Adaptation of the Student Trust in Teacher Scale into Turkish

Öz

The effectiveness and efficiency of an organization depends on the cooperation of its members to achieve common goals. Mutual trust is the basis of effective communication in the organization. Trust is a phenomenon that connects individuals to each other in a society or collective life, affects the mental state of individuals in interpersonal relationships, but can be potentially risky, dangerous and damaging. Sharing more accurate, relevant and complete information about problems within an organization consisting of individuals who trust each other; individuals are more likely to express their feelings, thoughts and opinions without fear. Trust is a relative perception based on willingness to be vulnerable in a situation of counter dependence among stakeholders and has five aspects: goodwill, credibility, quality, honesty, and openness. These aspects combine to form trust, and any aspect of trust by managers should not be neglected for the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations. Relying on others is an important aspect of human learning because effective learning is a collaborative process and insecurity can make this collaboration impossible. It is important that all stakeholders trust each other in shaping schools as learning environments that support effective collaboration to achieve common learning goals. Students, teachers and parents have common learning goals, trust and effective cooperation among stakeholders create appropriate opportunities for effective teaching and learning. This research was carried out to adapt the Student Trust in Teacher Scale into Turkish. A team was established to translate the scale items into Turkish. Two experts each from the fields of educational administration, English and Turkish were involved in this phase. The items of the scale were translated into Turkish by the English experts, and then the Turkish experts checked the conformity of the translation to the language rules. Education management experts examined the appropriateness of translations in terms of subject content. The procedures were repeated for items that could not be agreed between experts. The data collected according to the survey design from 1203 high school students were analyzed. After the adaptation to Turkish, the scale, which consisted of thirteen items, preserved its original unidimensional structure as a result of confirmatory factor analysis based on robust maximum likelihood estimation. The scale was also found to be a valid and reliable data collection tool. Therefore, the scale can be used in high schools in Turkey in order to determine the student trust in teacher.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Trust
• Trust in teacher
• High school
• Adaptation

Öğrencinin Öğretmene Güveni Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Öz

Bir örgütün etkililiği ve verimliliği örgüt üyelerinin belirlenmiş ortak hedeflere ulaşmak için iş birliği içinde çalışmalarına bağlıdır. Örgüt içinde etkili iş birliğinin temelinde etkili iletişim ve etkili iletişimin temelinde ise karşılıklı güven vardır. Güven bireyleri bir toplumda ya da kolektif yaşamda birbirlerine bağlayan, kişilerarası ilişkilerde bireylerin ruhsal durumlarını etkileyen fakat potansiyel olarak riskli, tehlikeli ve zarar verici olabilen bir olgudur. Birbirine güvenen bireylerden oluşan bir örgüt içinde sorunlar ile alakalı daha doğru, ilişkili ve tam bilgilerin paylaşılması; bireylerin kendi duygu, düşünce ve fikirlerini korkmadan ifade etmeleri daha olasıdır. Güven paydaşlar arasında karşı bağımlılığın olduğu bir durumda savunmasızlığa gönüllü olma temelli göreceli bir algıdır ve iyi niyetlilik, inanılırlık, niteliklilik, dürüstlük ve açıklık olmak üzere beş yönü vardır. Bu yönler birleşerek güveni oluştururlar ve örgütlerin etkililiği ve verimliliği için yöneticiler tarafından güvenin hiçbir boyutu ihmal edilmemelidir. Diğerlerine güvenmek insan öğrenmesinin önemli bir yönüdür, çünkü etkili öğrenme işbirlikçi bir süreçtir ve güvensizlik bu iş birliğini imkânsız hale getirebilir. Ortak öğrenme hedeflerine ulaşmak için etkili iş birliğini destekleyen öğrenme ortamları olarak okulların biçimlendirilmesinde bütün paydaşların birbirlerine güvenmesi önemlidir. Öğrenci, öğretmen ve velilerin ortak öğrenme hedeflerine sahip olması, paydaşlar arasında güven ve etkili iş birliği etkili öğretme ve öğrenme için uygun fırsatlar yaratır. Bu araştırma, Öğrencinin Öğretmene Güveni Ölçeğini Türkçeye uyarlamak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Ölçek maddelerinin Türkçeye çevrilmesi için bir ekip kurulmuştur. Eğitim yönetimi, İngilizce ve Türkçe alanlarından ikişer uzman bu aşamaya dahil olmuştur. Ölçek maddeleri İngilizce uzmanlarınca Türkçeye çevrilmiş, daha sonra Türkçe uzmanlarınca çevirinin dil kurallarına uygunluğu kontrol edilmiştir. Eğitim yönetimi uzmanları ise konu içeriği bakımından çevirilerin uygunluğunu incelemişlerdir. Uzmanlar arasında uyum sağlanamayan maddeler için işlemler tekrarlanmıştır. Tarama desenine göre 1203 lise öğrencisinden toplanan veriler analiz edilmiştir. Sağlam en çok olabilirlik hesaplamasına dayalı olarak yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda on üç maddeden oluşan Türkçe ölçek formunun tek boyutlu özgün yapısını koruduğu, belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir bir veri toplama aracı olduğu da ortaya konmuştur. Dolayısıyla ölçeğin öğrencilerin öğretmenlerine duydukları güveni belirlemek amacıyla Türkiye’deki liselerde kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Güven
• Öğretmene güven
• Lise
• Uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. Adams, C. M. (2014). Collective student trust: A social resource for urban elementary students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 135-159.
2. Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. (1954). A test of goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 765-769.
3. Baier, A. C. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231-260.
4. Bentler, P. M. & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
5. Butler, J. K., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modelling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Pyschological Reports, 55, 81-105.
6. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2013). Research methods: Design and analysis (12. b.). Boston: Pearson.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6. b.). New York: Routledge.
8. Corrigan, M. W., & Chapman, P. E. (2008). Trust in teachers: a motivating element to learning. Radical Pedagogy, 9(2), 1-3.

9. Cummings, L. L., & Bromily, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validaiton. R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Dü) içinde, Trust in organizations. CA:Sage: Thousand Oaks.
10. Faranda, W. T. (2015). The effects of instructor service performance, immediacy, and trust on student-faculty out-of-class communication. Marketing Education Review, 25(2), 88-97.
11. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can't improve without it? New York: NY: Teachers College Press.
12. Fuller, E. J., Richards, M., & Cohen, R. (2008). Conflict or congruence? The intersection of parent, teacher, and student trust in the principal. Journal of Public School Relations, 29(1), 112-142.
13. Doornik, J. A., & Hansen, H. (2008). An omnibus test for univariate and multivariate normality. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 927-939.
14. Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8. b.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
16. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (23), 767-794.
17. Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects of teacher trust in urban elementary schools. Elementary School Journal, (102), 3-17.
18. Govier, T. (1992). Distrust as a practical problem. Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 52-63.
19. Henze, N., & Zirkler, B. (1990). A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 19(10), 3595-3617.
20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
21. Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
22. Hoy, W. K. (202). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of Public Relations, (23), 88-104.
23. Hoy, W. K., & Kupersmith, W. J. (1985). The meaning and measure of faculty trust. Educational and Psychological Research, (5), 1-10.
24. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250-259.
25. Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Five facets of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership (9), 184-208.
26. Hoy, W. K., Sado, D., & Barnes, K. (1996). Organizational health and faculty trust: a view from the middle level. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(3), 21-39.
27. Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust in colleagues: linking the principal with school effectiveness. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26(1), 38-45.
28. Ihaka, R. & Gentleman, R. (1996). R: A language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(3), 299-314.
29. Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
30. Kenny, D. A. & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-51.
31. Kline, R. B. (2012). Assumptions in structural equation modeling. İçinde R. H. Hoyle (Ed.). Handbook of structural equation modeling, ss.111-125. New York: Guilford press.
32. Korkmaz, S., Göksülük, D., & Zararsız, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal, 6(2), 151-162.
33. Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Dü) içinde, Trust in organizations. CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks.
34. Laio, F. (2004). Cramer–von Mises and Anderson‐Darling goodness of fit tests for extreme value distributions with unknown parameters. Water Resources Research, 40, 1-10.
35. Lee, S. J. (2007). The relations between the student-teacher trust relationship and school success in the case of Korean middle schools. Educational Studies, 33(2), 209-216.
36. Lilliefors, H. W. (1967). On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. Journal of American Statistical Association, 62(318), 399-402.
37. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530.
38. Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis for testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhya, 36,115-128.
39. MEB. (2018). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2017-2018. Ankara: MEB.
40. Mellinger, G. D. (1956). Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (52), 304-309.
41. Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. R. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Dü) içinde, Trust in organizations. CA: Sage: Thousand Oaks.
42. O'Reilly, C. I., & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task, group structure, communication and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology (62), 674-681.
43. Peterson, R. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 261-275.
44. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly (1), 107-142.
45. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect (13), 35-42.
46. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly (62), 628-631.
47. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.
48. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality (35), 651-665.
49. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
50. Royston, P. (1992). Approximating the Shapiro-Wilk W-Test for non-normality. Statistics and computing, 2(3), 117-119.
51. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514.
52. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248.
53. Scarbrough, J. E. (2013). Student-faculty trust and student success in pre-licensure baccalaureate nurse education. Nurse Education Today (33), 919-924.
54. Shapiro, S. S., & Francia, R. S. (1972). An approximate analysis of variance test for normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 215-216.
55. Smith, P. A., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust. Journal of School Leadership (11), 135-151.
56. Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Vanishing the truth: principals and teachers spinning reality. Journal of Educational Administration (39), 282-293.
57. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. b.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
58. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2000). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331.
59. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). A conceptual and empirical analysis of trust in schools. Journal of Educational Administration (36), 334-352.
60. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: a conceptual analysis. Journal of Educational Administration (36), 334-335.
61. Zand, D. E. (1971). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly (17), 229-239.