Çevrimiçi Eğitmenlerin Çevrimiçi Öğretime Karşı Algı ve Uygulamaları Ölçeği: Türkçe’ye Uyarlama Çalışması

Year 2021, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 243 - 260, 03.12.2021

Sumeyye Bektaş Recep Çakır

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı; çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında eğitmenlerin üstlendikleri rolleri ve buna ilişkin algılarını ortaya çıkarmak için kullanılacak olan “Çevrimiçi Eğitmenlerin Çevrimiçi Öğretime Karşı Algı ve Uygulamaları” ölçeğini Türkçe’ ye uyarlamaktır. Ölçek Chang, Shen ve Liu (2014) tarafından geliştirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Türkçe’ ye uyarlama çalışmalarına başlamadan önce ölçeği geliştiren yazarlardan gerekli izinler alınmıştır. Orijinali İngilizce olan ölçek Türkçe’ ye çevrildikten sonra 2 İngilizce öğretmenine orijinal ölçek metni ve çevirinin yapıldığı dosya gönderilerek incelemeleri istenmiş ve alınan dönütler doğrultusunda gerekli düzeltmeler yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin uzman görüşü için ise Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri alanında çalışan 2 öğretim üyesinin görüşüne başvurulmuş ve gelen öneriler doğrultusunda ölçeğe son şekli verilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışmaları kapsamında Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı resmi ve özel eğitim kurumlarında görev yapan 414 öğretmenden gönüllülük esasına göre veriler toplanmıştır. Kullanılan ölçek toplamda 40 madde ve 7 boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliğini test etmek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı Cronbach Alpha Katsayısı hesaplanarak test edilirken; madde tutarlılığı için düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonları incelenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar “Çevrimiçi Eğitmenlerin Çevrimiçi Öğretime Karşı Algı Ve Uygulamaları” ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Çevrimiçi eğitmen rolleri, Uzaktan eğitim, Çevrimiçi öğrenme, Türkçe uyarlama çalışması

The Survey of Perceptions and Applications of Online Educators Towards Online Teaching: The Study of Adaptation to Turkish

Abstract

This study aims to adapt the survey of "Perceptions and Applications of Online Educators Towards Online Teaching", which will reveal the roles and perceptions of teachers in online learning environments into Turkish. The scale was developed by Chang et al. (2014). For this purpose, necessary permissions were obtained from the authors who created the scale before starting the adaptation into Turkish. After the scale, which was originally in English, was translated into Turkish, the original scale text and the translation file were sent to 2 English teachers, and they were asked to review and necessary corrections were made in line with the feedback received. For the expert opinion of the scale, the opinions of 2 faculty members working in the field of Computer and Instructional Technologies were consulted. The scale was finalized in line with the suggestions received. Within the scope of the validity and reliability studies of the scale, data were collected on a voluntary basis from 414 teachers working in official and private educational institutions affiliated with the Ministry of National Education. The scale used consists of 40 items and seven dimensions in total. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the construct validity of the scale. The scale's internal consistency was tested by calculating the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, and corrected item-total correlations were analyzed for item consistency. The results showed that the survey of "Perceptions and Applications of Online Educators Towards Online Teaching" is valid and reliable.

Keywords

Roles of the online instructor, online teaching, distance education, online learning, the study of adaptation to Turkish

References

• Álvarez, I., Guasch, T., & Espasa, A. (2009). University teacher roles and competencies in online learning environments: a theoretical analysis of teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 321-336.
• Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.
• Badia, A., Garcia, C., & Meneses, J. (2017). Approaches to teaching online: Exploring factors influencing teachers in a fully online university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1193-1207.
• Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439.
• Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2013). Tracing successful online teaching in higher education: Voices of exemplary online teachers. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1-41.
• Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: implications for competency‐based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383-397.
• Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
• Berge, Z. L. (2008). Changing instructor’s roles in virtual worlds. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 407-414.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences: Statistic, research design, SPSS applications and comment]. Baskı (23rd Edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
• Casey, D. M. (2008). The historical development of distance education through technology. TechTrends, 52(2), 45-51.
• Chang, C., Shen, H. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2014). University faculty’s perspectives on the roles of e-instructors and their online instruction practice. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 72-92.
• Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management İnformation Systems, 18(4), 169-189.
• Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1-9.
• Çakır, R., Kara, M., & Kukul, V. (2019). Adaptation of the online self-regulation questionnaire (OSRQ) in three types of interaction into Turkish: A validity and reliability study. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 9(2), 332-348.
• Easton, S. S. (2003). Clarifying the instructor's role in online distance learning. Communication Education, 52(2), 87-105.
• Egan, T. M., & Akdere, M. (2005). Clarifying distance education roles and competencies: Exploring similarities and differences between professional and student-practitioner perspectives. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2), 87-103.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
• Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65-72.
• Guasch, T., Alvarez, I., & Espasa, A. (2010). University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 199-206.
• Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27, 1-12.
• Hu, L. T., & 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.
• Hung, M. L., & Chou, C. (2015). Students' perceptions of instructors' roles in blended and online learning environments: A comparative study. Computers & Education, 81, 315-325.
• Ma, J., Han, X., Yang, J., & Cheng, J. (2015). Examining the necessary condition for engagement in an online learning environment based on learning analytics approach: The role of the instructor. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 26-34.
• Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184-205.
• Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34-43.
• Martin, F., Sun, T., & Westine, C. D. (2020). A systematic review of research on online teaching and learning from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 159, 104009.
• McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 2, 355.
• Moore, M. G. (2003). Editorial: The Handbook of Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 73-75.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
• Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
• Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391.
• Roberts, J., & Bezuidenhout, A. (2017). Technology, work roles and competencies of educators facilitating fully or partially via a distance. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 18(1-3), 110-121.
• Sands, D. J., Spencer, K. C., Gliner, J., & Swaim, R. (1999). Structural equation modeling of student involvement in transition-related actions: The path of least resistance. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(1), 17-27.
• Siemens, G., Gasevic, D., & Dawson, S. (Eds.) (2015). Preparing for the digital university: A review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. MOOC Research Initiative
• Spector, J. M., & De La Teja, I. (2001). Competencies for online teaching. ERIC Digest.
• Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Tavukcu, T., Arapa, I., & Özcan, D. (2011). General overview on distance education concept. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3999-4004.
• Tay, L., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Adjusting the adjusted χ2/df ratio statistic for dichotomous item response theory analyses: Does the model fit? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(3), 510-528.
• Taylor, J. C. (1995). Distance education technologies: The fourth generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 11(2), 2-7.
• Taylor, J. C. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Instructional Science and Technology, 4(1), 1-14.
• Varvel, V. E. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(1), 1-41.
• Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 231.
• Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1-13.
• Williams, P. E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 45-57.
• Xie, J., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70-87.