Creating Intergenerational Space in Schools: A Scale Development Study

Öz

Today's organizations require individuals from different age groups to work together due to factors such as the continuation of work by older individuals and the recruitment of young individuals. At the same time organizations, due to the developing technology and increasing competition conditions, are forced to become an organization that renews itself, follows the developments, produces new unique information, in short, learns. One of the ways to become a learning organization is through intergenerational learning. Intergenerational learning is the ability of employees of different generations to apply what they learn from each other. The most important step of this is to create spaces for teachers from different generations to come together. This study was conducted with the aim of developing a reliable and valid scale to identify the spaces where teachers from different generations coexist. In this context, considering the data of the relevant literature and interviews with teachers, a pool of 45 items was created. Expert opinions were taken to ensure scope validity and two items were revised. This scale form was applied to 90 primary school teachers working in Derince district of Kocaeli province in the spring term of 2018 - 2019 academic year. All of the scales were returned and 12 were excluded from the evaluation due to errors in the coding. Research data were obtained from 78 teachers. For the validity studies of the scale, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyzes were performed. According to exploratory factor analysis, the scale consists of four sub-dimensions and 25 items: socio-cultural activities, intergenerational sensitivity, educational meetings and educational activities. The total item correlations in the scale were between 0.571 and factor loads between 0, 420 and 0, 834. It explained 72.59 of the total variance. After the exploratory factor analysis, the fit indices of the scale were found to be sufficient and the four-dimensional structure was confirmed according to the confirmatory factor analysis (X²/df=1,809, RMSEA=,103 SRMR=,764 TLI=,852 CFI=,871 GFI=,706). The reliability of the scale was examined by Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient. As a result of the reliability analysis, the internal consistency coefficient was α = .96. The results of the study showed that Intergenerational Space Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool with sufficient psychometric properties. The intergenerational space scale can be used in research on bringing together teachers from different generations in schools.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intergenerational Space,Scale Development,teacher

Kaynakça

1. Argote, L., McEvily, B. & Reagans, R. (2003). “Managing Knowledge in Organizations: an Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes”, Management Science, 49 (4), 571-582.
2. Atak, N. Ü. (2016). X-Y-Z Kuşakları ve Kuşaklararası Farklılıkların Yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel.
3. Aytaç, M. & Öngen, B. (2012).Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ile Çevresel Paradigma Ölçeğinin Yapı Geçerliliğinin İncelenmesi, İstatistikçiler Dergisi, , 14-22.
4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588.
5. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall Fit in Covariance Structure Models: Two Types of Sample Size Effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256.
6. Bowles, M. L. (1993). The Gods and Goddesses: Personifying Social Life in the Age of Organization. Organization Studies, 14, 395–418.
7. Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (Multivariate Applications Series), New York: Routledge.
8. Brown, C. & Henkin, N. (2012). “Intergenerational Community Building: Resource Guide,” Communities for All Ages. Philadelphia, PA: Intergenerational Center, Temple University.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör Analizi: Temel Kavramlar ve Ölçek Geliştirmede Kullanımı, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32 (Güz), 470- 483.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. (12. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
11. Carp, F. M. & Carp, A. (1984). A Complementary/Congruence Model of Well-Being or Mental Health for the Community Elderly. In Elderly People and the Environment: 7.
12. Doornbos, A. J., Bolhuis, S., & Simons, P. R. J. (2004). Modeling Work-Related Learning on the Basis of Intentionality and Developmental Relatedness: A Noneducational Perspective. Human Research Development Review, 3(3), 250-274.
13. Edge, K. (2014). A Review of the Empirical Generations at Work Research: Implications for School Leaders and Future Research. School Leadership and Management, 34(2), 136-155.
14. Eraut, M. (2004). Informal Learning in the Workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273.
15. Facer, K. ve Sandford, R. (2010). “The Next 25 Years Future Scenarios and Future Directions for Education and Technology,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 74–93.
16. Fuller, A., ve Unwin, L. (2004). Young People as Teachers and Learners in the Workplace: Challenging the Novice-Expert Dichotomy. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 32-42.
17. Garling, T. ve Golledge R. G. (1989). Environmental Perception and Cognition. Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design. New York: Plenum Press.
18. Geeraerts, K., Vanhoof, J. & Van den Bossche, P. (2016), “Teachers' Perceptions of Intergenerational Knowledge Flows”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 56 (Mayıs), 150-161.
19. Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). A Phase Model of Intergenerational Learning in Organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education.
20. Grangeat, M. ve Gray, P. (2007). “Factors Influencing Teachers’ Professional Competence Development”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 59(4), 485-501.
21. Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-fit Indices. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325-344.
22. Hu, L. T., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
23. Kaplan, M., Thang, L. L., Sanchez, M. ve Hoffman, J. (2016). “Intergenerational Contact Zones A Compendium of Applications,” Penn State Extension. Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide To Factor Analysis. London: Routledge.
24. Köymen, Ü. (1994). Öğrenme ve Ders Çalışma Stratejileri Envanteri: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2(1), 19-28.
25. Kwakman, K. (2003), “Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (2), 149-170.
26. Lohman, M.C. (2006), “Factors influencing teachers’ engagement in informal learning activities”, Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(3),141-156.
27. MacCallum, R. C., ve Tucker, L. R. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common-factor model: Implications for theory and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 502.
28. McQuitty, S. (2004). Statistical power and structural equation models in business research. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 175-183.
29. Maiti, S. S., & Mukherjee, B. N. (1991). Two new goodness‐of‐fit indices for covariance matrices with linear structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44(1), 153-180.
30. Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
31. McNichols, D. (2010). Optimal knowledge transfer methods: a Generation X perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (1), 24-37.
32. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of Goodness-of-fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430.
33. Novotný, P., & Brücknerová, K. (2014). Intergenerational Learning Among Teachers: An Interaction Perspective. Studia Paedagogica, 19(4). doi:10.5817/SP2014-4-3
34. Parise, L.M. & Spillane, J.P. (2010). “Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and on-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers’ Practice”, The Elementary School Journal. 110 (3), 323-346.
35. Pastalan, L. A. & Carson D. H. (1970). Spatial Behavior: An Overview. Spatial Behavior of Older People. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. Polat, S., Okçu, Y. & Çelik, Ç. (2019). Creating and Utilizing Spaces to Enhance Intergenerational Learnings and Results, International Journal of Evoluation and Research in Education, 8 (1), 1-8.
37. Randall E. Schumacker & Richard G.(2004). Lomax, A Beginner’s Guide To Structural Equation Modelling, Second Edition, Lawrance Erlbaum Associates,81-82.
38. Ropes, D. (2011). Intergenerational Learning in Organisations. A research Framework. In Cedepob (Ed.), Working and Ageing. Guidance and Counselling For Mature Learners. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
39. Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of Sample Size, Model Specification and Factor Loadings on the GFI in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1).
40. Starks, A. (2013). The Forthcoming Generational Workforce Transition and Rethinking Organizational Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11.
41. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulama. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-73.
42. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson.
43. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
44. Thambi, M. & O'Toole, P. (2012). Applying A Knowledge Management Taxonomy to Secondary Schools. School Leadership and Management, 32(1), 91-102.
45. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into Learning at the Workplace. Educational Research Review, 3, 130-154. Vanderbeck, R. M. & Worth, N. (2015). Intergenerational Space. New York: Routledge.
46. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. F. (1977). Assessing Reliability and Stability in Panel Models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136.
47. Williams, K. Y., & O'reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
48. Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Keeping an Eye on Learning: Differences Between Expert and Novice Teachers' Representations of Classroom Management Events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68-85.
49. Woolsey, J. C. (2016). The Explonoraty Relationship Between Knowledge Sharing, Emotional Intelligence and Generational Cohorts for United States Healthcare Service Employees, (Doktora tezi), Capella Universitesi, Capella.
50. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal Bilimlerde Veri Analizi ve Geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizinin Kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74- 85.
51. Yeates, M. (1979). The Need for Environmental Perspectives on Issues Facing Older People. Location and Environment of Elderly Population. Edited by S. M. Golant. New York: John Wiley and Sons.