Pre-service Physical Education Teachers’ Teacher Identity Scale (PPET-TI): Adaptation Study to Turkish Culture

Abstract

In Turkey, the lack of measures for assessing the teacher identity of pre-service physical education teachers remains a significant challenge. Developing quantitative instruments grounded in a robust theoretical framework is crucial, as such tools would not only advance research in this field but also contribute to improving the quality of physical education teacher education. This study aims to test the reliability and validity of the Pre-service Physical Education Teachers’ Teacher Identity Scale (PPET-TI) to Turkish pre-service physical education teachers. The PPET-TI is a 7-point Likert-type scale comprising 17 items and three subscales: self-definitions, teaching goals, and professional responsibilities. Two hundred fifty pre-service physical education teachers (96 females and 154 males; x̄age = 21.25±2.36) voluntarily participated in the study. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) were conducted to evaluate the construct validity. The results of the CFA indicated that S-Bχ²/df 1.90, CFI 0.95, TLI 0.94, RMSEA 0.06, and SRMR 0.05. The results of the ESEM indicated that S-Bχ²/df 2.79, CFI 0.98, TLI 0.97, RMSEA 0.08, and SRMR 0.03. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.58 to 0.97 in the CFA and ranged from 0.45 to 0.82 in the ESEM. The findings indicated that the scale exhibited both discriminant and convergent validity, with CR and Cronbach’s alpha being strong. An evaluation of the fit indices, item factor loadings, and inter-item relationships revealed that the CFA results were more consistent with the original structure of the scale. Based on all the findings, it can be concluded that the Turkish version of the scale is suitable for assessing the teacher identities of pre-service physical education teachers.

Keywords

• Pre-service physical education teachers
• teacher identity scale
• professional identity

References

1. A da Cunha, M., Batista, P., & Graça, A. (2014). Pre-service physical education teachers’ discourses on learning how to become a teacher:[Re] constructing a professional identity based on visual evidence. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 7(1), 141-171. doi: 10.2174/1875399X01407010141
2. Adams, K., Hean, S., Sturgis, P., & Clark, J. M. (2006). Investigating the factors influencing professional identity of first-year health and social care students. Learning in Health and Social Care, 5(2), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2006.00119.x
3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
4. Aydın, F., & Aslan, M. (2024). Öğretmen kimliği ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, (72), 231-262. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1417404
5. Arpacı, D., & Bardakçı, M. (2015). Meslek öncesi öğretmen kimliği ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 687-719. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.256762
6. Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education 39(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252
7. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
8. Beijaard, D., Meijer P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education. 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001

9. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
10. Berry, B., & Shields, P. M. (2017). Solving the teacher shortage: revisiting the lessons we’ve learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 98, 8–18. doi: 10.1177/0031721717708289
11. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, 8, 137-164.
12. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
13. Butler, R. (2007). Teachers' achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers' help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470–483.
15. Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Measuring the professional identity of Hong Kong in-service teachers. Journal of In-Service Education 34(3): 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580802003060
16. Çalı, O., & Doğar, Y. (2024). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmeni mesleki kimlik ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1171362
17. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
18. Devís-Devís, J., & Sparkes, A. C. (1999). Burning the book: A biographical study of a pedagogically inspired identity crisis in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 5(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X990052005
19. Ferry, M. (2018). Physical education preservice teachers’ perceptions of the subject and profession: Development during 2005–2016. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(4), 358-370. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2018.1441392
20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.
22. Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
23. Hambleton, R. K., & De Jong, J. H. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language testing, 20(2), 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt247xx
24. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-16.
25. Heffernan, K. A., & Newton, K. J. (2019). Exploring mathematics identity: an intervention of early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 40(3), 296-324. doi: 10.1080/10901027.2019.1590484
26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747 014-0403-8
27. Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1530–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003
28. Horn, I. S., Nolen, S. B., Ward, C., & Campbell, S. S. (2008). Developing practices in multiple worlds: The role of identity in learning to teach. Teacher Education Quarterly, 61-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478981
29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
30. Kaplan, A., Garner, J. K., & Semo, S. (2015). Teacher role-identity and motivation as a dynamic system. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 2015 American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
31. Keating, X. D., Zhou, K., Liu, J., Shangguan, R., Fan, Y., & Harrison, L. (2017). Research on preservice physical education teachers’ and preservice elementary teachers’ physical education identities: A systematic review. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(2), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0128
32. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
33. Krosnick, J. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. Survey Measurement and Process Quality, 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118490013.ch6
34. Lawler, S. (2015). Identity: Sociological perspectives. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
35. Liu, J. (2019). Understanding preservice physical education teachers’ teacher identity. The University of Texas at Austin.
36. Liu, J., & Keating, X. D. (2022). Development of the pre-service physical education Teachers' teacher identity scale. European Physical Education Review, 28(1), 186-204. doi: 10.1177/1356336X211028832
37. Luo, J., Zhou, Y., Wei, P., & Zhao, S. (2014). Teachers’ professional identity and affective commitment: mediating role of job satisfaction. Psychological Development and Education, 30, 322–328. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2014.03.013
38. Macdonald, D. (1998). Who are “you”? Identity and religion in physical education teacher education. Sociology of Sport Online, 1(1), 8-12.
39. MacDonald, D., & Kirk, D. (1999). Pedagogy, the body and Christian identity. Sport, Education and Society, 4(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332990040202
40. Margarida, A., Ana, P., Amandio, G., & Paula, B. (2012). Practicum as a space and time of transformation: Self-narrative of a physical education pre-service teacher. US China Education Review, 7, 665–674.
41. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: AYEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1194-1218. doi:10.1037/a0026913
42. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual review of clinical psychology, 10(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
43. Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation, 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
45. Prokofieva, M., Stavropoulos, V., & Zarate, D. (2023). ‘esem’. R package. https://cran.r-project.org/web//packages/esem/esem.pdf
46. R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
47. Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. (2010). Current and future directions in teacher motivation research. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 16, 139-173. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016B008
48. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
49. Roth, G. (2014). Antecedents and outcomes of teachers’ autonomous motivation: A self determination theory perspective. In P. W. Richardson, S. Karabenick & H. M. G. Watt (Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 36-51). NY: Routledge.
50. 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. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
51. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Vol. 4). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Trede, F., Macklin, R., & Bridges, D. (2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.521237
53. US Department of Education (2019). 2020 Title II reports national teacher preparation data. Available at: https://title2.ed.gov/Public/Home.aspx
54. Van de Vijver, F. J., & Leung, K. (2021). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research (Vol. 116). Cambridge University Press.
55. Wang, X. Q., Zhang, D. J., & Zeng, L. H. (2011). Professional value and professional efficacy: the dual core factor model of professional identity in normal students. Psychological Development and Education, 27, 662–669. doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2011.06.005
56. Yang, A., Wang, Y., Yao, L., & Hamilton, X. D. (2023). Revalidation of preservice physical education teacher’s teacher identity scale in Chinese physical education student teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1061215. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1061215
57. Zhang, R. (2017). A scale study on teacher identity for pre-service physical education teacher. master’s thesis. Zhengzhou: Henan University.
58. Zhou, K., Wang, C., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Research on the professional identity structure and scale formation of physical education teachers. Journal of Beijing Sport University, 35(3), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.19582/j.cnki.11-3785/g8.2012.03.020