought and action. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Mellegård, I., & Pettersen, K. D. (2016). Teachers’ response to curriculum change: balancing external and internal change forces. Teacher Development, 20(2), 181-196. doi. 10.1080/13664530.2016.1143871
• Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (t.y.). Trabzon İl Millî Eğitim Müdürlüğü. https://trabzon.meb.gov.tr/ adresinden elde edildi.
• Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2008). What makes teachers change? Factors that influence post-secondary teachers’ adoption of new computing curricula. Technical Report. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
• Noack, M., Mulholland, J., & Warren, E. (2013). Voices of reform from the classroom: Teachers’ approaches to change. Teachers and Teaching, 19(4), 449-462. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.770233
• Ohlhausen, M. M., Meyerson, M. J., & Sexton, T. (1992). Viewing innovations through the efficacy-based change model: A whole language application. Journal of Reading, 35(7), 536-541.
• Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual difference measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680-693.
• Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2017). Language teachers’ evaluation of curriculum change: A qualitative study. The Qualitative Report, 22(2), 391-409.
• O'Sullivan, K. A., Carroll, K., & Cavanagh, M. (2008). Changing teachers: Syllabuses, subjects and selves. Issues in Educational Research, 18(2), 167-182.
• Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.
• Pešková, K., Spurná, M., & Knecht, P. (2019). Teachers’ acceptance of curriculum reform in the Czech Republic: One decade later. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(2), 73. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.560
• Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of Science Education, 25(10), 1171-1204. doi.10.1080/09500690210145819
• Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
• 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.
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Van den Berg, R., Sleegers, P., Geijsel, F., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Implementation of an innovation: Meeting the concerns of teachers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 331-350.
• Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231-251.
• Voogt, J., & Pelgrum, H. (2005). ICT and curriculum change. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 1(2), 157-175.
• Zhu, X., Ennis, C. D., & Chen, A. (2011). Implementation challenges for a constructivist physical education curriculum. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 83-99. doi: 10.1080/17408981003712802