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

Yıl 2017, , 118 - 131, 31.12.2017

Pınar Karaman

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

Öz

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. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

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

Kaynakça

• 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.