ÖĞRETİM ELEMANLARININ PEDAGOJİK ALAN BİLGİLERİNİ DEĞERLENDİRME ANKETİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2013, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 407 - 428, 01.01.2013

Murat Özel Betül Timur Serkan Timur Kadir Bilen

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Jang, Guan ve Hsieh 2009 tarafından geliştirilen öğretim elemanlarının pedagojik alan bilgilerini değerlendirme anketini Türkçe’ye uyarlamaktır. Anketi geliştiren yazarlardan izin alındıktan sonra, anket maddeleri araştırmacılar tarafından Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Ardından tercüme uygunluk derecelendirme formları hazırlanıp İngilizce ve Türk dili uzmanlarının görüşlerine başvurularak anketin tercüme geçerliği incelenmiştir. Dil geçerliği sağlanan anketin Türkçe formu 587 öğretmen adayına uygulanmıştır. Faktör analizi uygulamasında anketin faktörlere ayrılmasında varimax dik döndürme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda anketin iki faktörlü ve orijinal formunda olduğu gibi 28 maddeden oluştuğu bulunmuştur. Anketin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı 0.923, alt faktörlerin Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı birinci faktör için 0.905 ve ikinci faktör için 0.804 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu değerler anketin oldukça yüksek derecede güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

pedagojik alan bilgisi, öğretim elemanları, öğretmen adayları

The Adaptation of Students’ Perceptions of College Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge Questionnaire into Turkish

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt the questionnaire entitled “Assessing Students’ Perceptions of College Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge”, which was developed by Jang, Guan and Hsieh 2009 , into Turkish. After obtaining the permission from the developers of the questionnaire, the items of the questionnaire were translated intoTurkish by the authors of the present study. After this, the translation validity was asked English and Turkish language experts. The final form of the questionnaire was administered to a group of 587 preservice teachers. After the item-total correlations were calculated, varimax rotation technique was used to determine the factor values of the items. Later, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in order to verify the structure of the questionnaire translated into Turkish. Based on these analyses, it was found that the adapted questionnaire into Turkish consisted of 28 items and gathered under two factors. The reliability coefficient Cronbach Alpha for the whole survey was calculated as 0.923, and 0.905 and 0.804 for the sub-factors, respectively

Keywords

pedagogical content knowledge, preservice teachers, validity and reliability

References

• Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1405-1416.
• Bayram. N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Amos uygulamaları. Bursa:Ezgi Kitabevi.
• Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147-163). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
• Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 8 for Windows. London and New York: Routledge.
• Büyüköztürk, S. (2009). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş.,Bökeoğlu, Ö. Ç., & Köklü N., (2008). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (Üçüncü Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamalı. Ankara: Pegem Yayınları
• De Jong, O., Van Driel, J., & Verloop, N. (2005). Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of using particle models in teaching chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 947-964.
• Friedrichsen, P., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Brown, P., Lankford, D., & Volkmann, M. (2009). Does teaching experience matter? Examining biology teachers' prior knowledge for teaching in an alternative certification program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 357-383.
• Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). PCK: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. Lederman (Eds.) Examining PCK: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3-20). Boston: Kluwer.
• Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Halim, L., & Meerah, S. B. (2002). Science trainee teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and its influence on physics teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 215-225.
• Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach tousingthe sas system for factor analysis nad structural eguation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
• Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10),1321-1342.
• Henze, I., Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2008). Development of experienced science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of models of the solar system and the universe. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10),1321-1342.
• Jang, S.-J., Guan, S.-Y., & Hsieh, H.-F. (2009). Developing an instrument for assessing college students’ perceptions of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 596-606.
• Justi, R., & Van Driel, J. (2005). A case study of the development of a beginning chemistry teacher’s knowledge about models and modelling. Research in Science Education, 35, 197-219.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (Dördüncü baskı). Ankara: Asil Yayıncılık.
• Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi-kavramlar, İlkeler, Teknikler-. 10.Baskı. Nobel Yayınevi. Ankara.
• Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J.A., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 418-426.
• Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31, 289-307.
• Loughran, J. J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,370-391.
• Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of PCK for science teaching (pp. 95-120). In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (eds.) Examining PCK: The construct and its implications for science education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
• Narasimhan, K. (2001). Improving the climate of teaching sessions: The use of evaluations by students and instructors. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 179-190.
• National Science Foundation. (2005). Teacher Professional Continuum (TPC). Retrieved September 27, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05580/nsf05580.htm
• Nillson, P., & Van Driel, J. (2010) How will we understand what we teach? – primary student teachers’ perceptions of their development of knowledge and attitudes towards physics. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 541-560.
• Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (Beşinci Baskı). Eskişehir: Kaan Kitapevi.
• Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
• Park, S., Jang, J-Y., Chen, Y-C., & Jung, J. (2010). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an Empirical Study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245-260.
• Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
• Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Totan, T., İkiz, E., & Karaca, R. (2010). Duygusal öz-yeterlik ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanarak tek ve dört faktörlü yapısının psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 71-95.
• Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). A preservice science teacher's pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): The story of Linda, Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference Brisbane, Queensland, Web: http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/tsu02499.htm, 30 Temmuz 2012’de alınmıştır.
• Uşak, M. (2005). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çiçekli bitkiler konusundaki pedagojik alan bilgileri. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Uşak, M., Özden, M., & Eilks, I. (2011). A case study of beginning science teachers’ subject matter (SMK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of teaching chemical reaction in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(4), 407- 429.
• Van Driel, J. H., Bijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practice and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.
• Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
• Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
• Van Driel, J. H., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590.
• Witner, S., & Tepner, O. (2010). Content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of chemistry teachers. Retrieved July 30, 2012, from http://www.uni- due.de/chemiedidaktik/09_forschung_agsumfleth_pck.shtml
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Beşinci Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.