Gerçeklik Şoku Beklentisi Ölçeği’nin Uyarlaması ve Aday Öğretmenler Üzerine Bir Uygulama

Year 2016, Volume: 17 Issue: 2, 243 - 257, 01.05.2016

Murat Özdemir Hilal Büyükgöze

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, Kim ve Cho 2014 tarafından geliştirilmiş olan ‘Gerçeklik Şoku Beklentisi Ölçeğinin-GŞBÖ’ Türkçe’ye uyarlaması yapılmıştır. Araştırma, birbirini izleyen iki evrede yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın ilk evresinde GŞBÖ’nün geçerlik ve güvenirlik değerleri, 120 öğretmen adayından toplanan veriler üzerinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi DFA ve Cronbach alfa katsayısı ile incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın bu aşamasında GŞBÖ’nün geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu saptanmıştır. Araştırmanın ikinci evresinde ise öğretmen adaylarının gerçeklik şoku beklentilerinin cinsiyet, bölüm, yerleşim yeri ve aylık harcama tutarı değişkenleri bakımından fark gösterip göstermediği GŞBÖ’nün Türkçe versiyonunun 234 öğretmen adayına uygulanmasıyla incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, katılımcıların gerçeklik şoku beklenti düzeylerinin görece yüksek olduğunu ve araştırma değişkenleri bakımından anlamlı bir farklılık olmadığını göstermiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularına dayalı olarak GŞBÖ’nün Türk üniversitelerindeki öğretmen adaylarının gerçeklik şoku beklenti düzeylerini değerlendirmede elverişli bir veri toplama aracı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

gerçeklik şoku, öğretmen, öğretmen adayı, geçerlik ve güvenirlik

The Adaptation of Reality Shock Expectation Scale and a Study on Prospective Teachers

Abstract

In the current study, ‘Reality Shock Expectation Scale-RSES’ developed by Kim and Cho 2014 was adapted into Turkish. The study was conducted in two consecutive phases. In Phase 1, the validity and reliability values of RSES were investigated via confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach alpha coefficient using the data collected from 120 prospective teachers. In this phase, RSES was found to be a valid and reliable instrument. In Phase 2, it was investigated whether prospective teachers’ expectations of reality shock differed according to their gender, department, accommodation unit, and monthly expenditure by administering Turkish version of RSES to 234 prospective teachers. The results indicated that the participants’ level of reality shock expectations was relatively high and did not differ significantly regarding the variables of the research. Based on the findings, it was concluded that RSES is a useful data collection instrument in evaluating the reality shock expectation levels of prospective teachers in Turkish universities

Keywords

reality shock, teacher, prospective teacher, validity and reliability

References

• Beck, C. T. (1993). Nursing students initial clinical experience: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 30(6), 489-497.
• Betts, R. T. (2006). Lived experiences of long-term supply beggining teachers in new Brunswik: A hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Unpublish Doctoral Dissertation. The University of New Brunswik, Brunswik.
• Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: a look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 30, 555-574.
• Caires, S., Almeida, L. S., & Martins, C. (2010). The socioemotional experiences of student teachers during practicum: A case of reality shock?. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 17-27.
• Chubbuck, S. M. (2008). A novice teacher’s beliefs about socially just teaching: dialogue of many voices. The New Educator, 4(4), 309-329.
• Chubbuck, S. M., Clift, R. T., Allard, J., & Quinlan, J. (2001). Playing it safe as a novice teacher: Implications for programs for new teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 365-376.
• Daehlen, M. (2008). Job satisfaction and job values among beginning nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1789-1799.
• Dean, R. A., & Wanous, J. P. (1983). Reality shock and commitment: A study of new employees’ expectations. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA, August 26-30.
• Dean, R. A. (1985). Reality shock: What happens when a new job does not match expectations. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Los Angeles, CA, August 23-27.
• Dean, R. A., Ferris, K. R., & Konstants, C. (1988). Occupational reality shock and organizational commitment-evidence from the accounting profession. Accounting Organization and Society, 13(3), 235-250.
• Depolo, M., Fraccaroli, F., & Sarchielli, G. (1994). Mismatches between expectation and reality in the work socialization process. Traveil Humain, 57(2), 131-143.
• Dhar, R. L. (2012). Reality shock: experiences of Indian information technology (IT) professionals. Work, 46, 251-262.
• Duchscher, J. E. B. (2009). Transition shock: the initial stage of role adaptation for newly graduated registered nurses. Journal of Advance Nursing, 65(5), 1103-1113.
• Dyess, S. M., & Sherman, R. O. (2009). The first year of practice: New graduate nurses’ transition and learning needs. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40(9), 403-410.
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2003). Learning to teach English language during the first year: Personal influences and challenges. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 95-111.
• Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). The first year of language teaching: Imposing order. System, 34, 211-221.
• Guerin, G., Carriere, J., & Wils, T. (1999). Explanatory factors of demobilization amon newly hired university graduates. Relations Industrielles-Industrial Relations, 54(4), 643-672.
• Haggarty, L., & Postlethwaite, K. (2009). An exploration of changes in thinking in the transition from student teacher to newly qualified teacher. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 241-262.
• Hagger, H., Mutton, T., & Burn, K. (2011). Surprising but not shocking: The reality of the first year of teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4), 387-405.
• Hobson, A. J., & Ashby, P. (2012). Reality aftershock and how to avert it: Second-year teachers’ experiences of support for their professional development. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 177-196.
• Horn, E. (1966). Teachers who remain in the classroom: An interview study of persisting teachers. New York: City University of New York. Division of Teacher Education.
• Kim, H., & Cho, Y. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ motivation, sense of teaching efficacy, andexpectation of reality shock. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 67-81.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of Structural Equations Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
• Korkmaz, İ., Saban, A. ve Akbaşlı, S. (2004). Göreve yeni başlayan sınıf öğretmenlerinin karşılaştıkları güçlükler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 38, 266-277.
• Özpınar, M. ve Sarpkaya, R. (2010). Köyde görev yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin sorunları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 17-29.
• Öztürk, M. ve Yıldırım, A. (2013). Adaptation challenges of novice teachers. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 294-307.