Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling

Pınar Karaman

doi:10.17679/inuefd.300688

EN TR

Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

In the first part of this study, Teachers’ Attitudes, İntentions, and Practices of Formative Assessment Questionnaire developed by Yan ve Cheng (2005) was adapted into Turkish culture and psychometric properties within Turkish preservice teachers sample were examined. The data of the study was collected from 301 preservice teachers at one of the education faculties in Turkey during the 2015-2016 academic year. The construct validity was established through Confirmatory Analysis. And also internal consistency of the scale and subscale of the items were examined thourough Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient and McDonald’s Coefficient Omega. With Confirmatory Factor Analysis, structure of six scales was confirmed. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient values and McDonald’s Coefficient Omega values indicated good internal consistency on the scale and the subscale levels. Therefore, the results showed that instrument had good psychometric properties for explaining preservice teachers’ attitudes and intentions regarding formative assessment. The formative assessment questionnaire could be used for teacher candidates in Turkey. In the second part of the study, measurement model was assessed in a structural equation modeling whether the model fits the structural model under the framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). The result indicated that structural model based on TPB could predict and explain preservice teachers’ intentions regarding formative assessment.

Keywords

formative assessment,teacher candidates,attitude,intention,structural equation modeling

Öğretmen Adayları için Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Tutum ve Niyet Ölçeği Uyarlaması ve Bir Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli

Öz

Bu araştırmanın birinci boyutunda, Yan ve Cheng (2005) tarafından geliştirilen “Öğretmenler için Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Tutum, Niyet ve Uygulamalar Ölçeği (ÖBTNU)” nin Türkçe’ye öğretmen adayları grubuna uyarlaması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya, 2015-2016 eğitim-öğretim yılında bir eğitim fakültesinin farklı bölümlerinde okuyan 301 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmış ve ölçeğin altı boyutlu yapısı incelenmiştir. Ölçeğin altı boyutlu yapısı doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirliği ise Cronbach Alpha ve McDonald Omega iç tutarlılık katsayısı ile hesaplanmıştır. Güvenirlik katsayısı değerlerinin yüksek olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Buna göre uyarlanan ölçeğin, Türkiye’deki öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlenmeyi kullanmaya ilişkin tutum ve niyetlerini ortaya çıkarmada kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir ölçüm sonucu sağladığı söylenebilir. Araştırmanın ikinci boyutunda, ölçüm modelinin Planlanmış Davranış Teorisi (PDT)’ ne göre oluşturulan yapısal modele uygunluğu yapısal eşitlik modeli ile sınanmıştır. Buna göre araştırmada PDT’ye göre kuramsal çerçevede oluşturulan yapısal modelin, öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlendirmeyi kullanmaya yönelik niyetlerini açıkladığı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

biçimlendirici değerlendirme,öğretmen adayları,tutum,niyet,yapısal eşitlik modeli

References

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. J. Kuhl ve J. Beckman, (Ed.), Action-control: From cognition to behaviour içinde (11-39). Heidelberg: Springer
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://cas.hse.ru/data/816/479/1225/Oct%2019%20Cited%20%231%20Manage%20THE%20THEORY%20OF%20PLANNED%20BEHAVIOR.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
Akçay, B., Usta Gezer, S., & Akçay, H. (2016). Öğretmen adayları için epistemolojik inançlar ölçeği uyarlama çalışması, Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 1515-1536.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499. DOI: 10.1348/014466601164939
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/beyond_blackbox.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
Ateh, C.M., & Wyngowski, A.J. (2015). The common core state standards: an opportunity to enhance formative assessment in history/social studies classrooms. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 88:3, 85-90. DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2015.1023245
Bailey, A., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, grades K–6: building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Balanchard, C., Fisher, J., Sparling, P., Nehl, E., Rhodes, R., Courneya, K., & Baker, F. (2008). Understanding Physical Activity Behavior in African American and Caucasian College Students: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Journal of American College Health, 56(4), 341-346. DOI: 10.3200/JACH.56.44.341-346
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company
Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Amos uygulamaları. Bursa: Ezgi Kitabevi.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1987/A1987J818200001.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy and Practice, 5 (1), 7–73. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & William, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21, 5-31. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning- putting it into practice. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open university Press.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY: Guilford Publications.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Byrne, B. M. &Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555 – 574. doi: 10.1177/0022022199030005001
Campbell, C., & Evans, J.A. (2000). Investigation of preservice teachers’ classroom assessment practices during student teaching. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 350–355. DOI: 10.1080/00220670009598729
Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2001). Learning to learn-The way forward in curriculum development. Hong Kong: Education Department. http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/cs-curriculum-doc-report/wf-in-cur/index.html adresinden elde edildi.
Erkuş, A. (2007). Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışmalarında karşılaşılan sorunlar, Türk Psikoloji Bülteni, 13 (40), 17-25.
Furtak, E.M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers’ enactment of formative assessment. Jounal of Research in Science Teaching, 49 (9), 1181-1210. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21054
Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R. M., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 13.
Hambleton, R.K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Making education reform happen: Is there an ‘Asian ’ way? School leadership and Management, 30(5), 401-418. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2010.502524
Hattie, J. (2009).Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2012).Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Heritage, M. H. 2010. Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Horzum, B. M. (2011). Web Pedagojik İçerik Bilgisi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlaması, İlköğretim Online, 10(1), 257-272.
İlhan, M. ve Çetin, B. (2014). Kültüre zekâ ölçeğinin türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education) 29(2), 94-114. file:///C:/Users/PK/Downloads/5000048023-5000065493-1-PB.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
Karasar, N. (2013). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: minute by minute, day by day. Educational leadership, 63(3), 18–24. http://datause.cse.ucla.edu/docs/sl_cla_2005.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment: state collaborative on assessment and student standards. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, DC. http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Attributes_of_Effective_Formative_Assessment.html adresinden elde edildi.
MEB (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretimprogramlari-ve-kurul-kararlari/icerik/150 adresinden elde edildi.
Moss, C.M., & Brookhart, S.M. (2009). Adavancing formative assessment in every classroom: A guide for instructional leaders. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
National Education Association. (2003). Balanced assessment: the key to accountability and improved student learning. Washington, DC: Author. http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/administration/academicaffairs/charterschools/resources/docs/balanced.pdf. adresinden elde edildi.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press.
Öztürk, N. B., Eroğlu, M. G. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2015). Eğitim alanında yapılan ölçek uyarlama makalelerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178), 123-137.
Robinson, J., Myran, S., Strauss, R., & Reed, W. (2014). The impact of an alternative professional development model on teacher practices in formative assessment and student learning. Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers' professional development, 18:2, 141-162. DOI: 10.1080/13664530.2014.900516
Sach, E. (2015). An exploration of teachers' narratives: what are the facilitators and constraints which promote or inhibit ‘good’ formative assessment practices in schools? Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43:3, 322-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.813956
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review: 57 (1), 1-23. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Şahin, F. (2016). Kaufman alanları yaratıcılık ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi, İlköğretim Online, 15(3), 855-867. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.70479
Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınevi.
Teo, T. & Tan, L. (2012). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) and pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance: A validation study using structural equation modeling. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 89-104. Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/36090 adresinden alındı.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2002). Investigating formative assessment, teaching and learning in the classroom. Buckingham, Open University Press, McGraw Hill.
Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2002). Investigating formative assessment, teaching and learning in the classroom. Buckingham, Open University Press, McGraw Hill.
Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Lombardo, B., Finlay, K. A., Brown, J., & Armitage, C. J. (2004). Affective and cognitive control of persons and behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(2), 207-224. DOI: 10.1348/0144666041501642
Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 239–255. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936752.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Hard University Press.
Yaman, S. (2016). Adapting of science learning self-efficacy belief scale for middle school students: Validity and reliability study. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 17(2), 123-140. DOI: 10.17679/iuefd.17282415
Yan, Z., & Cheng, E.C.K. (2015). Primary teachers' attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment, Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
Young, E.J. J., & Jackman, M.G.A. (2014). Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary school: teachers’perceptions, attitudes and practices, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21:4, 398-411. DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.919248
Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49-65. http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/1131/1/Wiliam2004Teachersdevelopingarticle.pdf adresinden elde edildi.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Pınar Karaman
SİNOP ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 31, 2017

Submission Date

March 25, 2017

Acceptance Date

August 11, 2017

Published in Issue

Year 2017 Volume: 18 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.300688

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA63KM64NU

APA

Karaman, P. (2017). Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 18(3), 118-131. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.300688

AMA

1.Karaman P. Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling. INUJFE. 2017;18(3):118-131. doi:10.17679/inuefd.300688

Chicago

Karaman, Pınar. 2017. “Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-Service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 18 (3): 118-31. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.300688.

EndNote

Karaman P (December 1, 2017) Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 18 3 118–131.

IEEE

[1]P. Karaman, “Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling”, INUJFE, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 118–131, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.17679/inuefd.300688.

ISNAD

Karaman, Pınar. “Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-Service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education 18/3 (December 1, 2017): 118-131. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.300688.

JAMA

1.Karaman P. Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling. INUJFE. 2017;18:118–131.

MLA

Karaman, Pınar. “Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-Service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling”. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, vol. 18, no. 3, Dec. 2017, pp. 118-31, doi:10.17679/inuefd.300688.

Vancouver

1.Pınar Karaman. Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling. INUJFE. 2017 Dec. 1;18(3):118-31. doi:10.17679/inuefd.300688

Adapting of Formative Assessment Attitude and Intention Scale for Pre-service Teachers and A Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

Keywords

Öğretmen Adayları için Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmeye Yönelik Tutum ve Niyet Ölçeği Uyarlaması ve Bir Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite