Bağlam Temelli Fen Öğrenimine Yönelik Öğretmen Özyeterlik Ölçeği: Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin bağlam temelli fen öğrenimine yönelik özyeterliklerini belirlemede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Çalışmada nicel araştırma yönteminin desenlerinden biri olan tarama deseni kullanılmıştır. Tarama desenlerinden ise kesitsel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemini, 2020-2021 eğitim ve öğretim yılında Kayseri ilinde görev yapan 433 fen bilimleri öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. İlk olarak alan yazın taraması yapılarak 85 maddelik madde havuzundan 67 maddelik beşli Likert tipinde taslak ölçek oluşturulmuştur. Ölçeğin kapsam geçerliğini sağlamak için uzman görüşleri alınmış, gelen dönütlere göre gerekli düzenlemeler yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini sağlamak için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri yürütülmüştür. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda “Öğrenme/Öğretme Süreci”, “Özyeterlik Kaynakları”, “Akademik Özyeterlik” ve “Öğretimi Planlama” olmak üzere dört faktörlü ve 47 maddeden oluşan bir yapıya ulaşılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları doğrulanmıştır. Ölçekten elde edilen puanların güvenirliği için, ölçeğin tamamının ve alt faktörlerin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin ölçüt geçerliğini sağlamak için benzer nitelikte bir ölçek belirlenerek iki ölçeğin arasında Pearson korelasyon katsayısı 0.86 bulunmuştur. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, araştırmacılar ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu belirlemiş ve fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin bağlam temelli öğrenmeye yönelik öz-yeterliklerini belirlemek amacıyla kullanılmasını önermişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bağlam temelli öğrenme
• fen eğitimi
• özyeterlik
• ölçek geliştirme

Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale Towards Context-Based Science Learning: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale for determining the self-efficacy of teachers toward context-based science education. This study employed a survey design. The sample has formed 433 science students working in Kayseri province in the 2020-2021 spring semester. Firstly, an item pool of 85 items was created by reviewing the literature. Secondly, a five-point Likert-type draft scale consisting of 67 items was created. Required arrangements have been performed according to expert opinions to provide content validity. Explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses have been run to provide construct validity. As a result of explanatory factor analysis, a structure with four factors as “Learning/Teaching Process”, “Self-efficacy Resources”, “Academic Self-efficacy” and “Planning Instruction” consisting of 47 items has been reached. Factors have been confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient has been calculated as 0.98. To provide criterion validity, the Pearson correlation coefficient has been found as 0.86 between the draft and criteria scales. Based on the findings, researchers have determined that the scale was valid and reliable, and they recommended that this scale should be used to determine self-efficacy beliefs towards context-based learning of science teachers.

Keywords

• context-based learning
• scale development
• science education
• self-efficacy

Kaynakça

1. Aka, E.İ. (2016). An investigation into prospective science teachers' attitudes towards laboratory courses and self-efficacy beliefs in laboratory use. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(10), 3319-3331. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1114664.pdf accessed from the page.
2. Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing. Mac Millan Publishing Co. Inc.
3. Arık Güngör, B., Metin, M., & Saraçoglu, S. (2022). Perspective of teachers to context-based learning and its use in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education , 23(1), 27-47.
4. Ayas, A., Çepni, S., Akdeniz, A.R., Özmen. H., Yiğit, N. & Ayvacı, H.Ş. (2007). Science and Technology teaching from theory to practice. S. Çepni (Ed.). (6th ed.). Pegem A Publishing.
5. Ayvacı, H. (2010). A pilot survey to improve the use of scientific process skills of kindergarten children. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 1-24.
6. Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions about perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(3), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01172995
7. Bahtaji, M. A. A. (2015). Improving Transfer of Learning through Designed Context-Based Instructional Materials. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9436
8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

9. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-sufficiency. In VS Ramachaudran (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4. pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman (Ed.). Encyclopedia of mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press. 1998).
10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman and Company
11. Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569617699280
12. Baştürk, S. (2018). Measurement and Evaluation in Education (2nd ed.). Nobel Publications
13. Bennett, J. & Lubben, F. (2006). Context‐based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702496
14. Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull, 107 (2), 238-246.
15. Berns, R.G. & Erickson, P.M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: preparing students for the new economy. Highlight Zone Research, 5, 1–8. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452376.pdf accessed from the page.
16. Bıkmaz, H.F. (2002). Self-efficacy belief scale in science teaching. Journal of Educational Sciences and Practice, 1(2), 197-210.
17. Biçer, B.G., Uzoğlu, M. & Bozdoğan, A.E. (2018). Scale development study for determining the views of science teachers about STEM. OPUS International Journal of Society Studies, 9(16), 551-574. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.461791
18. Bolat, A., Korkmaz, Ö. & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2021). Question development self-efficacy scale measuring high-level learning level of science teachers: validity and reliability. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kırsehir Education Faculty, 22(1), 372-416. https://doi.org 10.29299/kefad.800889
19. Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task-value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrollment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(4), 553–570. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1048
20. Broman, K., Bernholt, S. & Christensson, C. (2020). Relevant or interesting according to upper secondary students? Affective aspects of context-based chemistry problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-21. http://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1824177
21. Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1999). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 8 for Windows. London and New York. Taylor & Francis e-Library, Routledge.
22. Buldur, A. & Alisinanoğlu, F. (2020). Development of self-efficacy scale for science education in pre-school education. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 28(1), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3704
23. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Data Analysis Handbook (28th ed.). Pegem Academy.
24. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2021). Scientific research methods (31st ed.). Pegem Academy.
25. Cabbar, B.G. & Şenel, H. (2020). Content analysis of biology education research that used context-based approaches: the case of Turkey. Journal of Educational Issues, 6(1), 203-218.
26. Candaş, B. & Özmen, H. (2020). A study on developing self-efficacy scale in the context of science-specific field competencies. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 35(4), 746-758. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE. 2019052872
27. Chemers, M.M., Hu, L. & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64. http://doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
28. Cobos, T.L., Castilla, R.L. & López, Á.B. (2017). Oxidation processes an approach to his study in ESO. Revista del Grupo de Investigación HUM-974, 1(1), 7-8.
29. Cureton, E.E. (1951). Validity.In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.). Educational measurement (1st ed. pp. 621- 694). American Council on Education.
30. Çakır, A. (2014). Factor Analysis. (Doctoral Thesis). Istanbul Commerce University. http://tez.yok.gov.tr/ accessed from the page.
31. Çapa-Aydin, Y., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E. & Ceylandağ, R. (2018). The relationship between vicarious experience. social persuasion. physiological state. and chemistry self-efficacy: The role of mastery experience as a mediator. Psychology İn the Schools, 55, 1224-1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22201
32. Çepni, S. (2015). Science and Technology Teaching from Theory to Practice (pp. 21-68). Pegem A Publishing.
33. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). SPSS and LISREL applications for multivariate statistics for social sciences. Pegem Academy.
34. Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). The validity and reliability study of teacher self-efficacy beliefs scale. MSKU Journal of Education, 4(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.319209
35. 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
36. De Jong, O. (2008). Context-based chemical education: how to improve it? Chemical Education International, 8(1), 1-7.
37. De Putter-Smits, L.G.A. (2012). Science teachers designing context-based curriculum materials: Developing context-based teaching competence. (Doctoral Thesis). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.656291
38. Demirci, N.S. (2017). The relationship between scale-based some credits and economic growth in Turkey: Cointegration and causality analysis (2006-2016). Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(1), 113-128.
39. Demirtaş, H., & Yener, E. M. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının denetim odağı ve öz yeterlik inançları arasındaki ilişki. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(12), 81-107.
40. Denizoğlu, P. (2008). The assessment of the relationship between self-efficacy belief levels, learning styles of science teacher candidates towards science teaching, and their attitudes towards science teaching. (Master’s Thesis). Çukurova University. http://tez.yok.gov.tr/ accessed from the page.
41. Deveci, I. & Karteri, I. (2020). Context-based learning supported by environmental measurement devices in science teacher education: mixed-method research. Journal of Biological Education, 1(26). https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1821083.
42. Doğan, N., Soysal, S. & Karaman, H. (2017). Can exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis be applied to the same sample? Demirel. Ö. & Dinçer. S. (Ed). Education in a globalizing world (p.373-400). Pegem Academy.
43. Dolfing, R., Prins, G.T., Bulte, A.M.W., Pilot, A. & Vermunt, J.D. (2020). Strategies to support teachers’ professional development regarding sensemaking in context-based science curricula. Science Education, 1 - 39. https://doi.org/10.1002 / saniye.21603.
44. Durkan, E. (2017). Evaluation of the class teachers’ applications that enable their students to use metacognitive reading strategies during fourth-grade Turkish lessons: the sample of Giresun province. Turkish Studies, 13(4), 519-550. http://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12822
45. Elmas, R., Bülbül, M.Ş. & Eryılmaz, A. (2011). Thematic classification of eligible contexts for a holistic perspective in curriculum development. Science Learning & Citizenship, 9th International Conference of ESERA (p. 60). Lyon.
46. Ercan, İ. & Kan, İ. (2004). Reliability and validity in the scales. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Medicine, 30(3), 211-216.
47. Ergün, A. (2021). Adaptation of the stem career interest and preferences survey a study of validity and reliability. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 10(2), 533-555. http://doi.org/10.30703/cije.737661
48. Eskici, M. & Özen, R. (2013). Abstract for implementing the constructivist approach of teachers’ adaptation of the efficiency belief scale. Adnan Menderes University Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 19-29.
49. Eskici, M. & Özen, R. (2018). Teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes about the constructivist approach. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18 (4), 2050-2070.
50. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener. D.T., MacCallum, R.C. & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
51. Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C. & Tait, M. (1986). Application of explanatory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Staff psychology, 39(2), 291-314.
52. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
53. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
54. Gelen, B., Akçay, B., Tiryaki, A. & Benek, İ. (2019). Pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy toward Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) survey: An adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability study. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 15(1), 88-107. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.395204
55. Genç, M., Ulugöl, S. & Ünsal, S. (2017). Secondary school students' views on life-based learning. Researcher: Social Science Studies, 5(9), 244-255. https://doi.org /10.18301/rss.325.
56. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 Update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
57. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
58. Gilbert, J.K., Bulte, A.M.W. & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817-837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185
59. Gözüm, A.İ.C. & Güneş, T. (2018). Science teaching self-efficacy scale: Validity and reliability study. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(3), 1176-1199. https://doi.org/0.17860/mersinefd.393098
60. Güçer, H., Fırat, N.Ş. & Yurdabakan, İ. (2020). The study on developing of the scale of the scientific attitude of ınstructors. Western Anatolian Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(2), 358-375.
61. Gül, Ş. (2016). Teaching “Photosynthesis” topic through context-based instruction: an implementation-based REACT strategy. Necatibey Education Faculty Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.273962
62. Günşen, G. & Uyanık, G. (2020). Validity and reliability study of preschool teachers’ science education self-efficacy beliefs scale. Eurasian Journal of Teacher Education, 1(1), 1-24.
63. Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2020). Turkish adaptation study of the instrument of self-efficacy and concerns about STEM education for pre-service teachers. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 16(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/0.17244/eku.788985
64. Hırça, N. (2012). The effects of hands-on activities depend on a context-based learning approach to an understanding of physics and attitudes towards physics courses. Journal of Mustafa Kemal University Institute of Social Sciences, 9(17), 314-323.
65. Hogarty, K.Y., Hines, C.V., Kromrey, J.D., Ferron, J.M. & Mumford, K.R. (2005). Quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: Sample size. community and the effect of overdetermination. Journal of educational and psychological measurement, 65(2), 202-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267287
66. Hooper, C.J. & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
67. Hoşbaş, A.A. (2018). The effect of life-based learning approach on learning products in science teaching. (Master’s Thesis). Kırıkkale University. http://tez.yok.gov.tr/ accessed from the page.
68. Ilhan, N., Doğan, Y. & Çiçek, Ö. (2015). Life-based teaching practices in the special teaching methods course of science teacher candidates. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 4(2). 666-681. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000143534
69. İnaltekin, T. & Saka, M. (2019). Developing pre-service science teachers' self-efficacy scale to understand students: validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice, 10(20), 84-129.
70. Karaoğlu, İ.B. (2019). Adaptation of teacher sense of self-efficacy scale short form to Turkish: a study of validity and reliability. The Journal of Academic Social Science, 7(99), 123-139. http://dx.doi.org/10. 29228/ASOS.37797
71. Karaş, Ö.E. & Gül, Ş. (2019). The effect of teaching of the ‘The Cell and Divisions’ unit through REACT strategy on 7th Graders’ attitude and motivation. International Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 7(13), 30-50. https://doi.org/doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734721
72. Karslı Baydere, F. & Aydın. E. (2019). Teaching “The Eye” topic through the explanation assisted REACT strategy of the context-based approach. Journal of Gazi University Faculty of Education, 39(2), 755-791. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.345897
73. Keçe, B., Saraçoğlu, S. & Bektas, O. (2020). Developing a scientific attitude scale: Validity and reliability study. MM-International Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 32-56. https://doi.org/10.46762/mamulebd.774267
74. King, D.T., Winner, E. & Ginns, I. (2011). Outcomes and implications of one teacher’s approach to context-based science in the middle years. Teaching Science, 57(2), 26–30.
75. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (pp. 154-186). Guilford Press.
76. Knoef, M. J. (2017). Attending To The Knowledge, Skills, And Attitudes Of Teachers And Students: Guıdelınes For Context-Based Chemıstry Currıcula. Master Educational Science and Technology, University of Twente Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences Enschede, Netherland.
77. Kurnaz, M.A. (2013). An investigation of physics teachers’ perceptions of context-based physics problems. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 21(1), 375-390.
78. Kurnaz, M.A. & Bayraktar, G. (2012). Nanotechnology attitude scale: development, validity, and reliability. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 7(1), 41-53.
79. Kutu, H. & Sözbilir, M. (2011). Teaching “Chemistry in Our Lives” unit in the 9th-grade chemistry course through context-based ARCS instructional model. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education, 30(1), 29-62.
80. MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
81. Marschall, G. (2022). The role of teacher identity in teacher self-efficacy development: the case of Katie. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25(6), 725-747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09515-2
82. Mutual Responsibility ( 2021). What is systems thinking? – Peter Senge explains systems thinking approach and principles. http://www.mutualresponsibility.org/science/what-is-systems-thinking-peter-senge-explains-systems-thinking-approach-and-principles.
83. Nie, Y., Tan, G. H., Liau, A. K., Lau, S., & Chua, B. L. (2013). The roles of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: Its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 12(1), 67–77
84. Ocak, İ. & Hocaoğlu, N. (2020). Developing co-constructivism scale in science courses for secondary school students. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 14(4), 665-696. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.892910
85. OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework: OECD Publications. https://doi.org/10.1787/dfe0bf9c-en .
86. Özdemir, A., Yaman, C. & Vural, R. (2018). Development of the teacher self-efficacy scale for STEM practices: A Validity and reliability study. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Social Sciences Institute,5(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.427718.
87. Özlü, G., Keskin, M.Ö. & Gül, A. (2013). The development of "Self-Efficacy Scale for Environmental Education": A Study of validity and reliability. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 33(2), 393-410.
88. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8
89. Pallant, J. (2017). SPSS user guide. (S.Balcı & B. Ahi, Trans) Anı Publications.
90. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Guide (7th ed.). Taylor ve Francis. https://www.perlego.com/book/2194248/spss-survival-manual-pdf accessed from the page.
91. Parchmann, I., Graselb, C., Baerc, A., Nentwigc, P., Demuth, R., Ralled, B. & the Chik Project Group (2006). Chemie in context: A Symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1041–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702512
92. Pilot, A. & Bulte, A.M.W. (2006). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1087-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600730737
93. Roberts, H. (2006). Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS. (1st ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/978142001111
94. Scherer, R.F., Wiebe, F.A., Luther, D.C. & Adams, J.S. (1988). The dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of the coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
95. Schmitz, G.S. & Schwarzer, R. (2000). Self-efficacy expectations of teachers: longitudinal findings with a new. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 14(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.14.1.12
96. Schwarzer, R. & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57, 152-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
97. Seçer, İ. (2017). Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL. (3rd extended ed.). Anı Publishing.
98. Sevian, H., Dori, Y.J. & Parchman, I. (2018). How does STEM context-based learning work: what we know and what we still do not know? International Journal of Science Education, 40(10), 1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470346
99. Shepard, L.A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405-450.
100. Sireci, S. G., Patsula, L., & Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Statistical methods for identifying flaws in the test adaptation process. In Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment (pp. 93–115). Psychology Press.
101. Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., Toom, A., & Pyhältö, K. (2015). What contributes to first-year student teachers sense of professional agency in the classroom? Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 641–659.
102. Stolk, M.J., Bulte, A.W.M.,De Jong, O. & Pilot, A. (2009). Towards a framework for a professional development program: Empowering teachers for context-based chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 164-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-684-2_11
103. Stolk, M.J., De Jong, O., Bulte, A.M.W. & Pilot, A. (2011). Exploring a framework for professional development in curriculum innovation: empowering teachers for designing context-based chemistry education. Research in Science Education, 41, 369-388. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463006842_012
104. Sümer, N. (2000). Structural equation models: basic concepts and examples. Turkish Psychology Writings, 6(3), 49-73.
105. Şahin, M.G. & Öztürk, N.B. (2018). The scale development process in education: A content analysis study. Kastamonu Journal of Education, 26(1), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375863
106. Şeker, H., Deniz, S. & Gürgen, İ. (2004). Teacher competencies scale. Journal of National Education, 164, 105-118.
107. Şensoy, Ö. & Aydoğdu, M. (2008). The effect of inquiry-based science instruction approach on the development of self-efficacy belief levels intended for science teaching of secondary science education teacher candidates. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 28(2), 69-94.
108. Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications. Ekinoks.
109. Tal, M., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Assessing teachers’ knowledge: incorporating context-based learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(4), 1003-1019. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RP00359J
110. Tariq, S. ve Saeed, M. (2021). Effect of context-based teaching on grade VIII students’ academic achievement and intrinsic motivation in science. Pakistan Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation (PJERE), 9(1), 1-23.
111. Taşkın, G. & Aksoy, G. (2019). Developing an attitude scale for science course; Validity and reliability study. Inonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 6(12), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.542568
112. Tepe, M.E., Sarı, E. & Ocak, İ. (2020). Attitudes of secondary school students towards outdoor learning in science lessons: a scale development study. International Journal of Science and Education, 3(2), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.47477/ubed.824089
113. Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative behavior a literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430–471.
114. Topuz. F., Gençer, S., Bacanak, A. & Karamustafaoğlu, O. (2013). Science and technology teachers' views about the context-based approach and the applying levels. Journal of Amasya University Faculty of Education, 2(1), 240-261.
115. Tortop, H. & Akyıldız, V. (2018). Development study of gifted students’ education for STEM self-efficacy belief scale for the teacher. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 5(3), 11-22.
116. Tschannen –Moran, M. Woolfolk-Hoy, A. & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.
117. Turgut, M.F. & Baykul, Y. (1992). Scaling techniques. ÖSYM Publications.
118. Ültay, N. & Çalık, M. (2011) Distinguishing 5E model from REACT strategy: An example of ‘Acids and Bases’ topic. Necatibey Faculty of Education Journal of Electronic Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 199-220.
119. Van Driel, J.H., Beijard, D. & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<137: AID-TEA1001>3.0.CO;2-U
120. Varinlioğlu, S. & Bektaş, O. (2020). Determination of self-efficacy levels of seventh-grade students. Necatibey Faculty of Education Journal of Electronic Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 1189-1221. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.801665
121. Vos, M.A.J., Taconis, R., Jochems, W.M.G. & Pilot, A. (2011). Classroom implementation of context-based chemistry education by teachers: the relationship between experiences of teachers and the design of materials. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1407-1432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.511659
122. Wijaya, A., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Doorman, M. (2015). Teachers’ teaching practices and beliefs regarding context-based tasks and their relation with students’ difficulties in solving these tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(4), 637-662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0157-8
123. Worthington, R. & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.
124. Yaman, C., Özdemir, A., & Vural, R.A. (2018). Development of the teacher self-efficacy scale for STEM practices: a validity and reliability study. Adnan Menderes University, Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, 5(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.427718
125. Yaman, H. & Tulumcu, F.M. (2016). Developing a listening skill self-efficacy scale for learners of Turkish as a foreign language. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9327
126. Yaman, M. (2009). Context and methods of respiration and energy gain that attract students' attention. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Education, 37(37), 215-228.
127. Yıldırım, B. (2015). Science learning anxiety scale: validity and reliability study. Mus Alparslan University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.71733
128. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efcacy and its efects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.