Development of the Feedback Experience Scale for High School Students

Abstract

The quality of feedback used in education is important for the development of students. Therefore, the lack of a valid and reliable measurement tool revealing the amount and quality of the feedback students receive during the education process stands out. Within the framework of the study purpose, the Feedback Experience Scale (FES) was developed to fill this gap. The study group consisted of a total of 222 high school students in the first implementation and a total of 1041 high school students in the second implementation. The data were analyzed by Explanatory Factor Analysis using SPSS and by Confirmatory Factor Analysis using the AMOS program. Item analysis and reliability coefficient were found to perform reliability and validity analyzes of the scale. A two-factor scale with 17 items was developed after the analysis of the scale which had 23 items and three factors before the implementation. Cronbach Alpha (α) reliability of the scale was 0.91. Internal consistency coefficients were .89 for the “what you do with the feedback” sub-factor and .63 for the “quantity and timing of feedback” sub-factor. According to the study results, the scale is a measurement tool validly and reliably determining students' feedback experience.

Keywords

• Feedback
• feedback experience
• scale development
• high school students

Ortaöğretim Öğrencileri İçin Geribildirim Deneyimi Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması

Abstract

Eğitimde kullanılan geribildirimlerin kalitesi öğrencilerin gelişimi açısından önemlidir. Bu nedenle, öğrencilerin eğitim sürecinde aldıkları geribildirim miktarı ve niteliğini ortaya koyabilen geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracının eksikliği dikkat çekmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı kapsamında bu eksikliği gidermek için Geribildirim Deneyimi Ölçeği (GDA) geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, ilk uygulama için 222 ortaöğretim öğrencisi; ikinci uygulama için 1041 ortaöğretim öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Veriler, SPSS kullanılarak Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi ve AMOS programı kullanarak Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizlerinin yapılması için madde analizi ve güvenirlik katsayısı bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin uygulama öncesi üç faktörlü 23 maddeden oluşan madde havuzundan yapılan analizler sonrasında, iki faktörlü 17 madde içeren bir ölçek formu oluşturulmuştur. Ölçeğe ait iç tutarlılık Cronbach Alfa (α) güvenirliği 0.91 olarak belirlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda elde edilen alt faktörler için iç tutarlılık katsayıları; ‘geribildirim’ .89 ve ‘geribildirim miktarı ve zamanlaması’ .63 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre ölçeğin öğrencilerin geribildirim deneyimlerini geçerli ve güvenilir bir şekilde ortaya koyabilen bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Keywords

• Geribildirim
• geribildirim deneyimi
• ölçek geliştirme
• ortaöğretim öğrencileri

References

1. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02294170.pdf
2. Baykul, Y. (1979). Ortuk ozellikler ve klasik test kuramlari uzerine bir karsilastirma [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.
3. Baykul, Y. (2000). Egitimde ve psikolojide olcme: klasik test teorisi ve uygulamasi. OSYM Publishing.
4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588.
5. Bergil, A. S., & Atli, I. (2012). Different perspectives about feedback on teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5833-5839. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.524
6. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1). http://wiki.biologyscholars.org/@api/deki/files/1278/%3Dblack_p_etal_1998b%5B1%5D.pdf
7. Bose, J., & Rengel, Z. (2009). A model formative assessment strategy to promote student-centered self-regulated learning in higher education. US-China Education Review. 6(12), 29-35. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511170.pdf
8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.

9. Buyukozturk, S. (2006). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi. Pegem A Publishing.
10. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International journal of testing, 1(1), 55-86. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4,
11. Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030005001
12. Cecen, A. R. (2006). Duygulari yonetme becerileri olceginin gelistirilmesi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik calismalari. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal (TPCGJ), 3(26), 101-113.
13. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Cok degiskenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamalari. Pegem Akademi Publishing.
14. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 1019-1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.55.4.584
15. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the Uninitiated (Introducing Statistical Methods Series). Sage Publications.
16. Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analyzing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: an exploratory study. Higher education, 59(3), 277-292. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4
17. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications.
18. García, A. S., García-Álvarez, M. T., & Moreno, B. (2014). Analysis of assessment opportunities of learning spaces: On-line versus face to face methodologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 372-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.024
19. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2003). Measuring the response of students to assessment: The Assessment Experience Questionnaire. 11th Improving Student Learning Symposium, 1-12. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5711/1701f9d713bde7780f6442e6bb4c1cf1b43b.pdf
20. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31. http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/3609/1/LATHE%201.%20Conditions%20Under%20Which%20Assessment%20Supports%20Stud
21. Gulbahar, Y., & Buyukozturk, S. (2008). Adaptation of assessment preferences inventory to Turkish. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 148-161.
22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
23. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53-64. doi:10.1080/03075070120099368
24. Hu, G., & Choo, L. (2016). The impact of disciplinary background and teaching experience on the use of evaluative language in teacher feedback. Teachers and Teaching, 22(3), 329-349. doi:10.1080/13540602.2015.1058591
25. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
26. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01130.x?casa_token=b9wAd7jwyyoAAAAA:-cKL7GKwpemBukUAyAoekXiBE3tkN9TbItwxQYfjVBAziYnszXquBdNRfZpUCXd1jcfT7JRZ2SskYnI
27. 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), 333-351. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
28. Kleinknecht, M., & Groschner, A. (2016). Fostering preservice teachers’ noticing with structured video feedback: Results of an online-and video-based intervention study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 45-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.020
29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equations modeling. Guilford.
30. Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680582
31. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED267091.pdf
32. Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. J. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. Forth Worth. OECD, (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Policy Brief, 1-8. www.oecd.org/publications/Policybriefs
33. Roessger, K. M., Daley, B. J., & Hafez, D. A. (2018). Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing. Learning and Instruction, 54, 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.011
34. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
35. Sencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranissal olcumlerde guvenirlik ve gecerlilik. Seckin Publishing.
36. Shute, V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. Research Report. Educational Testing Service. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2007.tb02053.x
37. Simsek, O. F. (2007). Yapisal esitlik modellemesine giris: temel ilkeler ve LİSREL uygulamalari. Ekinoks Yayincilik.
38. Sonmez, V. (2007). Program gelistirmede ogretmen el kitabi. Ani Yayincilik.
39. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon.
40. Tok, S. (2007). Ogretme-ogrenme strateji ve modelleri, ogretim ilke ve yontemleri. Pegem A Publishing.
41. Woods, A., & Welch, T. D. (2018). Feedback board: an innovative way to adapt classroom teaching. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 13(4), 219-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2018.05.006
42. Yilmaz, V., & Celik, H. E. (2009). LİRSEL ile yapisal esitlik modellemesi-1. Pegem Publishing.