Efficacy Scale for Teaching Science with Technology: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

It is known that the use of technology in science teaching is directly related to teachers' perceptions of efficacy. Teachers with high technological knowledge and self-efficacy can support students' learning process by providing a more effective teaching environment in their classrooms. In this context, the "Efficacy Scale for Teaching Science with Technology" aims to measure pre-service teachers' beliefs about the use of technology in science teaching. It consists of two factors: self-efficacy and outcome expectation. The scale development process was carried out rigorously and systematically. The data were collected from pre-service teachers studying in the third and fourth grades via the simple random sampling method. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to determine the factor structure of the measurement tool. As a result of the factor analyses, it was concluded that the measurement tool consisted of two factors. These factors are compatible with Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy framework. The research results show that the developed scale can be used to measure the efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy and outcome expectation) of pre-service teachers in teaching science with technology validly and reliably. This scale is an essential tool in assessing the efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers regarding the use of technology in science teaching and in developing these beliefs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Efficacy
• Science teaching
• use of technology

Teknoloji ile Fen Öğretimi Yeterlilik Ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Fen öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımının öğretmenlerin yeterlilik algılarıyla doğrudan ilişkili olduğu bilinmektedir. Teknolojik bilgisi ve öz yeterliği yüksek öğretmenler, sınıflarında daha etkili bir öğretim ortamı sağlayarak öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecini destekleyebilirler. Bu bağlamda, "Teknoloji ile Fen Öğretimi İçin Yeterlilik Ölçeği", öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin inançlarını ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ölçek geliştirme süreci titizlikle ve sistematik bir şekilde yürütülmüştür. Veriler, basit seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemi ile üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıfta öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarından elde edilmiştir. Ölçme aracının faktör yapısını belirlemek için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri yapılmıştır. Faktör analizleri sonucunda ölçme aracının iki faktörden oluştuğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu faktörler Bandura'nın (1997) öz yeterlilik çerçevesiyle uyumludur. Araştırma sonuçları, geliştirilen ölçeğin öğretmen adaylarının teknolojiyle fen öğretiminde geçerli ve güvenilir bir şekilde yeterlilik inançlarını (öz yeterlilik ve sonuç beklentisi) ölçmek için kullanılabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu ölçek, öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretiminde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin yeterlilik inançlarını değerlendirmede ve bu inançları geliştirmede önemli bir araçtır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen öğretimi
• teknoloji kullanımı
• yeterlik

Kaynakça

1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670
2. Aydemir, S., & Demirkan, Ö. (2024). The effect of digital material applications on preservice teachers' self-efficacy towards educational technology standards. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 15(4), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijer.2024.1085.3
3. Annetta, L. A., Frazier, W. M., Folta, E., Holmes, S., Lamb, R., & Cheng, M. T. (2013). Science teacher efficacy and extrinsic factors toward professional development using video games in a design-based research model: The next generation of STEM learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 47-61. 10.1007/s10956-012-9375-y
4. Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Publications.
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
7. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296e298.
8. Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006

9. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
10. Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI‐B: Measuring self‐efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(8), 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18004.x
11. Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales in health, social, and behavioral research. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
12. 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), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002
13. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (3rd Ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
14. 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
15. Chiu, T. K., & Churchill, D. (2015). Exploring the characteristics of an optimal design of digital materials for concept learning in mathematics: Multimedia learning and variation theory. Computers & Education, 82, 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.001
16. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Phillips, S. M. (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (3rd Ed.). Mayfield Publishing Co.
17. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
18. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
19. DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th Ed.). Sage publications Inc.
20. Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching belief instrument: A preservice elementary scale. School Science and Mathematics, 90(8), 694706.
21. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
22. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
23. Fabrigar, L. R., & Wegener, D. T. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE Publications Ltd.
25. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
26. Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448.
27. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). McGraw-Hill.
28. Göloğlu-Demir, C. & Çetin, F. (2021). Okul dışı öğrenme (ODÖ) faaliyetlerine Yönelik öğretmen öz-yeterlik inançları ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. TEBD, 19(1), 613-634. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.901426
29. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2019). Exploratory Factor Analysis. In Multivariate Data Analysis (8th Ed.) (121-187 p.p.), Cengage Learning EMEA.
30. Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.11.3.147
31. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
32. Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Ruthven, K. (2006). Situated expertise in integrating use of multimedia simulation into secondary science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 28(7), 701-732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404656
33. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological measurement, 66(3), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
34. Hu, L. T., & 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
35. Ingram, E., Hill, T. W., Harshbarger, D., & Keshwani, J. (2024). Improving elementary pre-service teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy through garden-based technology integration. Education Sciences, 14, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010065
36. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International Lawrence Erlbaum, Chicago, IL.
37. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
38. Karagöz, Y. (2021). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı nicel-nitel-karma bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri ve yayın etiği. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
39. Karakuş, İ., Sünbül, Ö., & Kılıç, F. (2022). Öğretmen adayı dijital yeterlik algısı ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(35), 935-956. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.883974
40. Kartal, T., & Dilek, I. (2021a). developing pre-service elementary science teachers' science teaching efficacy beliefs through microteaching by promoting efficacy sources. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(4), 710-731. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.124
41. Kartal, T., & Dilek, I. (2021b). Preservice science teachers’ TPACK development in a technology-enhanced science teaching method course. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 7(4), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.994458
42. Kartal, T., Kızıltepe, İ. S., & Kartal, B. (2022). Extending technology acceptance model with scientific epistemological and Science teaching efficacy beliefs: A study with preservice teachers. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 8(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.1055590
43. Kızıltepe, İ. S., & Kartal, T. (2025). Deneyimsel öğrenme ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(2), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.47479/ihead.1656910
44. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
45. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (4th Ed.). Guilford Press.
46. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
47. Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9075-4
48. Liu, M., Horton, L., Olmanson, J., & Toprac, P. (2011). A study of learning and motivation in a new media enriched environment for middle school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9192-7
49. Liu, R., Wang, L., Lei, J., Wang, Q., & Ren, Y. (2020). Effects of an immersive virtual reality‐based classroom on students’ learning performance in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2034-2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13028
50. Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022
51. Menon, D., Chandrasekhar, M., Kosztin, D., & Steinhoff, D. C. (2020). Impact of mobile technology‐based physics curriculum on preservice elementary teachers' technology self‐efficacy. Science Education, 104(2), 252-289. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21554
52. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.0068
53. Muslimin, A. I., Mukminatien, N., & Ivone, F. M. (2022). The effect of technology based instruction lesson plan on EFL pre-service teachers’ TPACK self-efficacy. World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 304-314. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p304
54. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd Ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
55. Özyalçın Oskay, Ö. (2017). An investigation of teachers’ self efficacy beliefs concerning educational technology standards and technological pedagogical content knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4739-4752. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00961a
56. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
57. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
58. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
59. Portaro, M. (2024). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for technology integration and levels of planned technology integration: A mixed-method study, Boise State University, Doctoral Dissertation, Boise, Idaho.
60. Pradana, D. A., Degeng, I. N. S., Kuswandi, D., & Degeng, M. D. K. (2024). Self-efficacy of preservice teachers in technology-based learning in diverse classrooms: a case study at an Indonesian private university. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(5), 2026-2046. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2023-0236
61. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
62. Rigg, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
63. Ritter, J. M., Boone, W. J., & Rubba, P. A. (2001). Development of an instrument to assess prospective elementary teacher self-efficacy beliefs about equitable science teaching and learning (SEBEST). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016747713585
64. Shertzer, R. P. (2023). A predictive correlational study of factors affecting teachers' technology self-efficacy. Liberty University, Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, Virginia.
65. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (Vol. 4). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates.
66. Sumi, V. S., & Shaikh, S. A. (2021). Pedagogical use of ICT in science education in the light of techno pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 9(1), 156-161.
67. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th Ed.). Pearson.
68. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
69. Timur, B., & Taşar, M. F., (2021). Investigation of technology-assisted teaching instructions on pre-service teachers’ self-confidence and self-efficacy beliefs about using computer in science teaching, Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(36), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.367.1
70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
71. Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
72. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. New York: Sage Publication Inc.
73. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği yetiştirme lisans programı.
74. Zeng, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, S. (2022). The relationship between teachers' information technology integration self-efficacy and TPACK: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1091017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1091017
75. Zhang, Z., Maeda, Y., Newby, T., Cheng, Z., & Xu, Q. (2023). The effect of preservice teachers’ ICT integration self-efficacy beliefs on their ICT competencies: The mediating role of online self-regulated learning strategies. Computers & Education, 193, 104673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104673