Adapting the teacher formative assessment literacy scale into Turkish: Validation and reliability study

Abstract

In the present study, the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale (TFALS), developed by Yan and Pastore (2022a), was translated into Turkish to examine the factor structure and psychometric characteristics of the scale in a Turkish sample. Data was collected from 318 teachers, of whom 168 were males and 150 were females, working in different state schools in a city in the Central Anatolia Region of Türkiye. As the first step, the scale items were translated and back-translated by experts in both English and Turkish. Afterward, experts were presented with the scale to check for consistency and accuracy based on the feedback received. A pilot study was carried out to establish the linguistic equivalence of the scale, followed by an examination of its structural validity in a Turkish sample. To demonstrate evidence of the confirmed factor structure of TFALS with 22 items, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. The CFA results demonstrated that the three-factor model of the TFALS-Turkish-version had adequate fit indices. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the total scale was found to be .93. The Cronbach’s alpha for each of the dimensions of TFALS was .90 for the conceptual dimension (7 items), .86 for the practical dimension (8 items), and .88 for the socio-emotional dimension (7 items). Composite reliability coefficients of the dimensions ranged from .78 to .84. The results of this study provide important evidence for the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the TFALS, confirming that it has good psychometric properties in a Turkish sample

Keywords

• Formative assessment
• Formative assessment literacy
• Scale adaptation

References

1. Andrade, H.L., & Heritage, M. (2018). Using formative assessment to enhance learning. achievement and academic self-regulation. Routledge.
2. Aras, S. (2019). Improving early childhood teachers’ formative assessment practices: Transformative role of collaborative action research. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 9(2), 221-240.
3. Archer, E. (2017). The assessment purpose triangle: Balancing the purposes of educational assessment. Frontiers in Education, 2, 1-17.
4. Ayan, A.D., & Erdemir, N. (2023). EFL teachers' perceptions of automated written corrective feedback and Grammarly. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (AKEF) Dergisi, 5(3), 1183-1198.
5. Bayrak, N., Çalık, M., & Doğan, S. (2019). Biology teachers’ practice of formative assessment: A case of the identifying learning gap element. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 132-149.
6. Bennett, R.E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25.
7. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press.
8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
10. Borsa, J.C., Damásio, B.F., & Bandeira, D.R. (2012). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paidéia, 22(53), 423–432.
11. Brookhart, S.M., & McMillan, J.H. (2020). Classroom assessment and educational assessment. (p. 1-9). Routledge.
12. Buldur, S., & Hasbek, G. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about formative assessment: A metaphorical study. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 21(2), 595-615.
13. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis notebook for social sciences]. Pegem Akademik Yayın.
14. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.
15. Brookhart, S.M. (2018). Summative and formative feedback. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 52–78). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316832134.005
16. Cañadas, L. (2023). Contribution of formative assessment for developing teaching competences in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 46(3), 516-532.
17. Cañadas, L., Santos-Pastor, M.L., & Ruíz, P. (2021). Percepción del impacto de la evaluación formativa en las competencias profesionales durante la formación inicial del profesorado [Perception of impact of formative assessment on professional competences during initial teacher training]. Revista Electrónica De Investigación Educativa 23: 1–14. e03.
18. Çokluk, Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Pegem Akademi Yay.
19. Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
20. Eremenco, S.L., Cella, D., & Arnold, B.J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 28(2), 212–232.
21. Erkuş, A. (2014), Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler [Measurement and scale development in psychology-I: Basic concepts and processes]. Pegem Akademi Yay.
22. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7, p. 429). McGraw-hill.
23. Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
24. Furtak, E.M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R.K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: Findings from a four-year intervention study. Instructional Science, 44, 267-291.
25. Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304
26. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon
27. Gotch, C.M., & French, B.F. (2014). A systematic review of assessment literacy measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(2), 14–18.
28. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th Ed). Pearson.
29. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Corwin Press.
30. Izci, K. (2016). Internal and external factors affecting teachers’ adoption of formative assessment to support learning. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 10(8), 2800–2807.
31. Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler [SPSS 23 and AMOS 23 applied statistical analysis]. Nobel Akademik Yay.
32. Karaman, O. (2017). Adapting of formative assessment attitude and intention scale for pre- service teachers and a structural equation modelling. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(3), 181-131.
33. Karaman, P., & Karaman, A. (2017). Investigating teacher candidates’ use of formative assessment: Action research model. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(6), 2385-2400.
34. Kaya, G., Atasoy, V., Candan-Helvacı, S., & Pektaş, M. (2021). The role of science teachers’ awareness in their classroom practice of formative assessment. Education and Science, 46(205), 335-357.
35. Kepek, T., & Izci, K. (2021). Examining the effect of alternative assessment methods on academic achievement and student opinions about these methods. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 34-50.
36. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asian-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 263-268.
37. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
38. Li, H. (2016). How is formative assessment related to students’ reading achievement? Findings from PISA 2009. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(4), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1139543
39. Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140.
40. MoNE (2013). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programi [Primary school science and technology curricula). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. Ankara.
41. MoNE (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. [General competencies of the teaching profession] Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/StPrg/Ogretmenlik_Meslegi_Genel Yeterlikleri.pdf
42. Menéndez, I.Y.C., Napa, M.A.C., Moreira, M.L.M., & Zambrano, G.G.V. (2019). The importance of formative assessment in the learning teaching process. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 238-249.
43. NCTM (2023). Using classroom assessment to improve student learning: Math problems aligned with nctm and common core state standards. https://www.nctm.org/store/Products/Using-Classroom-Assessment-to-Improve-Student-learning--Math-Problems-Aligned-with-NCTM-and-Common-Core-State-Standards/
44. Pastore, S., & Andrade, H.L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138
45. Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2018). Implementation of formative assessment–effects of quality of programme delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(2), 160-182.
46. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1999). Measures of political attitudes. Academic Press.
47. Seçer İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Anı Yayıncılık.
48. Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 482-496.
49. Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F.M., Heitink, M.C., Kippers, W.B., & Veldkamp, B.P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
50. Shavelson, R.J. (2013) On an approach to testing and modeling competence. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.779483
51. Shepard, L.A., Penuel, W.R., & Davidson, K.L. (2017). Design principles for new systems of assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(6), 47-52.
52. Şahin, Ç., & Kaya, G. (2020). Alternatif ölçme değerlendirme ile ilgili yapılan araştırmaların incelenmesi: Bir içerik analizi [A review of the research on alternative assessment evaluation: A content analysis]. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of ISS, 10(2), 798-812.
53. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. (6th Ed). Pearson.
54. Tekindal, S. (2015). Duyuşsal özelliklerin ölçülmesi için araç oluşturma [Creating a tool for measuring affective traits]. Pegem Akademi Yayın.
55. Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayın.
56. Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 323-342.
57. Trochim, W.M., & Donnelly, J.P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed). Atomic Dog.
58. Van der Kleij, F.M., Cumming, J.J., & Looney, A. (2018). Policy expectations and support for teacher formative assessment in Australian education reform. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25, 620–637.
59. World Health Organization (WHO) (2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
60. Wylie, E.C. (2020). Observing formative assessment practice: Learning lessons through alidation. Educational Assessment, 25(4), 251–258.
61. Xu, Y., & Brown, G.T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58(1), 149-162.
62. Yan, Z., Chiu, M.M., & Cheng, E.C.K. (2022). Predicting teachers’ formative assessment practices: Teacher personal and contextual factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 114, 103718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103718.
63. Yan, Z., & King, R.B. (2023). Assessment is contagious: The social contagion of formative assessment practices and self-efficacy among teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(2), 130–150.
64. Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022a). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101183.
65. Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022b). Assessing teachers’ strategies in formative assessment: The teacher formative assessment practice scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 40(5), 592-604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282922107.
66. Yaşar, M.D. (2017). Prospective science teachers’ perception related to formative assessment approaches in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(4), 29-43.
67. Yılmaz, H. (1998). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Assessment in education]. Mikro Yayın.