Yazma Sürecinde Öğretmen Desteği Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin yazma sürecinde algıladıkları öğretmen desteğini geçerli ve güvenilir biçimde ölçebilecek bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu doğrultuda geliştirilen Yazma Sürecinde Öğretmen Desteği Ölçeği (YSÖDÖ), yazma sürecinde öğretmenin sunduğu desteği öğrenci algısına dayalı ve süreç temelli bir yaklaşımla değerlendirmeyi hedeflemektedir. Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde öncelikle kapsamlı bir madde havuzu oluşturulmuş, uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda madde formu gözden geçirilmiş ve uygulama sonrası psikometrik analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapı geçerliğini incelemek amacıyla ilk aşamada açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) uygulanmış; Promax eğik döndürme ile yürütülen analiz sonucunda başlangıçta 17 maddeden oluşan taslak formun 11 maddeye indirgenerek iki faktörlü bir yapı sergilediği belirlenmiştir. Faktörler içerik bütünlüğü ve kuramsal temsiliyet dikkate alınarak duygusal-motivasyonel destek ve genel öğretimsel destek ile yapılandırılmış rehberlik ve geri bildirim biçiminde adlandırılmıştır. İki faktörün birlikte açıkladığı toplam varyans oranı %47,51 olup sosyal bilimlerde önerilen yeterlik düzeyini karşılamaktadır. Maddelere ilişkin faktör yüklerinin .49–.86 aralığında değişmesi, göstergelerin ilgili örtük yapıları yeterli düzeyde temsil ettiğini göstermiştir. AFA ile elde edilen iki faktörlü yapı, bağımsız bir örneklemde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile sınanmıştır. Maddelerin sıralama yapısı ve çok değişkenli normallik varsayımının karşılanmaması nedeniyle DFA’da WLSMV kestirim yöntemi kullanılmış; model uyumunun yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir (χ²/sd = 1.83, CFI = .978, TLI = .974, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .040). Standartlaştırılmış faktör yükleri .54–.72 aralığındadır. Güvenirlik analizlerinde genel ölçek için Cronbach’s Alpha = .84 ve McDonald’s Omega = .83 bulunmuş; alt boyutlarda Alpha değerleri .67–.79, Omega katsayıları ise .71–.78 aralığında hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular, YSÖDÖ’nün yazma sürecinde öğretmen desteğini iki boyutta değerlendiren, geçerlik ve güvenirlik açısından genel olarak yeterli kanıtlar sunan ve uygulamada kullanılabilecek bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yazma eğitimi
• öğretmen desteği
• ölçek geliştirme
• ilkokul

Teacher Support in the Writing Process Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

This study aimed to create a valid and reliable instrument to assess fourth-grade elementary students’ perceptions of teacher support during the writing process. To this end, the Teacher Support in the Writing Process Scale (TSWPS) was developed to evaluate teacher support from a student-based and process-oriented perspective. The scale development process involved the construction of an initial item pool grounded in the relevant literature, expert review of the draft items, and subsequent psychometric analyses based on empirical data. To examine construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using principal axis factoring with Promax oblique rotation, which reduced the initial 17-item draft to an 11-item structure with two related factors. Based on conceptual coherence and theoretical considerations, the factors were labelled Emotional-Motivational and General Instructional Support and Structured Guidance and Feedback. Together, these two factors accounted for 47.51% of the total variance, exceeding the commonly accepted minimum threshold in the social sciences. Factor loadings ranged from .49 to .86, suggesting that the items adequately represented their respective latent constructs. The two-factor structure obtained through the EFA was subsequently tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on an independent sample. Given the ordinal nature of the items and the violation of the multivariate normality assumption, the WLSMV (weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted) estimator was employed. The CFA results demonstrated an excellent model fit to the data (χ²/df = 1.83, CFI = .978, TLI = .974, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .040). Standardised factor loadings ranged between .54 and .72, further supporting the construct validity of the measurement model. Reliability analyses were conducted using Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients. The results indicated strong internal consistency for the overall scale (α = .84, ω = .83). For the subscales, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .67 to .79. In contrast, omega coefficients ranged from .71 to .78. The findings indicate that the TSWPS is a measurement tool that evaluates teacher support in the writing process across two dimensions, providing overall sufficient evidence regarding validity and reliability, and is suitable for practical application.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• writing instruction
• teacher support
• scale development
• elementary school

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, Y., Kent, S., Cirino, P. T., & Keller-Margulis, M. (2022). The not-so-simple view of writing in struggling readers/writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(3), 272-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1948374
2. Akbulut, Y. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İdeal Yayıncılık.
3. Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
4. Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
5. Blunch, N. J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS. SAGE.
6. Boscolo, P. (2009). Writing in primary school. In Charles Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual, text (pp. 359-380). Taylor & Francis.
7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.

9. Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4
10. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
11. Carroll, J. A., & Wilson, E. E. (1993). Acts of teaching: How to teach writing. Teacher Ideas Press.
12. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
13. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
15. Culham, R. (2018). Teach writing well: How to assess writing, invigorate instruction, and rethink revision. Routledge. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE.
16. Dönmez, A., & Aydın, İ. S. (2023). Review of studies on feedback types: Systematic review study. Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research, 10 (Special Issue), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.59409/ojer.1369117
17. Enders, C. K. (2022). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford.
18. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE.
19. Fiskerstrand, P., & Gamlem, S. M. (2023). Instructional feedback to support self-regulated writing in primary school. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1232529. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1232529
20. Fiskerstrand, P., & Gamlem, S. M. (2024). Mapping oral feedback interactions in young pupils’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 31(3-4), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2024.2386515
21. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
22. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity and reliability. Statistical Associates.
23. Garson, G. D. (2021). Data analytics for the social sciences: Applications in R. Routledge.
24. Garson, G. D. (2022). Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: A social scientist's toolkit. Routledge.
25. Gay, L. R., & Mills, G. E. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson.
26. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2020). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
27. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2
28. Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406
29. Graham, S., Kim, Y.S., Cao, Y., Lee, J. W., Tate, T., Collins, P., Cho, M., Moon, Y., Chung, H. Q., & Olson, C. B. (2023). A meta-analysis of writing treatments for students in grades 6-12. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(7), 1004-1027.
30. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879-896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185
31. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
32. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Pearson.
33. Guo, L., Chen, Y., & Fang, C. (2025). How students feel and how they regulate motivation matter in a writing class. Literacy Research and Instruction, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2025.2515966
34. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Pearson.
35. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2013). Self-regulated strategies development in writing: Development, implementation, and scaling up. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 59-82). IAP Information Age Publishing.
36. Hattie, J. A., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
37. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
39. Irwing, F. P., Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (2018). The wiley handbook of psychometric testing: a multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale, and test development. Wiley.
40. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp. 18-29). SAGE.
41. Johnson, A.P. (2024). Being and becoming teachers of writing: A meaning-based approach to authentic writing instruction. Routledge. Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford.
42. Kao, C.W., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Timed second language writing performance: effects of perceived teacher vs perceived automated feedback. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 1012. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03522-3
43. Keen, J. (2025). Teaching writing: Text modelling or process approaches? Changing English, 32(4), 368-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2025.2520241
44. Kline, P. (2015a). A handbook of test construction: ıntroduction to psychometric design. Routledge.
45. Kline, R. B. (2015b). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
46. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
47. Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (2015). Handbook of test development. Routledge.
48. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
49. Llaneza, P. D. (2025). “Cowrite me if I’m wrong:” Effectiveness of proofreading activity + written corrective feedback in improving the writing mechanics proficiency of grade 5 learners. Participatory Educational Research, 12(5), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.25.61.12.5
50. Man, D., Chau, M. H., & Kong, B. (2021). Promoting student engagement with teacher feedback through rebuttal writing. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 883-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1746238
51. McCarthey, S. J., & Ro, Y. S. (Ellie). (2011). Approaches to writing instruction. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6(4), 273-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2011.604902
52. McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education evidence-based inquiry. Pearson.
53. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta Reinhart, R. (2017). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge.
54. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
55. Myhill, D., Cremin, T., & Oliver, L. (2023). The impact of a changed writing environment on students’ motivation to write. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1212940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1212940
56. Neuman, W. L. & Robson, K. (2014). Basics of social research. Pearson.
57. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
58. Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford University Press.
59. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2011). Introduction to psychometric theory. Routledge.
60. Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793
61. Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0035.V46-3
62. Roos, J. M., & Bauldry, S. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis. SAGE.
63. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.
64. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
65. Segaran, M., Engeness, I., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025). Lower secondary school teachers facilitation of students’ writing process: a study of automated feedback and peer feedback approaches. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2539154
66. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
67. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119. https://doi.org/10.58680/rte19973873
68. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
69. Thakkar, J. J. (2020). Structural equation modelling: Application for research and practice (with AMOS and R). Springer.
70. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
71. Tompkins, G. E., & Jones, P. D. (2019). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product (7th ed.). Pearson.
72. Tu, S. P., & Ego-ugan, G. B. (2024). Teacher feedback shaping emotions and motivation in EFL writing. In B. Lacy, P. Lege & P. Ferguson (Eds.), Growth mindset in language education (pp. 283-290). JALT.
73. Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2022). The effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 909802. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802
74. Wang, H., &Troia, GA. (2023). How students’ writing motivation, teachers’ personal and professional attributes, and writing instruction impact student writing achievement: a two-level hierarchical linear modeling study. Front. Psychol. 14, 1213929. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213929
75. Wendimu, S. G., & Gebremariam, H. T. (2024). Teacher-students collaboration: using guided-writing ınstruction to assist learners with writing difficulties and low motivation to write. Sage Open, 14(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241258020
76. Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. (2022). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Routledge.
77. Yang, L. F., Liu, Y., & Xu, Z. (2022). Examining the effects of self-regulated learning-based teacher feedback on English-as-a-foreign-language learners' self-regulated writing strategies and writing performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1027266. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027266
78. Zahari, M., Marini, A., Safitri, D., Dewiyani, L., & Muawanah, U. (2025). Optimizing student writing performance in higher education: A quantitative study of teacher feedback and classroom environment. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101286
79. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintri & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.