A study on developing the evaluation scale of the polyphonic choir curriculum

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool that will enable the teachers to evaluate the polyphonic choir curriculum taught in the 10th grade in Fine Arts High Schools. It has been determined in the field research that there is no measurement tool for the evaluation of the polyphonic choir curriculum. Considering the steps of scale development, "The Evaluation Scale of Polyphonic Choir Lesson Curriculum" was prepared in this study. Teachers working in Fine Arts High Schools throughout Turkey and conducting polyphonic choir lessons participated in the research. The evaluation scale was prepared by taking the opinions of 5 experts in the field of choir education. In the first part of the evaluation scale, the demographic information of the participants, and in the second part, questions about the evaluation of the polyphonic choir curriculum were included, and validity and reliability studies were carried out. First of all, factor analysis was performed during the validity phase of the study. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy and Barlett sphericity test were applied to test its suitability for factor analysis. Within the scope of the validity studies of the study, total item correlations were also calculated with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Cronbach's Alpha test statistic was taken into account in determining the reliability of the scale. According to the results obtained, the content validity of the scale items presented to the experts was found to be statistically significant. In the analysis of the validity and reliability of the scale items, it was determined that the validity and reliability of the items were high. In line with the results obtained, it can be said that the "Polyphonic Choir Lesson Curriculum Evaluation Scale" has validity and reliability.

Keywords

• Polyphonic Chorus
• Polyphonic Choir Curriculum
• Evaluation Scale
• sacle development

References

1. Albuz, A. (2004). Eğitim/ Müizik Eğitiminde Program Değerlendirme Yaklaşımlarına Genel Bir Bakış. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 13-18.
2. Aygören, F. (2016). Eğitim programlarını Değerlendirmede I-Code Modelinin Geliştirilmesi. PhD Thesis . Balıkesir: Balıkesir University Institute of Social Sciences Department of Educational Sciences.
3. Beyazkoç, M. (2021). Güzel Sanatlar Lisesi Temel Sanat Eğitimi Dersi Öğretim Programının Öğretmen Görüşlerine Göre İncelenmesi. Master Thesis . Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs University Graduate Education Institute Fine Arts Education Department Painting Education.
4. Bollen, KA (1990). Kovaryans yapı modellerinde genel uyum: İki tür örneklem büyüklüğü etkisi. Psychological bulletin, 107 (2), 256.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: PEGEM AKADEMİ.
6. Chıld, D. (2006). The Essential of Factor Analysis (3th Ed.). London: Continuum.
7. Ekiz, D. (2017). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı.
8. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program Evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (4th Ed.). New Jersey.

9. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How To Desıng and Evaluate Research ın Education. (8th ed).
10. Holter, JW (1983). Kovaryans yapılarının analizi: Uyum iyiliği indeksleri. Sosyolojik Yöntemler ve Araştırma , 11 (3), 325-344.
11. Hu, LT ve Bentler, PM (1999). Kovaryans yapı analizinde uyum indeksleri için kesme kriterleri: Yeni alternatiflere karşı geleneksel kriterler. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6 (1), 1-55.
12. İlhan, A. Ç., & Karabulut, Y. (2018). Anadolu Güzel Sanatlar ve Spor Liseleri Müzik Bölümlerindeki Program Değişiklikleri. Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Volume: 51 Issue:3 , 101-125.
13. Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri.(3rd Edition). Ankara: Asil Publication Distribution,
14. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. (6043 citations as of 4/1/2016).
15. Karakoç, F. Y., & Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 13(40), 39-49
16. Orçan, F. (2018). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi: İlk hangisi kullanılmalı? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology,9(4), 413-421.DOI: 10.21031/epod.394323
17. Özdemir, S. M. (2009). Eğitimde Program Değerlendirme ve Türkiye'de Eğitim Programlarını Değerlendirme Çalışmalarının İncelenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 126-149.
18. 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), 85-90.
19. Şahin, P. (2017). Güzel Sanatlar lisesi Piyano Öğretimi Sürecinin Öğretmen ve Öğrenci Görüşleri Çerçevesinde Değerlendirilmesi, Doctoral Thesis, Ankara: Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences.
20. Tavşancıl, E. (2002). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
21. Türkmen, E. F. (2020). Müzik Eğitiminde Öğretim Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
22. Website Web 1: http://ogm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_05/07092423_ogmokultanitim.pdf