Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Öğretmen Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3, 1151 - 1165, 30.07.2025
https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1598569

Öz

Bu çalışma, geçerli ve güvenilir bir öğretmen geri bildirim okuryazarlığı ölçeği geliştirerek mevcut literatürdeki bir boşluğu gidermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizleri, Türkiye'deki eğitim fakültelerinden 508 öğretim elemanından oluşan bir örneklem kullanılarak iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre 23 madde ve 3 boyuttan oluşan bir yapı ortaya çıkmıştır ve boyutlar "Geri bildirim kullanma amacı", "Geri bildirim kullanma biçimi" ve "Geri bildirime karşı tutum" olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Üç faktörlü yapının faktör yük değerleri .408 ile .777 arasında olup açıklanan toplam varyans 49.196 olarak bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ᵡ²/df, NNFI, CFI ve IFI model uyum indeksi değerlerinin mükemmel olduğunu; RMSEA, SRMR, NFI ve RFI'nin ise kabul edilebilir olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, 3 faktörlü, 23 maddelik Öğretmen Geri Bildirim Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin öğretmenlerin geri bildirim okuryazarlığı düzeylerini geçerli ve güvenilir şekilde ölçebileceğini ortaya koymuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
  • Boud, D., & Molloy. E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
  • Bozpolat, E., Hazar, E., & Yıldız, H. (2021). Lisansüstü eğitimde geri bildirime ilişkin öğretim üyesi görüşleri. e- Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8, 370-396. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.960777
  • Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. Routledge.
  • Büyükalan Filiz, S. (2011). Eğitim bilimine giriş. M. Ç. Özdemir (Ed.), Eğitimle ilgili temel kavramlar (pp. 1-28).Pegem.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts applications and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • Can, A. (2023). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. (11. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Carless, D. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy, feedback regimes and iterative change: towards enhanced value in feedback processes. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(8), 1890-1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2203472 . Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  • Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
  • Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of feedback practices in higher education: Implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074
  • Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. A&C Black.
  • Çokluk, O., Sekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve L1SREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
  • Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
  • Deneen, C. C., & Hoo, H. T. (2021). Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284
  • Mohd Effendi Ewan, M. M., Matore, E. M., Khairani, A. Z., & Adnan, R. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for adversity quotient (AQ) instrument among youth. Journal of Critical Reviews, 6(6), 234-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.22159/jcr.06.06.33
  • Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223.
  • Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410
  • Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2023). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 172-185.https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735
  • İstencioğlu, T. (2022). Investigating teachers’ views and practices of feedback in English language education in middle schools from a teacher feedback literacy framework perspective [Master's Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. (5. baskı). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Kara, C. (2021). A qualitative study of feedback literacy in higher education: Uncovering enhancing and impeding factors [Master's Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Karagöz, Y., & Bardakçı, S. (2020). Bilimsel araştırmalarda kullanılan ölçme araçları ve ölçek geliştirme. Nobel Akademik.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  • Koçak, D., Çokluk, Ö., & Kayri, M. (2016). Faktör sayısının belirlenmesinde MAP testi, paralel analiz, K1 ve yamaç birikinti grafiği yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 330-359.
  • Köklü, N. (2002). Açıklamalı istatistik terimleri sözlüğü. Nobel.
  • Leech, N. L., Barret, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBMSPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlaum Associates, Inc.
  • Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
  • Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2023). Feedback literacy: a critical review of an emerging concept. Higher education, 85(6), 1381-1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9
  • Nyimbili F., & Nyimbili L. (2024) Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies, British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Lang., Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communication, 5(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). Estimation of generalizability coefficients via a structural equation modeling approach to scale reliability evaluation. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 81-95.
  • Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Anı Yayıncılık. Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31-40.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel.
  • Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1926221
  • Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2017). Only true friends could be cruelly honest: Cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1082-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1226759
  • Yan, Z., & Carless, D. (2022). Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1116-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001431
  • Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-I: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama. Pegem Akademi.
  • Yu, S., Di Zhang, E., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, 100643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643
  • Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1087-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430
  • Zhan, Y. (2024). Feedback literacy of teacher candidates: roles of assessment course learning experience and motivations for becoming a teacher. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 33, 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00779-1
  • Zhang, Q., & Yang, L. (2024, April 23–25). Evaluating a concise teacher feedback literacy scale from the perspective of knowing, being, and acting: A pilot study in Chinese teachers [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Educational Futures 2024, Hong Kong, China.

Developing and Validating a Teacher Feedback Literacy Scale

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3, 1151 - 1165, 30.07.2025
https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1598569

Öz

This study seeks to address a gap in the current literature on teacher feedback literacy by creating a valid and reliable teacher feedback literacy scale. The scale's validity and reliability analyses were conducted in two stages using a sample of 508 academics from faculties of education in Turkey. Following explanatory factor analysis, the scale had three factors named as "Purpose of using feedback", "Way of using feedback" and "Attitude towards feedback" with 23 items. The factors loading values of the three-factor structure were between .408 and .777 and the total variance explained was found to be 49.196. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the model fit index values of ᵡ²/df, NNFI, CFI, and IFI were perfect, while RMSEA, SRMR, NFI, and RFI were acceptable. The findings revealed that the 3-factor, 23-item Teacher Feedback Literacy Scale is a valid and reliable measure of teachers' feedback literacy levels.

Kaynakça

  • Boud, D., & Dawson, P. (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928
  • Boud, D., & Molloy. E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
  • Bozpolat, E., Hazar, E., & Yıldız, H. (2021). Lisansüstü eğitimde geri bildirime ilişkin öğretim üyesi görüşleri. e- Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8, 370-396. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.960777
  • Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. Routledge.
  • Büyükalan Filiz, S. (2011). Eğitim bilimine giriş. M. Ç. Özdemir (Ed.), Eğitimle ilgili temel kavramlar (pp. 1-28).Pegem.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts applications and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • Can, A. (2023). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. (11. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Carless, D. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy, feedback regimes and iterative change: towards enhanced value in feedback processes. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(8), 1890-1904. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2203472 . Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  • Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
  • Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of feedback practices in higher education: Implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1888074
  • Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. A&C Black.
  • Çokluk, O., Sekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve L1SREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
  • Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877
  • Deneen, C. C., & Hoo, H. T. (2021). Connecting teacher and student assessment literacy with self-evaluation and peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1967284
  • Mohd Effendi Ewan, M. M., Matore, E. M., Khairani, A. Z., & Adnan, R. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for adversity quotient (AQ) instrument among youth. Journal of Critical Reviews, 6(6), 234-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.22159/jcr.06.06.33
  • Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223.
  • Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410
  • Heron, M., Medland, E., Winstone, N., & Pitt, E. (2023). Developing the relational in teacher feedback literacy: Exploring feedback talk. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 172-185.https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1932735
  • İstencioğlu, T. (2022). Investigating teachers’ views and practices of feedback in English language education in middle schools from a teacher feedback literacy framework perspective [Master's Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. (5. baskı). Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Kara, C. (2021). A qualitative study of feedback literacy in higher education: Uncovering enhancing and impeding factors [Master's Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Karagöz, Y., & Bardakçı, S. (2020). Bilimsel araştırmalarda kullanılan ölçme araçları ve ölçek geliştirme. Nobel Akademik.
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  • Koçak, D., Çokluk, Ö., & Kayri, M. (2016). Faktör sayısının belirlenmesinde MAP testi, paralel analiz, K1 ve yamaç birikinti grafiği yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 330-359.
  • Köklü, N. (2002). Açıklamalı istatistik terimleri sözlüğü. Nobel.
  • Leech, N. L., Barret, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2015). IBMSPSS for intermediate statistics: use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlaum Associates, Inc.
  • Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
  • Nieminen, J. H., & Carless, D. (2023). Feedback literacy: a critical review of an emerging concept. Higher education, 85(6), 1381-1400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9
  • Nyimbili F., & Nyimbili L. (2024) Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies, British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Lang., Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communication, 5(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). Estimation of generalizability coefficients via a structural equation modeling approach to scale reliability evaluation. International Journal of Testing, 6(1), 81-95.
  • Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Anı Yayıncılık. Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31-40.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
  • Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel.
  • Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3), 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1926221
  • Xu, Y., & Carless, D. (2017). Only true friends could be cruelly honest: Cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1082-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1226759
  • Yan, Z., & Carless, D. (2022). Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1116-1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001431
  • Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). Lisrel ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi-I: Temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama. Pegem Akademi.
  • Yu, S., Di Zhang, E., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, 100643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643
  • Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1087-1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2001430
  • Zhan, Y. (2024). Feedback literacy of teacher candidates: roles of assessment course learning experience and motivations for becoming a teacher. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 33, 1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00779-1
  • Zhang, Q., & Yang, L. (2024, April 23–25). Evaluating a concise teacher feedback literacy scale from the perspective of knowing, being, and acting: A pilot study in Chinese teachers [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Educational Futures 2024, Hong Kong, China.
Toplam 43 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim (Diğer)
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Esin Hazar 0000-0003-2986-696X

Hatice Yıldız 0000-0003-2365-6937

Ebru Bozpolat 0000-0003-1890-8167

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 26 Temmuz 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Temmuz 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 9 Aralık 2024
Kabul Tarihi 24 Mart 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Cilt: 24 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Hazar, E., Yıldız, H., & Bozpolat, E. (2025). Developing and Validating a Teacher Feedback Literacy Scale. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(3), 1151-1165. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1598569

   21765     

Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Electronic Journal of Social Sciences), Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

ESBD Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Electronic Journal of Social Sciences), Türk Patent ve Marka Kurumu tarafından tescil edilmiştir. Marka No:2011/119849.