Development and Validation of the Self-Regulated Teaching Scale (SRTS)

Öz

Quality education depends on the interaction among the student, the teacher, and the curriculum. Within this process, teachers play a central role in planning instruction, implementing teaching, and evaluating learning. In this context, self-regulated teaching refers to the deliberate regulation of teaching practices across the planning, implementation, and evaluation phases. This study aimed to develop and validate a scale measuring teachers’ self-regulated teaching skills on the basis of Zimmerman’s Self-Regulated Learning Model (Z’SRLM). An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed. Qualitative data from three focus group discussions with 12 teachers were used to generate the item pool, yielding three dimensions: planning, implementation, and evaluation. After expert review and a clarity check with 75 teachers, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with 226 teachers and produced a 17-item, three-factor structure. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with an independent sample of 394 teachers supported the final modified three-factor model (χ²/df = 1.374, CFI = .962, TLI = .955, IFI = .963, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .038). The correlated three-factor and second-order representations yielded equivalent global fit, and additional model-based indices indicated that the total score retained meaningful psychometric value as a complementary global indicator, although the scale was interpreted primarily at the subdimension level. Criterion-related validity was examined with 207 teachers using the Classroom Management Skills Scale (CMSS), and the correlations were positive and statistically significant (r = .438-.751, p < .001). Internal consistency coefficients ranged from acceptable to high across subdimensions, model-based indices supported cautious interpretation of the total score, and test-retest findings indicated acceptable temporal stability. Overall, the findings support the validity and reliability of the Self-Regulated Teaching Scale for use in research on teachers’ instructional practices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Self-regulation
• teaching
• self-regulated teaching
• validity
• reliability

Öz Düzenlemeli Öğretim Becerileri Ölçeği (ÖDÖBÖ): Geliştirme ve Geçerlilik Çalışması

Öz

Kaliteli eğitim, öğrenci, öğretmen ve programın birbiriyle uyumlu etkileşimine bağlıdır. Bu süreçte öğretmen, öğretimi planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme boyutlarında merkezi bir rol üstlenmektedir. Bu bağlamda öz düzenlemeli öğretim, öğretim uygulamalarının planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme aşamalarında bilinçli biçimde düzenlenmesini ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, Zimmerman’ın Öz Düzenlemeli Öğrenme Modeli’ne (Z’SRLM) dayalı olarak öğretmenlerin öz düzenlemeli öğretim becerilerini ölçen bir ölçek geliştirilmesi ve ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik kanıtlarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada keşfedici sıralı karma yöntem deseni kullanılmıştır. İlk aşamada, 12 öğretmenle gerçekleştirilen üç odak grup görüşmesinden elde edilen nitel veriler doğrultusunda madde havuzu oluşturulmuş ve planlama, uygulama ve değerlendirme olmak üzere üç boyut belirlenmiştir. Uzman görüşü ve 75 öğretmenle gerçekleştirilen açıklık-anlaşılırlık incelemesinden sonra, 226 öğretmenden elde edilen verilerle açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve 17 maddelik üç faktörlü yapı elde edilmiştir. Bağımsız bir 394 öğretmen örnekleminde gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, nihai modifikasyonlu üç faktörlü modeli desteklemiştir (χ²/sd = 1.374, CFI = .962, TLI = .955, IFI = .963, RMSEA = .031, SRMR = .038). Korelasyonel üç faktörlü model ile ikinci düzey modelin eşdeğer uyum verdiği görülmüş; model temelli ek göstergeler toplam puanın alt boyut puanlarına göre ikincil ve tamamlayıcı bir genel gösterge olarak psikometrik açıdan anlamlı bir temsil sunduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçüt ilişkili geçerlik, 207 öğretmenden elde edilen verilerle Sınıf Yönetimi Becerileri Ölçeği (SYBÖ) kullanılarak incelenmiş; korelasyonların pozitif ve anlamlı olduğu görülmüştür (r = .438-.751, p < .001). İç tutarlılık katsayıları alt boyutlar düzeyinde kabul edilebilir ile yüksek düzey arasında değişmiş, model temelli ek göstergeler toplam puanın dikkatli biçimde yorumlanabileceğini göstermiş ve test-tekrar test bulguları kabul edilebilir zamansal kararlılık ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, Öz Düzenlemeli Öğretim Becerileri Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öz düzenleme
• öğretim
• öz düzenlemeli öğretim
• geçerlilik
• güvenilirlik

Kaynakça

1. Aslanderen, M., Çilsalar Sagnak, H. ve Sağlam, M. (2024). Okul öncesi öğretmenliği programındaki öğretim teknolojileri dersinin yansıtıcı değerlendirme modeli ile değerlendirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(3), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1433721
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Banks, R. S. and Thompson, C. L. (1995). Educational psychology: For teachers in training. Eagan: West Publishing Company.
4. Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J. and Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
5. Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00015-1
6. Borkowski, J. G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(96)90025-4
7. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
8. Büyükkaragöz, S. S. ve Çivi, C. (1999). Genel öğretim metotları (10. baskı). İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın.

9. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
10. Christie, F. (2014). Curriculum genres: Planning for effective teaching. In N. Hall, J. Larson and J. Marsh (Eds.), The powers of literacy (RLE Edu I, pp. 154-178). New York: Routledge.
11. Cothran, D. J. and Kulinna, P. H. (2008). Teachers’ knowledge about and use of teaching models. Physical Educator, 65(3), 122-133.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications.
13. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
14. Delson-Karan, M. (1984). A three-dimensional approach to evaluating teaching performance. Canadian Modern Language Review, 40(3), 414-428. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.40.3.414
15. Demirel, Ö. (2009). Planlamadan değerlendirmeye öğretme sanatı (19. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and application (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17. Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Coertjens, L., Van Daal, T. and Van Petegem, P. (2013). Differential use of learning strategies in first-year higher education: The impact of personality, academic motivation, and teaching strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 238-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12016
18. El-Adl, A. and Alkharusi, H. (2020). Relationships between self-regulated learning strategies, learning motivation and mathematics achievement. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(1), 104-111. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v15i1.4461
19. Ergün, M., Ergezer, B., Çevik, İ. ve Özdaş, A. (1999). Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş. Ankara: Ocak Yayınları.
20. Filice, S., Tregunno, D., Edge, D. and Egan, R. (2020). Re-imaging clinical education: The interdependence of the self-regulated clinical teacher and nursing student. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 17(1), 20190056. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2019-0056
21. Garson, G. D. (2013). Validity & reliability (2013 ed.). Asheboro: Statistical Associates Publishers.
22. Grant, L., Hindman, J. and Stronge, J. (2013). Planning, instruction, and assessment: Effective teaching practices. New York: Routledge.
23. Güneş, G. ve Demir, M. K. (2025). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretim programlarını eleştirel okuma açısından yeterli bulma durumları. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(2), 711-727. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1692182
24. Hu, L. T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
25. Karakelle, S. (2005). Analyzing teachers’ definitions of effective teachers according to effective teaching dimensions. Education and Science, 30(135), 1-10.
26. Kılıç, A. (2006). Levels of observation and practice of teaching skills of student-teachers. MANAS Journal of Social Studies, 8(16), 155-168.
27. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). New York: Guilford.
28. Kurt, Ş. H. ve Sığırtmaç, A. D. (2021). The effect of practices supporting self-regulated learning and preschool teachers’ self-regulations on classroom management skills. Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 5(1), 135-151. https://doi.org/10.24130/eccd-jecs.1967202151245
29. Lee, M., Lee, S. Y., Kim, J. E. and Lee, H. J. (2023). Domain-specific self-regulated learning interventions for elementary school students. Learning and Instruction, 88, 101810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101810
30. Lesh, R. and Lehrer, R. (2003). Models and modeling perspectives on the development of students and teachers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2-3), 109-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2003.9679996
31. Liu, S. and 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9077-z
32. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. and Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
33. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
34. Peeters, J., De Backer, F., Reina, V. R., Kindekens, A., Buffel, T. and Lombaerts, K. (2014). The role of teachers’ self-regulatory capacities in the implementation of self-regulated learning practices. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1963-1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.504
35. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3
36. Randi, J. (2004). Teachers as self-regulated learners. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1825-1853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00407.x
37. Rattray, J. and Jones, M. C. (2007). Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(2), 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
38. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P. and Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
39. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P. and Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
40. Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. baskı). Ankara: Anı.
41. Singh, K., Junnarkar, M. and Kaur, J. (2016). Measures of positive psychology: Development and validation. Berlin: Springer.
42. Sönmez, V. (2020). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı (19. baskı). Ankara: Anı.
43. Strong, M., Gargani, J. and Hacifazlioğlu, Ö. (2011). Do we know a successful teacher when we see one? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110390221
44. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
45. Sutton, R. E., Mudrey-Camino, R. and Knight, C. C. (2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation and classroom management. Theory into Practice, 48(2), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776418
46. Tuckman, B. W. (1995). Assessing effective teaching. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619569509538827
47. Watkins, M. W. (2021). A step-by-step guide to exploratory factor analysis with R and RStudio. New York: Routledge.
48. Worthington, R. L. and Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100000628812
49. Yalçınkaya, M. ve Tonbul, Y. (2002). The perception and observation regarding to the primary school teachers’ classroom management skills. Ege Journal of Education, 1(2), 1-10.
50. Zheng, B., Ward, A. and Stanulis, R. (2020). Self-regulated learning in a competency-based and flipped learning environment: Learning strategies across achievement levels and years. Medical Education Online, 25(1), 1686949. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1686949
51. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
52. Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676
53. Zimmerman, B. J. and Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.