Determination of Teacher Qualifications from the Perspective of Stakeholders: Rubric Development Study

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 235 - 249

Süleyman Yaman Belgin Bal İncebacak Aslı Sarışan Tungaç

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.58.11.4

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a rubric to determine the qualifications of teachers, one of the most important elements of education. There are many measurement tools in the literature. One of the alternative and authentic assessment tools is rubrics, also known as rubrics. Rubrics have been defined in many studies in the literature. In the study, the rubric development stages suggested by Goodrich Andrade were taken into account. The rubric was created after the reliability studies of the rubric form were completed. In the research, an analytical rubric with 37 items was developed to be used in determining ‘the qualified teacher.’ The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the developed measurement tool was found to be .96. Based on the results obtained from the research, it can be stated that the developed rubric is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in the qualitative evaluation of teachers teaching all levels. The findings showed that the rubric had high agreement and reliability values among different stakeholder groups. Therefore, it can be said that this study provides a basis for Türkiye in determining teacher qualifications for science education, especially in the field of education. The developed rubric serves as a valid and reliable measurement tool, contributing to the objective assessment of teacher performance across all levels of the education process.

Keywords

teacher qualifications, analytic rubric, rubric development

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted by paying attention to ethical principles. No potential competing interest was reported by the authors. There isn’t any conflict of interest between corresponding author and the co-authors.

Supporting Institution

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey

Project Number

218K513

Thanks

We extend our heartfelt thanks to TÜBİTAK for their valuable support for our project.

References

• Anderson, L. W. (2003). Classroom assessment: Enchancing the quality of tacher decision making. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Asscociaties, Publishers.
• Atar, H. Y. (2014). Multilevel effects of teacher characteristics on TIMSS 2011 science achievement, education and science. Large-Scale Assessment, Special Issue 39(172), 121-137.
• Bağçeci, B., Başaran, M., Şahin, A., & Doğan, E. (2020). Constructivist teacher performance evaluation scale in the teaching-learning process: A rubric study. International Journal of Current Approaches in Language, Education and Social Sciences, 2(1), 232-256.
• Bal İncebacak, B., & Ersoy, E. (2022). Development of a Mathematical Language Scale in Fraction Teaching (MLSFT). Participatory Educational Research, 9(2), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.29.9.2
• Booth, D., & Coles, R. (2017). What is a "good" teacher? Pembroke Publishers Limited.
• Bozbayındır, F. (2019). Examining the factors affecting the status of the teaching profession on the basis of teacher views, Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 18(72), 2076-2104.
• Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, 359-715.
• Buaraphan, K. (2012). Multiple Perspectives on desirable characteristics of science teachers for educational reform. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(2), 384-393.
• Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), 103-115.
• Çalışkan, M., Işık, A. N., & Saygın, Y. (2013). Prospective teachers' perception of ideal teacher, Elementary Education Online, 12(2), 575-584.
• Çelikten, M., Şanal, M., & Yeni, Y. (2005). Teaching profession and its characteristics. Erciyes University Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 1(19), 207-237.
• Check, J. (1986). Positive traits of the effective teacher- Negative traits of the ineffective one. Education, 106, 326-334.
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
• Cohen. J. R., Swerdlik M. E., & Phillips, S. M. (1996). Psychological testing and assessment. (3rd Ed.). London: Mayfield
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications.
• Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.
• Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodrich Andrade, H. (1996). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4), 14-17.
• Goodrich Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57, 13-18.
• Goodrich Andrade, H. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4), 1-22.
• Gültekin, M. (2020). Teaching in Turkey as a changing profession. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(1), 654-700.
• Güven, D. (2010). Teaching as a professional profession in Turkey. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 27(2), 13-21.
• Haladyna, T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002
• Kan, A. (2007). In terms of contributions to the performance evaluation process that can be used in the new program understanding. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 7(1), 144-152.
• Kim, L. E., Jörg, V., & Klassen, R. M. (2019). A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout, Educational Psychology Review, 31, 163-195.
• Koçyiğit, M., Erdem, C., & Eğmir, E. (2020). Teachers' and pre-service teachers' self-evaluations of general competencies of teaching profession. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(3), 774-799. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.651639
• Koutsoulis, M. (2003). The characteristics of the effective teacher in Cyprus public high school: The students' perspective. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. (ERIC Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 478 761).
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33, 159-174.
• Lang, H., McKee, B., & Conner, K. (1993). Characteristics of effective teachers: A descriptive study of the perceptions of faculty and deaf college students. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 252-259.
• Liu, S., & Meng, L. (2009). Perceptions of teachers, students and parents of the characteristics of good teachers: A cross-cultural comparison of China and the United States. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 313-328.
• Maden, S., Durukan, E., & Aslan, A. (2010). Turkish teacher candidates' views about teacher qualifications. Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 5(4), 1364-1378.
• Melanlıoğlu, D. (2016). Metacognitive rubric for listening skills for foreign learners. Erzincan University Journal of Faculty of Education, 18(2), 1206-1229. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.20880
• Minor, L., Onwuegbuzie, A., Witcher, A., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers' educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 116127.
• Morgil, F. İ., & Yılmaz, A. (1999). Tasks and qualifications of science teachers, suggestions for science teacher training. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Education, 15, 181-186.
• Moskal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(10), 71-81.
• Murphy, P. K., Delli, L. A., & Edwards, M. N. (2004). The good teacher and teaching: Comparing beliefs of second-grade students, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 69-92.
• Okçabol, R. (2004). Teacher training from the perspective of students, teachers, teacher candidates and instructors. XIII. National Educational Sciences Congress, July 6-9, 2004 Inonu University, Faculty of Education, Malatya.
• Okpala, C. O., & Ellis, R. (2005). The perceptions of college students on teacher quality: A focus on teacher qualifications. Education, 126(2), 374-383.
• Özkan, M., & Arslantaş, H. İ. (2013). A Study of scaling with ranking judgment method on characteristic of effective teacher, Trakya University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1), 311-330.
• Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55, 72-75.
• Simon, M., & Giroux- F. R. (April 13, 2001). A rubric for scoring postsecondary academic skills. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(18). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol7/iss1/18/
• Spence, L.K. (2010). Discerning Writing assessment: Insights into an analytical rubric. Language Arts, 87(5), 337-352.
• Sünbül, A. M. (1991). Teacher quality and their role in teaching. Education Management, 2(1), 597-607.
• Szymanski, E. M., & Linkowski, D. C. (1995). Rehabilitation counseling accreditation: validity and reliability. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 61(1), 12-17.
• Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance. American Economic Review, 102 (7), 3628-3651.
• Teaching Profession Law. (2022). T.C. Official Gazette (7354, February 03, 2022). Available at https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2022/02/20220214-1.htm.
• Togerson, W.S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
• Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-63.
• Viere, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-362.
• Walls, R. T., Nardi, A. H., Von Minden, A. M., & Hoffman, N. (2002). The characteristics of effective and ineffective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 39-48.
• Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Scoring rubrics. In Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance (pp. 153-185). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 45–57.
• Yaman, S., Bal İncebacak, B., & Sarışan Tungaç, A. (2022). Stakeholder Views on Determining Teacher Qualifications. Journal of Ahmet Keleşoğlu Education Faculty, 4(2), 376-397.