Development Study of Teachers' Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales

Pınar Korukluoğlu; Mine Çeliköz

doi:10.53850/joltida.1653834

Development Study of Teachers' Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales

Abstract

The present study seeks to develop "Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales" consisting of two scales, namely "Digital Pedagogy Competence Perception Scale in Research Community" (Scale 1) and "Digital Pedagogy Competence Perception Scale in Teaching" (Scale 2) to determine teachers' perceptions of digital pedagogical competence in professional development. Within the scope of validity studies, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with 274 teachers in Bursa (in 2024-2025 academic year), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted with 309 different teachers. In the validity study, EFA indicated that the total variance explained was 73.03% (Scale 1) and 69.10% (Scale 2) and that the items in both scales loaded under 2 factors with eigenvalues above 1. In addition, the inter-factor correlation values were found to be r≥.75 in Scale 1 and r ≥.78 in Scale 2. According to the reliability of the scales, Cronbach's.alpha (Scale 1 and Scale 2: α ≥.95) and McDonald's omega ( Scale 1 and Scale 2: ω ≥.95) coefficients above .90 for both scales. As a result, "Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales" were found to be valid and reliable in measuring teachers' digital pedagogical competencies. Factors in Scale 1 were named as "Cognitive Competence Perception" and "Social Competence Perception"; factors in Scale 2 were named as "Digital Pedagogical Orientation" and "Digital Pedagogical Practices". Scale 1 consisted of 14 items and scale 2 consisted of 15 items.

Keywords

Digital pedagogy, research community, digital technologies, competence perception, scale development

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive any funding from any organization.

Ethical Statement

This study is derived from PhD dissertation research conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author. The authors report no conflicts of interest. "Ethics Committee Permission" was obtained on 05.12.2023 with the number 2023.12 from Yildiz Technical University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee.

References

Apelgren, K., & Giertz, B. (2010). Pedagogical competences: A key to pedagogical development and quality in higher education. In A. Ryegard (ed.), A Swedish perspective on pedagogical competence (pp.25–41). Uppsala University.
Alarcón, R., Del Pilar Jiménez, E., & de Vicente‐Yagüe, M. I. (2020). Development and validation of the DIGIGLO, a tool for assessing the digital competence of educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2407-2421. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12919
Almerich, G., Orellana, N., Suárez-Rodríguez, J., & Díaz-García, I. (2016). Teachers’ information and communication technology competences: A structural approach. Computers & Education, 100, 110-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.002 Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries (No. 41). OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41.OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218525261154 Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education. 11 (3-4), 133-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral changes. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
Bentler, P. M. & Bonnet, D.C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications, Inc.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kuey/issue/10365/126871
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. (13. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Cochran-Smith, M. ve Lytle, S.L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on Practice. In. A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.) Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 45-58). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02310555 Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistikler: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Cilt 2). Ankara: Pegem akademi.
DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Ölçek geliştirme: Kuram ve uygulamalar (Çev. Ed., T. Totan). Nobel Akademik. (Orijinal çalışma 2012’de yayımlandı).
Eickelmann, B., & Vennemann, M. (2017). Teachers ‘attitudes and beliefs regarding ICT in teaching and learning in European countries. European Educational Research Journal, 16(6), 733-761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117725899
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019). Digital education at school in europe. eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Sevilla: JRC IPTS. http://doi.org/10.2791/82116 Ferrari, A. (2013). Digcomp: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. EUR, scientific and technical research series (Vol. 26035). Luxembourg: Publications Office.
From, J. (2017). Pedagogical Digital Competence--Between Values, Knowledge and Skills. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 43-50. http://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n2p43
Gao, C., Li, Z., & Zheng, L. (2024). Develop and validate a scale to measure primary and secondary teachers’ digital teaching competence. Education and Information Technologies, 29(9), 10763-10789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12228-z Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, (2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
González-Salamanca, J. C., Agudelo, O. L., & Salinas, J. (2020). Key competences, education for sustainable development and strategies for the development of 21st century skills. A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(24), 10366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410366
Gorsuch, R. L. (1974). Factor analysis. The USA: Saunders.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structu re analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55.
Hutcheson, R. K., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage Publications. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2008). Essential conditions: Necessary conditions to effectively leverage technology for learning. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators.
Kaas, M. J. (2010). Teaching in a Technology-Enhanced and WebConnected World, Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 16(2): 114–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390310365163
Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1), 47-48. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176-198.
Kivunja, C. (2013). Embedding digital pedagogy in pre-service higher education to better prepare teachers for the digital generation. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 131142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p131
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kline, R., B. (2016). Series Editor’s Note by Todd D. Little the guılford press. New York London. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2 Kulbak, H. (2019). Öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişime yönelik motivasyonları ve mesleki gelişimleri önünde algıladıkları engeller: Bir karma yöntem araştırması. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Çanakkale Üniversitesi.
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744 6570.1975.tb01393.x
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Nehring, J., Charner-Laird, M., & Szczesiul, A. (2019). Redefining excellence: Teaching in transition, from test performance to 21st century skills. NASSP Bulletin, 103(1), 5–31.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Education Working Papers.
Öztürk, E. (2012). An Adaptation of the Community of Inquiry Index: The Study of Validity and Reliability. Ilkogretim Online, 11(2).
Parlak, B. (2017). Dijital çağda eğitim: olanaklar ve uygulamalar üzerine bir analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Kayfor 15 Özel Sayısı, 1741-1759
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influ ences their ICT practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028
Punie, Y., & Redecker, C. (2017). European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators: DigCompEdu, EUR 28775 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-73718-3 (print),978-92-79-73494-6 (pdf), (print),10.2760/159770 (online), JRC107466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/178382 Rubach, C., & Lazarides, R. (2021). Addressing 21st-century digital skills in schools Development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers' basic ICT competence beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020 .106636
Seçer, İ. (2018). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci SPSS ve LISRELL uygulamaları. (2.baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
Şahin, F., Çaka, C., Dulkadir Yaman, N., Odabaşı, H. F., et al. (2016). Mesleki Gelişim ve Araştırma Toplulukları Bağlamında Bir Model Önerisi (A Model Proposal in the Context of Professional Development and Research Communities]. Sakarya University Journal of Education Faculty(31), 128-151.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th Ed. Pearson.
Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base. 3rd Edition, Atomic Dog, Cincinnati, OH.
Udd, A. P. (2010). Pedagogiikan konstruktivistinen orientaa tio opettajaksi opiskelevien kokemana [Constructivist Orientation of pedagogy as experienced by pre-service teachers]. University of Oulu. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2018). ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265721
Viberg, O., Mavroudi, A., Khalil, M., & Bälter, O. (2020). Validating an instrument to measure teachers’ preparedness to use digital technology in their teaching. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 15(1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-04 Vucaj, I. (2022) Development and initial validation of Digital Age Teaching Scale (DATS) to assess application of ISTE Standards for Educators in K–12 education classrooms, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(2), 226-248, 20.1840461. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1840461
Väätäjä, J. O., & Ruokamo, H. (2021). Conceptualizing dimensions and a model for digital pedagogy. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 15, 1834490921995395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1834490921995395
Wang, L. (2023). Adoption of the PICRAT Model to Guide the Integration of Innovative Technologies in the Teaching of a Linguistics Course. Sustainability, 15, 3886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053886
Zain, S. (2021). Digital transformation trends in education. In Future directions in digital information (pp. 223-234). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822144-0.00036-7
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational research, 86(4), 981-1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Information Systems (Other)

Journal Section

Dissertation

Authors

Pınar Korukluoğlu ^*
0000-0003-2077-6060
Türkiye

Mine Çeliköz
0000-0003-1582-331X
Türkiye

Publication Date

January 13, 2026

Submission Date

March 12, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 7, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1653834

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA92BL34CA

APA

Korukluoğlu, P., & Çeliköz, M. (2026). Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1653834

AMA

1.Korukluoğlu P, Çeliköz M. Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales. JOLTIDA. 2026;(1):1-12. doi:10.53850/joltida.1653834

Chicago

Korukluoğlu, Pınar, and Mine Çeliköz. 2026. “Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales”. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, no. 1: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1653834.

EndNote

Korukluoğlu P, Çeliköz M (January 1, 2026) Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age 1 1–12.

IEEE

[1]P. Korukluoğlu and M. Çeliköz, “Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales”, JOLTIDA, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.53850/joltida.1653834.

ISNAD

Korukluoğlu, Pınar - Çeliköz, Mine. “Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales”. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age. 1 (January 1, 2026): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1653834.

JAMA

1.Korukluoğlu P, Çeliköz M. Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales. JOLTIDA. 2026;:1–12.

MLA

Korukluoğlu, Pınar, and Mine Çeliköz. “Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales”. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, no. 1, Jan. 2026, pp. 1-12, doi:10.53850/joltida.1653834.

Vancouver

1.Pınar Korukluoğlu, Mine Çeliköz. Development Study of Teachers’ Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales. JOLTIDA. 2026 Jan. 1;(1):1-12. doi:10.53850/joltida.1653834

Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age 2023. This is an Open Access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license.

Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age. Open Access Journal, 2023. ISSN:2458-8350

Development Study of Teachers' Digital Pedagogy Research Community Competence Perception Scales

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite