Öğretmen Mesleki Öğrenme Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Liu, Hallinger ve Feng (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Öğretmen Mesleki Öğrenme (Teacher Professional Learning) Ölçeğinin (ÖMÖÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanmasına yönelik geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, öncelikle ilgili ölçeğin Türkçe çevirisi yapılarak dil ve kapsam geçerliğine yönelik işlemler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu işlemler sonrasında oluşan Türkçe ölçek formu ile toplanan veriler üzerinden güvenirlik ve geçerliğe yönelik analizler yapılmıştır. Analizlerde, Adıyaman, Antalya ve Konya illerinde bulunan kamu ilköğretim okullarında görev yapmakta olan 375 öğretmenden toplanan veriler kullanılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ölçeğin dört boyut ve 27 maddeden oluşan orijinal formunu onaylamıştır. Bu kapsamda, ölçeğin Türkçe formunun alt boyutları orijinal forma uygun olarak; işbirliği, yansıtma, uygulama ve bilgi tabanına ulaşma şeklinde isimlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca, iç tutarlık katsayısı ölçeğin tamamı için .92, alt boyutlar için ise sırasıyla .82, .83, .85 ve .77 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, Öğretmen Mesleki Öğrenme Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğine yönelik yeterli kanıtlar sunulmuştur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen mesleki öğrenme ölçeği,uyarlama,geçerlik-güvenirlik,mesleki gelişim

Kaynakça

1. Blank, R. K., & De Las Alas, N. (2009). The Effects of Teacher Professional Development on Gains in Student Achievement: How Meta Analysis Provides Scientific Evidence Useful to Education Leaders. Washington, DC; Council of Chief State School Officers.
2. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Methodology. Boston: Allen and Becon.
3. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegema yayıncılık.
4. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-682.
5. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of Psychological Testing (5th ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
6. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 77(1), 113-143.
7. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 754- 761.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The at world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.

9. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
10. Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71.
11. Easton, L. B. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi delta kappan, 89(10), 755-761.
12. Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., & Van der Heijden, B. I. (2015). The design and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ professional development at work. Studies in Continuing Education.
13. Fraenkel, F. J. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Qualitative Research (7th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Goe, L., & Stickler, L. M. (2008). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: Making the Most of Recent Research. TQ Research & Policy Brief. National comprehensive center for teacher quality.
14. Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?.Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
15. Hallinger, P., Liu, S., & Piyaman, P. (2017). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1-17.
16. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
17. Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of public economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.
19. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2001), Lisrel 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago.
20. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (16. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149e170
21. Li, L., Hallinger, P., Kennedy, K. J., & Walker, A. (2017). Mediating effects of trust, communication, and collaboration on teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(6), 697-716.
22. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Principal Instructional Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, and Teacher Professional Learning in China: Testing a Mediated-Effects Model. Educational Administration Quarterly,
23. Liu, S., Hallinger, P., & Feng, D. (2016). Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does principal leadership make a difference?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 79-91.
24. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. Schechter, C., & Qadach, M. (2012). Toward an organizational model of change in elementary schools: The contribution of organizational learning mechanisms. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 116e153.
25. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Signifcance and Descriptive ve Goodness of Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
26. Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3-4), 165-184.
27. UNESCO. (2015). The right to education and the teaching profession: Overview of the measures supporting the rights, status and working conditions of the teaching profession reported on by member states. Paris: UNESCO.
28. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and teacher education, 24(1), 80-91.
29. Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573-596.
30. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1-30
31. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1).