Eğitsel Eylem Araştırması Tutum Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, eğitim alanında eylem araştırması yürüten bireylerin eylem araştırmasına yönelik tutumlarını ölçmeye olanak sağlayan geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Çalışma, keşfedici sıralı karma desen ile yürütülmüştür. Sürecin nitel aşamasında, eylem araştırması deneyimine sahip katılımcılarla derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş; bu görüşmelerden elde edilen ifadeler çözümlenmiştir. Elde edilen bu ön bulgular, ölçeğin kavramsal çerçevesinin ve madde havuzunun temelini oluşturmuş; uzman görüşleri alınarak kapsam geçerliği sağlanmış ve nicel aşamaya geçilmiştir. Nicel aşamada geliştirilen 103 maddelik ön form, beşli Likert tipi (1 = Kesinlikle Katılmıyorum, 5 = Kesinlikle Katılıyorum) ölçek olarak düzenlenerek 419 katılımcıya uygulanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin madde faktör yüklerinin .388 ile .816 arasında değiştiği ve toplam varyansın %68’ini açıkladığı dört faktörlü bir yapı sergilediği görülmüştür. Elde edilen yapının geçerliliği, farklı bir örneklemde (n = 211) doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle test edilmiş; modelin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı, kuramsal açıdan tutarlı ve uyum indekslerinin iyi–mükemmel düzeyde olduğu görülmüştür. Ölçeğin güvenirliği incelendiğinde ise Cronbach’s α katsayısının ölçeğin tamamı için .97 olduğu, alt boyutlarında ise .70 ile .95 arasında değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, 20 madde ve dört alt boyuttan oluşan Eğitsel Eylem Araştırması Tutum Ölçeğinin, eğitsel eylem araştırmasına yönelik tutumları geçerli ve güvenilir biçimde ölçebilen bir araç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Eğitim
• Eylem Araştırması
• Öğretmen
• Tutum
• Ölçek Geliştirme

Educational Action Research Attitude Scale: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The aim of this research is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool that enables the measurement of the attitudes of individuals conducting action research in the field of education towards action research. The study was conducted using an exploratory sequential mixed design. In the qualitative phase of the process, in-depth interviews were conducted with participants who had experience in action research; the statements obtained from these interviews were analysed. These preliminary findings formed the basis of the scale’s conceptual framework and item pool; content validity was ensured by obtaining expert opinions, and the quantitative phase was initiated. In the quantitative phase, the 103-item preliminary form developed was organised as a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) and administered to 419 participants. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale exhibited a four-factor structure, with item factor loadings ranging from .388 to .816 and explaining 68% of the total variance. The validity of the obtained structure was tested in a different sample (n = 211) using confirmatory factor analysis; the model was found to be statistically significant, theoretically consistent, and had good to excellent fit indices. When examining the reliability of the scale, Cronbach’s α coefficient was found to be .97 for the entire scale and ranged between .70 and .95 for the subscales. In conclusion, it was determined that the Educational Action Research Attitude Scale, consisting of 20 items and four sub-dimensions, is a valid and reliable tool for measuring attitudes towards educational action research.

Keywords

• Education
• Action Research
• Teacher
• Attitude
• Scale Development

References

1. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol, 52(1), 27–58.
2. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
3. Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2022). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (29. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2021). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (31. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
7. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
8. Cain, T. (2021). The role of action research in teacher professional learning. PDE, 47(3), 466–481.

9. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav, 1(2), 245–276.
10. Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2020). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well-known but poorly understood. Organ Res Methods, 23(4), 650–676.
11. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
12. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
13. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval, 10(7), 1–9.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Hyler, M. E. (2020). Preparing educators for the time of COVID... and beyond. Eur J Teach Educ, 43(4), 457–465.
17. de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behav, 44(2), 147–181.
18. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.
19. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
20. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
21. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR, 18(1), 39–50.
22. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference (13th ed.). Routledge.
23. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge.
24. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003, October). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education (pp. 82–88).
25. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. Am Educ Res J, 37(2), 479-507.
26. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
28. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2021). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
29. Henseler, J. (2021). Discriminant validity assessment. Psicothema, 33(4), 481–488.
30. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2020). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and methodological improvements. Advances in Social Science Research, 7(1).
31. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2022). The action research dissertation (3rd ed.). SAGE.
32. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J Bus Res Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
33. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
34. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
35. Kim, H.-Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod, 38(1), 52–54.
36. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. Korkmaz, İ., & Saban, A. (2011). Öğretmenlerin araştırma yapmaya yönelik inançları ve uygulamaları. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 17(3), 409–428.
37. Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Educ Eval Policy An, 36(4), 476–500.
38. Kyriazos, T. A. (2021). Dynamic guidelines for factor analysis sample sizes: Updating rules of thumb. Psychology, 12(5), 210–226.
39. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
40. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods, 4(1), 84–99.
41. McAteer, M. (2020). Action research in education. SAGE.
42. Mertler, C. A. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). SAGE.
43. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
44. Mills, G. E. (2020a). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (6th ed.). Pearson.
45. Mills, G. E. (2020b). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (12th ed.). Pearson.
46. Mıdık, Ö. (2018). Ölçek geliştirme süreci: Temel ilkeler ve uygulama örnekleri. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 17(53), 39–49.
47. OECD. (2019). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 results (Vol.I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.
48. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Rev Educ Res, 81(3), 376-407.
49. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge.
50. Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action researcher. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
51. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). Macmillan.
52. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol, 55(1), 68–78.
53. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
54. Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research (4th ed.). SAGE.
55. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
56. Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi (2. baskı). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
57. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teach Teach Educ, 17(7), 783–805.
58. UNESCO. (2019). Teacher policy development guide (2nd ed.): The roadmap to education 2030. UNESCO Publishing.
59. Ünver, G. (2020). Eylem araştırmasının öğretmen eğitimi açısından önemi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(2), 140–149.
60. Wright, K. B. (2017). Web-based survey methodology. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1–14). Springer.
61. Zeek, C., & Foote, M. (2022). Teacher inquiry as a driver of school-based improvement. Teach Teach Educ, 118, 103824.
62. Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 educators in the USA. Educ Action Res, 11(2), 301–326.