OKUL MÜDÜRÜ GERİ BİLDİRİM ÖLÇEĞİ GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Okul müdürlerinin verdiği geri bildirimlerin etkililiği öğretmenlerin mesleki olarak gelişimlerinde önemli etkenler arasında sayılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda okul müdürlerinin öğretmenlere verdiği geri bildirimlerin etkililiğini ölçecek bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek bu araştırmanın amacını oluşturmaktadır. Ölçek maddeleri yazılırken hem etkili geri bildirimin işe vuruk tanımına hem de etkili geri bildirim veren okul müdürü davranışlarına uygunluğuna dikkat edilerek literatür taranmıştır. Kapsam geçerliği için 7 alan uzmanından görüş alındıktan sonra ölçek açımlayıcı faktör analizi için önce Hatay ili Antakya ilçesindeki resmi ortaokullarda görevli 363 öğretmene, sonra doğrulayıcı faktör analizi için İskenderun ilçesindeki 315 öğretmene uygulanmıştır. Temel Bileşen Analizi tekniğinin seçildiği ve dik döndürme yöntemlerinden Varimax’ın kullanıldığı faktör analizi sonucunda her biri 17 maddeden oluşan iki boyut elde edilmiştir. Elde edilen boyutlar “süreç” ve “işlev” olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin açıkladığı toplam varyans %76.887 olarak bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile ölçeğin model uygunluk ölçütleri bakımından iyi ve kabul edilebilir uyum aralığında olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik katsayısı Cronbach’s Alfa katsayısı ve iki yarı test istatistik teknikleri kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Her iki analiz sonucunda da elde edilen değer hem ölçeğin bütünü ve alt boyutlarda .90’nın üzerindedir. Sonuç olarak, yapılan analizler okul müdürü geri bildirim ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Geri bildirim,öğretmen denetimi,öğretmen değerlendirme,sınıf içi öğretim

THE PRINCIPAL FEEDBACK SCALE: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Abstract

The effectiveness of the feedback provided by principals is considered as one of the essential factors in the professional development of teachers. In this context, the purpose of this research is to develop a scale to measure the effectiveness of the feedback given by principals to teachers. While writing the scale items, the literature was searched with regard to the suitability of the definition of effective feedback and the principal's behaviors of giving effective feedback. After receiving the opinions of  7 experts for the content validity; first, the scale was applied to 363 teachers working in official secondary schools in Antakya, Hatay for the exploratory factor analysis, and then 315 teachers in İskenderun for the confirmatory factor analysis. Two dimensions, each consisting of 17 items, were obtained as the result of the factor analysis done with Principal Component Analysis and Varimax Rotation method. The dimensions were named as “process” and “function”. The total variance explained by the scale was found as 76.887%. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale was in a good and acceptable fit range in terms of model fit criteria. The reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha and Split-Half statistical techniques. The results obtained from both analyzes are above .90 in both the whole scale and the sub-dimensions. As a result, the analyses show that the principal feedback scale is a valid and reliable scale.

Keywords

• Feedback,teacher supervision,teacher assessment,teaching

References

1. Ashdown, L. (2014). Performance management. Kogan Page Publishers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2002). Improving instruction through observation and feedback.
2. Balcı, A. (2009). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
3. Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2012). Leverage Leadership. Wiley
4. Barrett, C., & Breyer, R. (2014). The influence of effective leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Research Initiatives, 1(2), 3.
5. Beatriz, P., Deborah, N., & Hunter, M. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Volume 1 Policy and Practice: Policy and Practice(Vol. 1). OECD publishing.
6. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
7. Borzak, J. M. (2010). Teachers’ perspectives on how the principal’s instructional leadership affects change directed at student improvement (PhD Dissertation). The University of Georgia, USA. Retrieved October 25, 2018 from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ borzak_james_m_201005_edd.pdf
8. Buron, R., & McDonald-Mann, D. (1999). Giving Feedback to Subordinates. Center for Creative Leadership.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (11. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
10. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi.
11. Cherasaro, T. L., Brodersen, R. M., Yanoski, D. C., Welp, L. C., & Reale, M. L. (2015). The Examining Evaluator Feedback Survey. REL 2016-100. Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved September 10, 2018 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED561139.pdf
12. Cherasaro, T. L., Brodersen, R. M., Reale, M. L., & Yanoski, D. C. (2016). Teachers’ Responses to Feedback from Evaluators: What Feedback Characteristics Matter? REL 2017-190. Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved September 10, 2018 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED570162.pdf
13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
14. Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
15. Dinham, S. (2005). Principal leadership for outstanding educational outcomes. Journal of educational administration, 43(4), 338-356.
16. DiPaola, M. F., & Stronge, J. H. (2003). Superintendent evaluation handbook. Rowman & Littlefield.
17. Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(2), 110-141.
18. Education First. (2015). Giving teachers the feedback and support they deserve. Seattle, WA.
19. Emmanouil, K., Osia, A., & Paraskevi-Ioanna, L. (2014). The impact of leadership on teachers’ effectiveness. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(7), 34-39.
20. Eroğlu, A. (2009). Faktör analizi. Editör Şeref Kalaycı. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (s. 321-331). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
21. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using spss. (4th Edition). London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
22. Frase, L. E., & Streshly, W. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 47-57.
23. Goff, P., Edward Guthrie, J., Goldring, E., & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership through feedback and coaching. Journal of educational administration, 52(5), 682-704.
24. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Urban Institute, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER). (2009). Triangulating Principal Effectiveness: How Perspectives of Parents, Teachers, and Assistant Principals Identify the Central Importance of Managerial Skills. Working Paper 35. Place of publication not identified: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.307.4231& rep=rep1&type=pdf
25. Hallinger, P., Wang, W. C., Chen, C. W., & Liare, D. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
26. Hart, E. W. (2011). Feedback in performance reviews. Center for Creative Leadership.
27. Herrera, R. (2010). Principal leadership and school effectiveness: Perspectives from principals and teachers (PhD Dissertation). Department of Educational Leadership, Western Michigan University, Michigan, U.S.A. Retrieved October 27, 2018 from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1570&context=dissertations.
28. Hinton, P. R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2014). SPSS explained. Routledge.
29. Hipp, K. A., & Bredesqn, P. V. (1995). Exploring connections between teacher efficacy and principals’ leadership behaviors. Journal of School Leadership, 5(2), 136-150.
30. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. McGraw-Hill.
31. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 64(4), 349.
32. Junor-Carty, P. (2017). Teacher and Administrator Perceptions of the Effectiveness of a Teacher Evaluation System and Its Impact on Student Learning. DigitalCommons@Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. Retrieved October 25, 2018 from http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1185&context=cauetds
33. Khachatryan, E. (2015). Feedback on Teaching From Observations of Teaching: What Do Administrators Say and What Do Teachers Think About It?. NASSP Bulletin, 99(2), 164-188.
34. Kırbaç, M., Balı, O. & Macit, E. (2017). Eğitim Sisteminde Geri Bildirim ile İlgili Öğretmen Görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(7), 57-74.
35. Kline, P. (1993). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
36. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological bulletin, 119(2), 254.
37. Liu, K., Stuit, D., Springer, J., Lindsay, J., Wan, Y., & Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest (ED). (2014). The Utility of Teacher and Student Surveys in Principal Evaluations: An Empirical Investigation. REL 2015-047. Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved October 27, 2018 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED548024.pdf
38. Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(10), 727-735.
39. Mathers, C., Oliva, M., & National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. (2008). Improving Instruction through Effective Teacher Evaluation: Options for States and Districts. TQ Research & Policy Brief. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved October 22, 2018 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED520778.pdf
40. Mestry, R. (2017). Principals' perspectives and experiences of their instructional leadership functions to enhance learner achievement in public schools. Journal of Education (University of KwaZulu-Natal), (69), 257-280.
41. Mihaly, K., Schwartz, H. L., Opper, I. M., Grimm, G., Rodriguez, L., Mariano, L. T. (2018). Impact of a Checklist on Principal-Teacher Feedback Conferences Following Classroom Observations. REL 2018-285. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved October 30, 2018 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580182.pdf
42. Mireles-Rios, R., & Becchio, J. A. (2018). The Evaluation Process, Administrator Feedback, and Teacher Self-Efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 28(4), 462-487.
43. Mitchell, C., & Castle, J. B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary school principals. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 409-433
44. Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2005). Teacher supervision and evaluation. Wiley.
45. Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistik veri analizi. (4. Baskı). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi.
46. Quinn, D. M. (2002). The impact of principal leadership behaviors on instructional practice and student engagement. Journal of educational administration, 40(5), 447-467.
47. Papay, J. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123-141.
48. Ramani, S., & Krackov, S. K. (2012). Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Medical teacher, 34(10), 787-791.
49. Reyes, P., & Hoyle, D. (1992). Teachers' satisfaction with principals' communication. The Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 163-168.
50. Rigby, J. G., Larbi-Cherif, A., Rosenquist, B. A., Sharpe, C. J., Cobb, P., & Smith, T. (2017). Administrator observation and feedback: Does it lead toward improvement in inquiry-oriented math instruction?. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 475-516.
51. Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
52. 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.
53. Stiggins, R., & Duke, D. (2008). Effective instructional leadership requires assessment leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(4), 285-291.
54. Stormont, M., & Reinke, W. M. (2014). Providing performance feedback for teachers to increase treatment fidelity. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(4), 219-224.
55. Stronge, J. H. & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation. Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
56. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
57. Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
58. Tezbaşaran, A. A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu (e-kitap). Erişim: https://www.academia.edu/1288035/Likert_Tipi_Ölçek_Hazırlama_Kılavuzu.
59. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation?. School effectiveness and school improvement, 25(4), 509-530.
60. Uğurlu, C. T. (2014). Current Problems in Terms of Supervision Process of School Principals' Views. Hacettepe Unıversity Journal Of Education, 29(3), 184-196.
61. Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F., & Simons, R. J. (2015). Promoting effective teacher-feedback: From theory to practice through a multiple component trajectory for professional development. Teachers and Teaching, 21(8), 990-1009.
62. Wallace Foundation. (2009). Assessing the effectiveness of school leaders: New directions and new processes. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
63. Wieczorek, D., Clark, B., & Theoharis, G. (2018). Principals’ Instructional Feedback Practices During Race to the Top. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-25.
64. Zabojnik, J. (2014). Subjective evaluations with performance feedback. The RAND Journal of Economics, 45(2), 341-369.