Mentörlük Anlayış Ölçeği ve Mentörlük Motivasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Çevrilmesi: Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Mentörlük Anlayış Ölçeği ve Mentörlük Motivasyon Ölçeğini Türkçe ’ye çevirip ölçeklerin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerini yapmak ve mentör öğretmenlerinin mentörlük anlayışlarını ve motivasyonlarını Türkiye bağlamında betimsel olarak incelemektir. Ölçekler Hollandaca'dan Türkçe ‘ye geri çeviri yöntemi kullanılarak çevrilmiş ve İstanbul'da 141 mentör öğretmene uygulanmıştır. Güvenilirlik analizi için iç tutarlılık katsayıları ve düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonları hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeklerin yapı geçerliliğinin kontrolü için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizleri yapılmış ve ayırıcı geçerlilik de kontrol edilmiştir. Geçerlilik sonuçları, ölçeklerin iki faktörden oluşan orijinal yapısını doğrulamıştır: gelişimsel ve araçsal mentörlük anlayışı; kişisel öğrenme ve üretken sonuç güdüleri. Anlayış faktörlerinin iç tutarlılık katsayıları 0,96 ve 0,94 olarak hesaplanırken, motivasyon faktörlerinin iç tutarlılık katsayıları 0,87 ve 0,89 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Betimsel bulgular, mentör öğretmenlerinin her bir anlayış ve motivasyon faktörü için yüksek puanlar verme eğiliminde olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• staj için mentörlük
• mentörlük anlayışı
• mentörlük motivasyonu
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

Proje Numarası

BU-BAP-15961

Translation of the Mentoring Conception Scale and the Mentoring Motivation Scale into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

This study aims to translate the Mentoring Conception Scale and Mentoring Motivation Scale into Turkish, to conduct reliability and validity analyses of the instruments, and to descriptively examine mentor teachers' mentoring conceptions and motivations in the Turkish context. The instruments were translated from Dutch to Turkish using a backward translation design and conducted with 141 mentor teachers in Istanbul. For reliability analysis, internal consistency coefficients and corrected item-total correlations were calculated. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine construct validity and discriminant validity was checked. Validity results confirmed the original structure of the instruments, which consists of two factors: developmental and instrumental conceptions, personal learning, and generative outcome motives. While internal consistency coefficients of conception factors were calculated as 0.96 and 0.94, internal consistency coefficients of motivation factors were calculated as 0.87 and 0.89. Descriptive findings showed that mentor teachers tended to give high scores for each conception and motivation factor.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mentoring in practicum
• mentoring conceptions
• mentoring motivations
• reliability
• validity

Destekleyen Kurum

Boğaziçi University

Proje Numarası

BU-BAP-15961

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval and written permission were obtained from the Social Sciences and Humanities Human Research Ethics Committee of Boğaziçi University (Application No: 2020-19, Approval Date: 17.02.2020, Meeting No: 2020/02).

Kaynakça

1. Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. (2005). Focusing new teachers on diversity and equity: Toward a knowledge base for mentors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(7), 843–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.017
2. Aguirre, J., & Speer, N. M. (1999). Examining the relationship between beliefs and goals in teacher practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(3), 327–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00034-6
3. Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Burroughs, S. M. (1997). The mentor’s perspective: A qualitative inquiry and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1997.1596
4. Aydın, O., & Ok, A. (2020). Mentoring practices in English language teaching practicum: Student teachers' perspectives on cooperating teachers' roles in the Turkish context. The Teacher Educator, 55(3), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2019.1701756
5. Aypay, A. (2011). Öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışları ölçeği'nin Türkiye uyarlaması ve epistemolojik inançlar ile öğretme ve öğrenme anlayışları arasındaki ilişkiler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(1), 7–29.
6. Azkiyah, S. N., & Mukminin, A. (2017). In search of teaching quality of EFL student teachers through teaching practicum: Lesson from a teacher education program. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 4(7), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.366
7. Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe, 75(5), 8–14. https://doi:10.2307/40249734
8. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

9. Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations. Group and Organization Studies, 9(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118400900304
10. Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002
11. Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Houghton Mifflin.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.05.001
14. De Vaus, D. (2004). Surveys in Social Research. Routledge.
15. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
16. Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). Teacher educators’ conceptions of learning to teach and related teaching strategies. Research Papers in Education, 26(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.561979
17. Ekinci, N. (2016). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretme-öğrenme anlayışları ve öğrenen özerkliğini destekleyici davranışları arasındaki ilişkiler. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(19), 1–16.
18. Evans, C., & Kozhevnikova, M. (2011). Styles of practice: How learning is affected by students’ and teachers’ perceptions and beliefs, conceptions and approaches to learning. Research Papers in Education, 26, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.561973
19. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188960380104
20. Flaxman, E., Ascher, L., & Harrington, C. (1968). Mentoring Programmes and Practices: An Analysis of the Literature. Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Columbia University Teachers’ College.
21. Franke, A., & Dahlgren, L. O. (1996). Conceptions of mentoring: An empirical study of conceptions of mentoring during the school-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(6), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00004-2
22. Furinghetti, F. (1998). Beliefs, conceptions and knowledge in mathematics teaching. In E. Pehkonen & G. Törner (Eds.), The State-of-art in Mathematics-related Belief Research: results of the MAVI Activities (pp. 11–36). University of Helsinki.
23. Gay, B. (1994). What Is Mentoring? Education+Training, 36(5), 4–7. http://doi.org/10.1108/00400919410062257
24. Gencel, İ. E. (2013). Öğretmenlerin öğretim stilleri tercihleri: Türkiye-ABD karşılaştırılması. International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 8(8), 635–648.
25. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
26. Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1118–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.007
27. Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 63–84). Macmillan.
28. Gürsoy, E., Bulunuz, N., Baltacı, Göktalay. S., Bulunuz, M., Kesner, J., & Salihoğlu, U. (2013). Clinical supervision model to improve supervisory skills of cooperating teachers and university supervisors during teaching practice. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Special Issue (1), 191–203.
29. Hair, F. J., Black, W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
30. Hao A., & Guzman, A. (2007). Why go into teaching? Understanding Filipino preservice teachers’ reasons for entering teacher education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4(2), 115-135.
31. Hennissen, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Mapping mentor teachers' roles in mentoring dialogues. Educational Research Review, 3(2), 168-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.001
32. Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2001, November 3-5). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science [Conference session]. The Science Teachers' Association of Ontario Conference, Toronto.
33. Hudson, P., & Skamp, K. (2002). Mentoring preservice teachers of primary science. The Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(1).
34. International Test Commission (ITC). (2018). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
35. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). EdITS.
36. Jan, H. (2017). Teacher of 21st century: Characteristics and development. Research on humanities and social sciences, 7(9), 50–54.
37. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic.
38. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
39. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002
40. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/255910
41. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott, Foresman and Company.
42. Kroeze, C. (2014). Georganiseerde begeleiding bij opleiden in de school. Een onderzoek naar het begeleiden van werkplekleren van leraren in opleiding (Arranged mentoring in school-based teacher education. A study of mentoring student teacher’s workplace learning) [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tilburg University.
43. Leshem, S. (2012). The many faces of mentor-mentee relationships in a pre-service teacher education programme. Creative Education, 3(4), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34065
44. Levinson, D. J., Carrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117900400214
45. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 33(2), 181–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
46. Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and proteges: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171368303300304
47. Moran, A., Kilpatrick, R., Abbot, L., Dallat, J., & McClune, B. (2001). Training to teach: Motivating factors and implications for recruitment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790108666980
48. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 877–904). American Educational Research Association.
49. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Nganga, C., Bowne, M., & Stremmel, A. (2020). Mentoring as a developmental identity process. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 28(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2020.1783498
50. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological perspective. Praeger.
51. Nguyen, T. (2020). The factors influence the preservice teachers’ learning in the practicum. Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education, 12(651), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v12i6S1.3089
52. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en
53. Orland, L. (2001). Reading a mentoring situation: One aspect of learning to mentor. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00039-1
54. Orland-Barak, L., & Klein, S. (2005). The expressed and the realized: Mentors’ representations of a mentoring conversation and its realization in practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.05.003
55. Phillips-Jones, L. (1982). Mentors and proteges. Arbor House.
56. Reid, I., & Caudwell, J. (1997). Why did secondary PGCE students choose teaching as a career? Research in Education, 58(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/003452379705800105
57. Reilkoff, T. (1981). Advantages of supportive supervision over clinical supervision of teachers. NASSP Bulletin, 65(448), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658106544804
58. Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why? Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660500480290
59. Sağ, R. (2008). The expectations of student teachers about cooperating teachers, supervisors and practice schools. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 32(32), 117–132.
60. Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2018). Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79(2), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164418783530
61. Sinclair, C., Dowson, M., & Thistleton-Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles of cooperating teachers: Who volunteers and why? Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.008
62. Stout, C. (1982). Why cooperating teachers accept students. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(6), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718203300605
63. Tanisli, D. & Kose, N.Y. (2013). Pre-service mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students about the algebraic concepts. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n2.1
64. Under, H. (2010). Yapılandırmacılığın epistemolojik savlarının Türkiye’de ilköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi programlarında görünümleri. Eğitim ve Bilim. 35(158), 199–214.
65. Usta, İ. (2019). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin epistemolojik inançları ve öğretme-öğrenme anlayışlarının incelenmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi.
66. van Ginkel, G., Verloop, N., & Denessen, E. (2016). Why mentor? Linking mentor teachers’ motivations to their mentoring conceptions. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 22(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1023031
67. Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standards-based reform: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481–546. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003481
68. Yılmaz, G., & Bıkmaz, F. (2020). Revealing the professional learning needs of teachers for the successful mentoring of teacher candidates. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1777978
69. Zeichner, K. (2009). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
70. Zey, M. G. (1984). The mentor connection. Dow Jones-Irwin.