Developing Teacher Professionalism Scale: Validation and Reliability Study /Öğretmenlik Mesleği Profesyonellik Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

The research is aimed to develop a valid and reliable instrument which is will measure professionalism level of teaching profession based on literature, expert and practitioner masters’ student of educational administration program knowledge. Research sample consisted of 315 teachers from different parts of Turkey at elementary and secondary level. Exploratory followed by confirmatory factor analyses to validate the scale. Exploratory factor analyses revealed that teacher professionalism scale could have 9 dimensions with explained 58,96 % of total variance. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed acceptable indexes. Composite teacher professionalism scale’ cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was ,93. Results shows that teachers professionalism scale, includes 46 items, validated and reliable.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher, professionalism, teaching profession, scale development

(ÖĞRETMENLİK MESLEĞİ PROFESYONELLİK ÖLÇEĞİ GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI)

Öz

Bu araştırma, literatür, uzman ve eğitim yönetimi yüksek lisans öğrencilerinin görüşlerine dayalı olarak, öğretmenlik mesleğinin profesyonellik düzeyini betimlemeyi amaçlayan geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmeyi amaç edinmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Türkiye’nin farklı bölgelerinde ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim okullarında görev yapan 315 öğretmen oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında geçerlik amacıyla öncelikle açımlayıcı ardında da doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi, öğretmenlik mesleğinin profesyonelliği ölçeğinin 9 boyuttan oluşabileceğini ve boyutların açıkladığı varyansın ise % 58,96 olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi makul düzeylerde uyum indeksleri vermiştir. Profesyonellik ölçeğinin Alpha güvenirlik katsayı ,93 şeklinde ortaya çıkmıştır. Sonuç olarak, 46 madden oluşan öğretmenlik mesleğinin profesyonellik düzeyini betimleyen ölçme aracının geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu söylemek mümkündür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen, profesyonellik, öğretim profesyonelliği, ölçek geliştirme

Kaynakça

1. Bandalos, D. L. & Gagne, P. (2012). Simulation methods in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 92-110). New York: The Guilford Press.
2. Blunch, N. J. (2008). Introduction to structural equation modeling using SPSS and AMOS: 6 The measurement model in SEM: Confirmatory factor analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicaitons. DOI: 10.4135/9781446249345.
3. Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
4. Corrigan, Dean C. & Martin Haberman (1990). The context of teacher education.
5. In Handbook of research on teacher education, 195–211. W. Robert Houston, ed. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.
6. Day, Christopher (2002) “School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and
7. identity”. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 8, 677–692.
8. Edwards, M., C., Wirth, R. J., Houts, C. R. & Xi, N. (2012). Categorical data in the structural equation modeling framework. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 263-276). New York: The Guilford Press.

9. Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses, social
10. workers. New York, NY: Free Press.
11. Epstein RM, Hundert, EM (2002) Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 287: 226–35.
12. Eraut, M. 1994. Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence. Abingdon: Routledge-
13. Falmer.
14. Evans, L., (2008). Professionalism, professionally and the development of education
15. professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies 56 (1) 20–38.
16. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publication.
17. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
18. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (1996). Teachers professional lives: Aspirations and actualities. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers’ professional lives (pp. 1–27). London: Falmer Press.
20. Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Introduction and overview. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 3-17). New York: The Guilford Press.
21. Hoyle, E., & John. P. D. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. London: Cassell.
22. Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362.
23. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage Publicaiton.
25. Jumardin, Samsul, B. Hamsu, G. , Jasruddin. (2014). Analysis f The Pedagogic
26. Competence and Professionalism of Lecturers in Seamanship Polytechnic Makassar based in the Sailing Period. International Journal of Academic Research, 6 (4), 176-181.
27. Ingersoll, R. M., (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel
28. analysis, NCES 97-069. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional Growth among Pre-service and Beginning Teachers. Review of Education Research, 62(2), 129-169.
30. Kahn, J. H. (2006). Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684-718.
31. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
32. Krull, E. (2002) Eesti õpetaja pedagoogilised arusaamad, arvamused ja hoiakud millenniumivahetusel. Küsitluse “Töö klassis õpetaja pilguga” põhijäreldused. [Estonian teachers’ educational attitudes and beliefs at turn of the millennium. Main conclusions from the inquiry “Working in the classroom seen through teachers’ eyes”.] Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
33. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
34. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: Education Schools Project. Retrieved from www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm.
35. 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.
36. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesistesting approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
37. McDonal, R. P., & Moon-Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psyhological Methods, 75(2), 420-435.
38. Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to Lisrel and EQS. New York: Springer.
39. Niemi, H., & Viljo, K. (1995) Towards new professionalism and active learning in teacher development. Tampere: Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University.
40. Pearson, L. C. & Hall, B. C., (1993). Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy
41. scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86(3), 172-177.
42. Raykov, T. & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd. ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
43. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:
44. Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94 (2), 247‐252.
45. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. 82010). A beginner’s guide to: Structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New york: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
46. Shaukat, S. (2014). Attitude of student teachers toward assessment, peers, subject matter, and teacher educator effectiveness. The Macrotheme Review 3 (2).147-158.
47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
48. Velicer,W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251.
49. West, S., G., Taylor, A. A., & Wu, W. (2012).Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-231). New York: The Guilford Press.
50. Worthington, R.L., & Whittaker, T.A. (2006), “Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices”, The Counseling Psychologist, 34 (6), 806-838.