The Turkish Adaptation of the Teaching Style for Successful Intelligence Questionnaire (TSI-Q): Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to adapt the Teaching Style for Successful Intelligence Questionnaire (TSI-Q) developed by Paloş and Maricutoui (2006) to Turkish. The research was carried out on three separate groups consisting of 305 high school teachers. In the linguistic equivalence study, it was obtained that there were strong, positive, and significant correlations between responses of the participants to the English and Turkish forms of the scale. The construct validity of the TSI-Q’s Turkish form was tested by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to the results of EFA, a four-factor structure explaining 61% of the total variance was parallel to the original form of the scale. The fit indices reported in CFA were ratified in this four-factor structure. The emerging factors were named as memory, analytical thinking, reproductive thinking, and practical thinking as in the original form of the scale. Within the scope of the reliability, Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of the TSI-Q was detected as .95. The item analysis result revealed that item-total correlations were over the threshold value of .30. All these results suggest that the Turkish form of the TSI-Q provides valid and reliable measurements, and it can be used to measure teaching style based on the successful intelligence of teachers.

Keywords

• Reliability
• teaching styles
• scale adaptation
• validity

Başarılı Zekaya Dayalı Öğretme Stili Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmada Paloş ve Maricutoui (2006) tarafından geliştirilen Başarılı Zekaya Dayalı Öğretme Stili Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma ortaöğretim kademesinde görevli 305 öğretmenden oluşan üç çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Dilsel eşdeğerlik çalışmasında katılımcıların BZÖSÖ’nün Türkçe ve İngilizce formuna verdikleri cevaplar arasında pozitif yönlü, güçlü ve anlamlı korelasyonlar tespit edilmiştir. BZÖSÖ’nün Türkçe formunun yapı geçerliği açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) uygulanarak test edilmiştir. AFA’da toplam varyansın %61’ini açıklayan ve ölçeğin orijinal formuyla paralellik gösteren dört faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. DFA’da rapor edilen uyum indeks bu yapıyı doğrulamıştır. Faktör analizi sonucunda ortaya çıkan boyutlar, ölçeğin orijinal formundaki gibi, hafıza, analitik düşünme, yaratıcı düşünme ve uygulamalı düşünme olarak adlandırılmıştır. Güvenirlik çalışması çerçevesinde, BZÖSÖ’nün geneli için hesaplanan Cronbach-alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı .95 olarak saptanmıştır. Madde analizi sonuçları, madde korelasyonlarının BZÖSÖ’deki tüm maddeler için .30 eşik değerinin üzerinde olduğunu göstermiştir. Araştırmaya ilişkin bu sonuçlar, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir ölçümler sağladığını ve öğretmenlerin başarılı zekaya dayalı öğretim stillerini ölçmek için kullanılabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• ölçek uyarlaması
• öğretme stili.

References

1. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
2. Bentler P. M., & Chou C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(1): 78-117.
3. Borich, G. D. (2014). Effective Teaching Methods: Reserach-Based Practice. Pearson, USA.
4. Bulut, İ. (2014). Öğretmenlerin öğrenme ve öğretme sürecine ilişkin yeterlilik algıları. [The perception of proficiency of teachers during the learning and teaching process]. Elementary Education Online, 13(2), 577-593.
5. Bulut, İ. (2018). The levels of classroom and pre-school teachers' metacognitive awareness. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6 (12):2 697-2706.
6. Buluş, M. (2006). Assessment of Thinking Styles Inventory, Academic Achievement and Student Teachers’ Characteristics, Education and Science, January.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (23. Baskı). [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences (23rd ed.)]Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
8. 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, 555-574

9. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi. (5. Baskı). [Quantitative data analysis with SPSS (5th ed.)]Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
10. Chinowsky, P., & Brown, H (2004). The development of successful intelligence in construction education. In Khosrowshahi, F (Ed.), 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 Eylül 2004, Heriot Watt University. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 1, 525-32.
11. Ciancialo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Intelligence: A brief history. Australia: Blackwell Publishing. Deegan, J. (1978). On the occurrence of standardized regression coefficients greater than one. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(4), 873–888.
12. Delgoshaei, Y., & Delavari, N. (2012). Applying multiple-intelligence approach to education and analyzing its impact on cognitive development of pre-school children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 361-366.
13. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Bossche, P. V. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13, 533–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7 .
14. 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.
15. Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
16. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
17. Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: when excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books.
18. Grigorenko, E. L. ve Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Analytical, creative, and practical intelligence as predictors of self–reported adaptive functioning: A case study in Russia. Journal of Intelligence, 29, 57–73.
19. Gülbahar, Y., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Değerlendirme tercihleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması [Adaptation of assessment preferences inventory to Turkish]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 148- 161.
20. Hambleton, R.K., & Bollwark, J. (1991) Adapting tests for use in different cultures: Technical issues and methods. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 18, 3-32.
21. Hambleton, R.K., & Kanjee, A. (1993). Enhancing the validity of cross-cultural studies: Improvements in instrument translation methods. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
22. Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: where are we now?. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2002(93), 17-26.
23. Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Unpublished Technical Report. Retrieved 08.01.2021 from: http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardized Coefficientbe.pdf
24. Karadeniz, Ş., Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Çakmak, E. K., & Demirel, F. (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12-18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 108-117.
25. Kaufman, S. B. ve Singer, J.L. (2004). Applying the theory of successful intelligence to psyhotherapy training and practice. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 23(4), 325-355.
26. Kaya, S., & Dağ, F. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerine yönelik teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Turkish adaptation of technological pedagogical content knowledge survey for elementary teachers]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(1), 291-306.
27. Kuzgun, Y. & Deryakulu, D. (2004). Eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar. (1. Baskı). [Individual differences in education (1st ed.)]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
28. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
29. Ministry of Education [MEB] (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlilikleri. [General proficiencies in teaching]. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitimi Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
30. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills. James W. Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton, Editors. Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31. Nyunt Saw, K. N., & Han, B. (2021). Effectiveness of successful intelligence training program: A meta-analysis. PsyCh Journal, 10(3), 323-339. doi: 10.1002/pchj.443. OECD. (2015). Beyond PISA 2015: A longer-term strategy of PISA. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 12.05.2020 from Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Longer-term-strategy-ofPISA.pdf .
32. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 collaborative problem-solving framework. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 15.05.2020.fromPublishing.https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%.
33. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Retrieved 16.05.2020 from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20.pdf.
34. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. (2. baskı). [Statistical data analysis with packet programmes (2nd ed.)]. Eskişehir: Kaan Publishing.
35. Paloş, R. ve Maricutoiu, L. P. (2006). The impact of teachers’ thinking and learning styles upon his/her teaching style. Retrieved October, 15, 2019 from www.academia.edu.
36. Paloş, R., & Maricutoiu, L. P. (2013). Teaching for successful intelligence questionnaire (TSI-Q) – a new instrument developed for assessing teaching style. Journal of Educational Science and Psychology, 65(1), 159-178.
37. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21). (2007). Framework for 21st-century learning. Retrieved 15.10.2020 from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
38. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2015). P21 Framework Definitions. Retrieved 15.10.2020 from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
39. Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
40. Sak, U., & Maker, C.J. (2004). Discover assessment and curriculum model: The application of theories of multiple intelligence and successful intelligence in the education of gifted students. Euroasian Journal of educational research, 15, 1-15.
41. Service, R. W. (2005). Measuring and teaching for success: intelligence versus IQ. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 1(1), 5-24.
42. Sevinç, M. & Palut, B. (2008). Öğretmen düşünme stilleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve geçerlik-güvenirlik çalışması. [Adaptation of the “Thinking Styles Inventory for Teachers”: Assessment of validity and reliability] Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 25(2), 1-19.
43. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clickenbeard, P.R., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: Construct validation of a triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137.
44. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in life-long learning and success. The Journal of Americal Psychological Association, 52(10), 1030-1037.
45. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Thinking styles. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
46. Sternberg, R. J.; Grigorenko, E.L & Torff, B. (1998) Teaching Triarchically Improves School Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 1-11.
47. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3, 292-316.
48. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Raising the Achievement of All Students: Teaching for Successful Intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 383-393.
49. Sternberg, R. J., & Swerling, L.S. (2002). Teaching Thinking (3th edition). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
50. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko E.L. (2003). Teaching for Successful Intelligence: Principles, Procedures and Practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 27 (2/3), 207-228.
51. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A Broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55, 139-154.
52. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325-338.
53. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into practice, 43, 274–280.
54. Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia/ Interamerican Journal of Psychology. 39( 2), 189-202.
55. Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Successful intelligence. The Latest Information for the Education Practitioner, 1(5), 3-19.
56. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Reflections on ethical leadership. In D. Ambrose & T. L. Cross (Ed.), Morality, Ethics and Gifted Minds. New York: Springer.
57. Sternberg, R. J. (2012). The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach. Creativity Research Journal. 4(1),3-12.
58. Sternberg, R. J. (2015). Successful intelligence: A model for testing intelligence beyond IQ tests. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 8, 76-84. Sternberg, R. J. (2019). A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 7 (23), 2-17.
59. Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Roberts, A. M. (2019). The relation of creativity to intelligence and wisdom. In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd Ed) (pp. 237-353). New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into practice, 43, 274–280.
61. Şenel, S., Pekdağ, B. & Sarıtaş, M.T. (2018). Turkish adaptation of instrument for assessing undergraduate students’ perceptions of faculty knowledge in technology-supported class environments. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(1), 67-93.
62. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
63. Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS ] (4th ed.). Ankara: Nobel Academy Publishing.
64. Weinert, F. E., Helmke, A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Individual differences in learning performance and in school achievement: Plausible parallels and unexplained discrepancies. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Benett, & H.F. Friedrichs (Eds.), Learing and instruction (pp. 461–479). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Retrieved 22.06.2021 from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35100512.pdf web.
65. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. [Factor Analysis and Validity in Social Sciences: Application of Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses] Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46, 74-85.