A Study on Developing Scale for Teacher Perceptions towards Spelling Rules

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a scale to determine Primary Education and Turkish Language teachers' perceptions regarding the frequency of spelling mistakes which their students make. Therefore, this experimental form made to serve this goal was presented to field specialists in terms of consultation; and each item in the form was regulated to ensure content validity rates in accordance with the feedback provided by the specialists. Items with the validity rate below 0.80 were omitted from the form. The trial form consisting of 34 items was administered to 232 Primary Education and Turkish Language teachers who teach at schools under the jurisdiction of Ministry of National Education (MoNE) via e-mail, and the gathered data were analyzed. With the help of Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA), a four-dimensioned construct with 19 items including frequently made mistakes regarding acronyms, spelling of conjunctions and suffixes, spelling of capital letters, spelling of compound words, and the spelling of the words affected by word formation processes. In the analyses, the relations between the sub-scales of the original scale were taken into consideration, revealing that factors had positive and significant relationships and sub-dimensions were the constituents of the general structure named spelling mistakes, which made up the upper structure. Goodness of fit indices (GFI) of the model was detected to be quite high. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) administered to the second research group justified the EFA results. The internal consistency coefficient, calculated as .91, for the entire scale was found to be quite reliable.

Keywords

• Spelling mistakes
• Scale development
• Teacher perceptions

References

1. Akbulut, Y. (2010). SPSS applications in social sciences: frequently used statistical analyses and SPSS solutions with explanations. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Pub.
2. Akgül, A., & Çevik, Ç. (2003). İstatistiksel analiz teknikleri [Statistical analysis techniques]. İstanbul: Emek Pub.
3. Aksoy, Ö. A. (1985). Yine dil yanlışları 270 sözün eleştirisi [Again language mistakes 270 criticism of the word]. Ankara: Öğretmen Pub.
4. Aksoy, Ö. A. (1990). Dil yanlışları [Language mistakes]. Ankara: Yalçın Emel Pub.
5. Aktaş, Ş., & Gündüz, O. (2003). Yazılı ve sözlü anlatım kompozisyon sanatı [Written and oral expression composition art]. Ankara: Akçağ Pub.
6. Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. London: Kluwer Academic Pub.
7. Bağcı, H. (2011). Elementary 8th grade student’s level of ability to apply spelling rules and punctuation marks. Turkish Studies, 6(1), 693-706.
8. Bayat, N. (2013). Choice of vocabulary and syntax mistakes of novice teachers in writing. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 12(43), 116-144.

9. Bayram, N. (2004). SPSS data analysis in social sciences, Bursa: Ezgi Pub.
10. Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2006). SPSS for psychologists. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Press.
11. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Handbook of data analysis for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy Pub.
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E, Karadeniz Ş., Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Academy Pub.
14. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2009). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15. Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: are we bound by only one method. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 165-191. Doi:10.1016/S1075-2935(03)00018-7
16. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Multiple variable statistics, SPSS and LISREL applications for social sciences. Ankara: Pegem Academy Pub.
17. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
18. Ferguson, F., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education. McGraw Hill Book Company.
19. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
20. Gebrhard, R.C. (1983). Writing processes, revision and rhetorical problems: a note on three recent articles. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 294-296.
21. Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. London & New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
22. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
23. Kansas, S. (2019). Fransızca yazım kılavuzu [French spelling guide]. Paris: Hatier Pub.
24. Karagül, S. (2010). Application level of the noted writing and its rules in Turkish lesson teaching programme of the elemantary 6-8. Class students. Unpublished MA Dissertation, Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir.
25. Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model working memory in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: therories, methods, individual differences and applications (p.57-72). Mahwaha, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
26. Kıbrıs, İ. (2010). Türkçe 1: yazılı anlatım. [Turkish 1: written expression]. Ankara: Kök Pub.
27. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2006). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: is parsimony always desirable. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(4), 364-390.
29. MEB (2006). İlköğretim Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programı (6-8. Sınıflar) [Primary Education Turkish Course Curriculum (Grades 6-8)]. Ankara: MEB Pub.
30. MEB (2009). İlköğretim Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programı (1-5. Sınıflar) [Primary Education Turkish Course Curriculum (Grades 1-5)]. Ankara: MEB Pub.
31. MEB (2018). İlköğretim Türkçe Dersi Öğretim Programı (6-8. Sınıflar) [Primary Education Turkish Course Curriculum (Grades 1-5)]. Ankara: MEB Pub.
32. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness of tit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445.
33. Özdamar, K. (2016). Structural equation modelling for scale and test development. Eskişehir: Nisan Pub.
34. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin Pub.
35. Seçer, İ. (2015). Process of psychological test development and adaptation: SPSS and LISREL applications. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
36. Şencan, H. (2005). Validity and reliability in social and behavioral measurements. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
37. Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation models: basic concepts and sample applications. Turkish Psychology Articles, 3(6), 49-74.
38. Ural, A., & Kılıç, İ. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma süreci ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Scientific research process and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Detay Pub.
39. Ünver, İ. (2008). Suggestion on standart writing in transcription. Turkish Studies, 3(6),1-46.
40. Tavşancıl, E. (2018). Measuring the attitudes and data analysis via SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Academy Pub.
41. TDK Türkçe Sözlük (2019). Turkish Dictionary of Turkish Language Institution. http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&view=gts (Access: 05.03.2019).
42. Türkel A., Yaman B., Aksu C. (2017). Perceptions of classroom and Turkish teachers’ towards spelling rules and students’ writing mistakes. 10.UTEOK, Okan Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
43. Veneziano L., & Hooper J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70.