Development of the rubric self-efficacy scale

Year 2018, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 187 - 200, 01.01.2018

Perihan Güneş , Özen Yıldırım , Miraç Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.373040

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool determining teachers’ self-efficacy regarding rubrics. Especially in educational environments, rubrics are measurement tools used in the assessment phase of student products usually based on higher-order thinking skills. Determination of teachers’ self-efficacy regarding rubrics can give researchers an idea on how often and how accurately teachers use such tools. For this reason, the existence of a tool accurately measuring self-efficacy variable is necessary. This study’s sample consists of 641 elementary, middle and high school teachers. To determine teachers’ self-efficacy levels regarding rubrics, 47-item draft was developed. As a result of validity and reliability analyzes, a 28-item measurement tool with a four-factor structure was obtained. The total scale’s and sub-factors’ internal consistency is quite high. Using this scale, researchers can examine the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and various variables that play an important role in education. In addition, comparative studies on the intended use of rubrics can be conducted by determining teachers’ self-efficacy levels regarding rubrics. 

Keywords

Rubric, Teacher Efficacy Scale Development, Psychometric Properties, Performance Tasks

Development of the rubric self-efficacy scale

Abstract

The
purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool
determining teachers’ self-efficacy regarding rubrics. Especially in
educational environments, rubrics are measurement tools used in the assessment
phase of student products usually based on higher-order thinking skills.
Determination of teachers’ self-efficacy regarding rubrics can give researchers
an idea on how often and how accurately teachers use such tools.  For this reason, the existence of a tool
accurately measuring self-efficacy variable is necessary. This study’s sample
consists of 641 elementary, middle and high school teachers. To determine
teachers’ self-efficacy levels regarding rubrics, 47-item draft was developed.
As a result of validity and reliability analyzes, a 28-item measurement tool
with a four-factor structure was obtained. The total scale’s and sub-factors’
internal consistency is quite high. Using this scale, researchers can examine
the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and various variables that
play an important role in education. In addition, comparative studies on the
intended use of rubrics can be conducted by determining teachers’ self-efficacy
levels regarding rubrics. 

Keywords

Rubric, Teacher Efficacy Scale Development, Psychometric Properties, Performance Tasks

References

• Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching. 53(1).
• Andrade, H. G., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3).
• Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 287-302.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, (4), 71-81. New York: Academic Press.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Byrne, B. M. (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(2), 155-175.
• Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: a study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473-490.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Harper & Row. p. 161.
• Cureton, E. E. (1966). Corrected item-test correlations. Psychometrika, 31, 93-96.
• Elias, S., & Loomis, R. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1687- 1702.
• Guilford, J. P. (1953). The correlation of an item with a composite of the remaining items in a test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13, 87-93.
• Jerusalem, M. (2002). Theroretischer Teil - Einleitung I, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 44, 8-12.
• Jonsson, A. (2014). Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39 (7), 840-852. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.875117
• Kelley, T. L. (1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17-24.
• Likert, R. (1932). A Techniques for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 5-53.
• Metin, M. (2013). Öğretmenlerin performans görevlerini hazırlarken ve uygularken karşılaştığı sorunlar. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(3), 1645- 1673.
• Metin, M., & Özmen, H. (2010). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin performans değerlendirmeye yönelik hizmet içi eğitim (HİE) ihtiyaçlarının belirlenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(3), 819-838.
• Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assesment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3),1-5.
• Özkan, Ö., Tekkaya, C., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2002). Fen bilgisi aday öğretmenlerin fen kavramlarının anlama düzeyleri, fen öğretimine yönelik tutum ve öz-yeterlik inançları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Kongresi, ODTÜ, Ankara.
• Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.
• Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through selfassessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong—and what’s right—with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72-75.
• Popham, W. J. (2007). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Pearson Education, 5th Edition, USA.
• Raykov T, Marcoulides G. A. (2006). FundamenFtals of structural equation modeling. A first course in structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; p.1-3, 41-3.
• Reddy, Y., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 435- 448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859.
• Reynolds, J., Smith, R., Moskovitz, C., & Sayle, A. (2009). BioTAP: A Systematic Approach to Teaching Scientific Writing and Evaluating Undergraduate Theses. BioScience, 59 (10), 896–903. doi:10.1025/bio.2009.59.10.11
• Riggs, I. M. ve Enochs L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodnessof-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Schwarzer R. (1993). General percevied self-efficacy in 14 cultures. Retrieved on 5-June 2007, at URL http://Web.Fu-Berlin.De/Gesund/Publicat/Ehpscd/Health/World14.Htm
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Fourth Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayınları, Ankara
• Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
• Venning, J., & F. Buisman-Pijlman (2013). Integrating Assessment Matrices in Feedback Loops to Promote Research Skill Development in Postgraduate Research Projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38 (5): 567–579.
• Vieira, A. L. (2011). Preparation of the analysis. Interactive LISREL in practice. 1st ed. London: Springer; p.13-4
• Wiggins, G. (1991). Standart, not standardization: Evoking quality student work. Educational Leadership. 48(5), 18-25.
• Yılmaz, M., Köseoğlu, P., Gerçek, C., Soran, H. (2004). Yabancı Dilde Hazırlanan Bir Öğretmen Öz-yeterlik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 260-267.
• Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1016