Conceptual and Psychometric Properties of a Self-efficacy Perception Scale Based on Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language

Abstract

The main purpose of this descriptive research study is to investigate the conceptual and psychometric properties of a self-efficacy perception scale developed for determining selfefficacy perception of 3rd and 4th grade Turkish pre-service teachers, who took Turkish as a Foreign Language (TFL) course theoretically in undergraduate level, towards teaching TFL. As a result of analysis of the related literature and written responses of participants, researchers initially formed an item-pool by considering that they best suit to TFL context. Then, they adapted the items into 5-point Likert scale. The current instrument was administered to 176 pre-service Turkish teachers with a random sampling design. The repetitive statistics showed that the instrument has three factors with 25 items that measure the self-efficacy of participants. The factors which have been identified in the instrument possess the construct validity and psychometric properties of internal consistency. The reliability and validity of the scale were analyzed with SPPS 17.0. According to exploratory factor analysis results for maintaining construct validity of the scale, factor values of the scale changed between 0.57 and 0.82, and total variant of the scale was found to be 70.379 %. As for the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measuring of sampling adequacy and Bartlett‟s test of sphericity, KMO is found to be 0.95 being greater than 0.60 and Bartlett‟s test is large with Chi-square value (χ2(300)= 4143.5; p< ,0001) and significant at 0.000. As for reliability, the results showed that the items of scale in terms of item-total correlation changed between 0.45 and 0.84, and the total internal reliability coefficient of the scale (Cronbach‟s Alpha) was calculated as 0.972. Additionally, the two scholars gave their positive opinions in favor of the scale for face validity.The results indicates that the scale has the validity and reliability. Furthermore, the findings of the study confirmed that this scale had validity and reliability that could be used in TFL context for exploring pre-service teachers‟ self-efficacy perception towards teaching TFL

Kaynakça

1. Alkan, C. (2000). Meslek ve öğretmenlik mesleği. In V. Sönmez (Ed.), Öğretmenlik mesleğine giriş (pp.191-230). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117–148.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
6. Barth, P. (2002). Add It Up: Mathematics Education in the U.S. Does Not Compute. Thinking K-16, 6(1), Presented at the 12th Educational Trust National Conference, Washington, DC.
7. Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers‟ perceived efficacy among English as a foreign language teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 257– 272.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

9. Demircan, Ö. (2002). Türkçe‟nin yabancı dil olarak öğretimi, Müdafa-I Hukuk, 21.
10. Demirel, Ö. (1989). Yabancı dil öğretmenlerinin yeterlikleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 5-26.
11. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569–582.
12. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L.R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404-420.
13. Heritage, M., & Vendlinski, M. (2006). Measuring Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge. (CSE Technical Report 696). In National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
14. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers‟ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371- 406.
15. Ingersoll, Richard. M. (2003). Out-of-Field Teaching and the Limits of Teacher Policy- A Research http://www.depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFS/LimitsPolicy-RI-09-2003.pdf Report. Retrieved from
16. Lin, H.L., Gorrell, J. & Taylor, J. (2002). Influence of culture and education on U.S. and Taiwan pre-service teachers‟ efficacy beliefs. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 37–46.
17. MNE (2002). Öğretmen yeterlilikleri. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
18. MNE (2008). İngilizce öğretmeni özel alan yeterlikleri. Retrieved from http://otmg.meb.gov.tr/alaningilizce.html
19. Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers‟ beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school improvement hypothesis. Teacher College Record, 97(2), 227-250.
20. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1996). Teacher efficacy: Toward the understanding of a multi-faceted construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 401-411.
21. Thomas, A. L. (1987). Language teacher competence and language teacher education. In R. Bowers (Ed.), Language teacher education: An integrated program for EFL teacher training. (pp. 33-42). London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.
22. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5-22.