Sınıf Yönetimi Stilleri Ölçeği’nin Psikometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 439 - 449, 15.03.2018

Sümer Aktan Fahri Sezer

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.389803

Cited By: 3

Öz

Bu araştırmanın
amacı öğretmenlerin sınıf yönetimi stillerini belirlemek için geliştirilen
Sınıf Yönetimi Stilleri Ölçeği’nin (SYSÖ) Türkçeye uyarlanmasını yapmaktır. Uygun
örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenen Millî Eğitim Bakanlığında farklı kurumlarda ve
branşlarda olan toplam 306 öğretmen katılmıştır. Araştırma kapsamında ölçme
aracı Türkçeye çevrilerek psikometrik özellikleri incelenmiştir. Ölçme aracının
yapı geçerliliği Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA)
ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Faktör analizi öncesinde, analiz için gerekli olan
eksik, hatalı değerler, normallik varsayımları test edilmiştir. Elde edilen
bulgulara göre DFA ile test edilen 12 maddelik ve dört boyutlu ölçeğin yeterli
uyum iyiliği indekslerine sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Madde analizleri yapılan
ölçeğin maddelerinin yeterli ayırt edicilik gücüne sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.
SYSÖ alt boyutları arasındaki ilişkiler için Pearson Korelasyon Katsayısı,
ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısının belirlenmesinde ise Cronbach Alpha katsayısı
kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık düzeylerinin alt boyutlar ve genel
düzeyde kabul edilebilir aralıklarda olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sınıf yönetimi, Sınıf yönetimi stilleri, Sınıf yönetim stilleri ölçeği, Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, Ölçek uyarlama

Investigating the Psychometric Characteristics of Classroom Management Styles Scale

Öz

The aim of this study is to adapt Inventory of Classroom Management Style (ICMS), a scale used to determine classroom management style of teachers, into Turkish. 306 teachers, who currently work under Ministry of National Education in Turkey, have participated in the study where appropriate sampling was used. Within the scope of the study, the aforesaid inventory was translated into Turkish and psychometric aspects were investigated. Construct validity of the inventory was determined by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Any incomplete or inaccurate values as well as normality assumptions required for analysis were tested prior to conducting factor analysis. Based on the findings, it was found that the inventory, containing12 items and four dimensions, had sufficient goodness of fit indices. Item analysis was performed for the items of the scale and it was found out that the items were capable for sufficient distinctiveness. Pearson correlation coefficient was used for correlations between sub-dimensions of ICMS whereas Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine internal consistency (i.e. reliability) of the scale. Internal consistency levels of the scale were found to be within the acceptable limits in terms of sub-dimensions and general level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Classroom management, styles of classroom management, scale of classroom management styles, confirmatory factor analysis, scale adaptation

Kaynakça

• Abry, T., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Larsen, R.A. & Brewer, A.J. (2013). The Influence Of Fidelity Of Implementation On Teacher–Student Interaction Quality In The Context Of A Randomized Controlled Trial Of The Responsive Classroom Approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 437–453. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.03.001.
• Akman, B. & Umay, A. (2007). Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf Yönetimi Profillerine Yönelik Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Sorunları Sempozyumu, 12-14 Mayıs 2007 Bakü: Azerbaycan.
• Aktan, S., Tezci, E. (2013). Matematikte Öz Düzenleyici Öğrenme Stratejileri Ölçeğinin Geçerlik Ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 8(1), 46-62.
• Aluçdibi, F. & Ekici, G. (2012). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Biyoloji Dersi Motivasyon Düzeylerine Biyoloji Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf Yönetimi Profillerinin Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 25-36.
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, Structures, And Student Motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261 271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261.
• Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement Goals in The Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies And Motivation Processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260.
• Belson, S. I. & Husted, T. A. (2015). Impact of National Board for the Professional Teaching Standards Certification on Student Achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(91). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2074.
• Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
• Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural Equations With Latent Variables. Canada: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Bosworth, B. (1997). What is Your Classroom Management Profile? Teacher Talk- A Publication For Secondary Education Teachers, 1(2). Retrieved January 30, 2016, from http://protectiveschools.org/drugstats/tt/v1i2/table.html.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007).Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (20. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Christophel, D. M. (1990). The Relationships Among Teacher İmmediacy Behaviors, Student Motivation, and Learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323-340.
• DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom Management Techniques. In Oliver C. Moles (Ed.), Student Discipline Strategies: Research and practice. New York: State University of New York Press. pp.113-127.
• DuFour, R. & Marzano, R.J. (2015). Leaders of Learning: How District, School, And Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement. Solution Tree Press.
• Ekici, G. (2004). İlköğretim I. Kademe Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf Yönetimi Profillerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 131, 50–60.
• Ekici, G., Aluçdibi, F. & Öztürk, N. (2012). Biyoloji Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf Yönetimi Profillerinin Cinsiyet ve Kıdem Değişkenleri Açısından İncelenmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 4 (8), 13-30.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Fink, A. (2003). How to Sample in Surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. & Paris, A.H. (2004). School Engagement: Potential Of The Concept, State Of The Evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
• Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics, (3rd ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill. Guo, J., Marsh, H.W., Parker, P.D., Morin, A.J. & Yeung, A.S. (2015). Expectancy-Value in Mathematics, Gender And Socioeconomic Background As Predictors Of Achievement and Aspirations: A Multi-Cohort Study. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 161-168.
• Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M. & Rivkin, S. G. (2003). Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement?. Journal of Applied Econometrics,18(5), 527-544.
• Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power Of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines For Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
• Hu, L. & 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. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
• Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist: Introductory Statistics Using Generalized Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Iizuka, C. A., Barrett, P. M., Gillies, R., Cook, C. R. & Marinovic, W. (2015). Preliminary Evaluation Of The Friends For Life Program On Students' And Teachers' Emotional States For A School İn A Low Socio-Economic Status Area. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 40(3), 1-20.
• Jones, V. & Jones, L. (2010). Comprehensive Classroom Management (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39 (1), 31-36.
• Kleinbaum D. G., Lawrence L. K.& Muller. K. E. (1988).Applied Regression Analysis And Other Multivariable Methods, New Jersey: Duxbury Press.
• Kline, P. (1994). An Easy Guide To Factor Analysis. New York: Routledge.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice Of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Koellner, K. & Jacobs, J. (2015). Distinguishing Models Of Professional Development: The Case Of An Adaptive Model’s Impact On Teachers’ Knowledge, Instruction, And Student Achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 51-67.doi:10.1177/0022487114549599.
• Kurt, H. (2013). Biyoloyi Öğretmenlerinin Öğrenci Başarısından Sorumluluk Algılarının Sınıf Yönetimi Profillerine Göre Analizi. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic. 8 (6). 473-490.
• Lei, J. & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology Uses And Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Study. Computers ve Education, 49(2), 284-296.
• MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Preacher, K.J. & Hong S. (2001). Sample Size İn Factor Analysis: The Role Of Model Error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637.
• MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong S. (1999). Sample Size İn Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.
• Macneil, A.J., Prater, D.L. & Busch, S. (2009). The Effects of School Culture And Climate On Student Achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73–84.
• Martin, S.D. (2004). Finding Balance: Impact of Classroom Management Conceptions On Developing Teacher Practice. Teaching and Teacher Education,20(5), 405-422.
• Maslowski, R. (2001). School Culture And School Performance: An Explorative Study İnto The Organizational Culture Of Secondary Schools And Their Effects. Twente: Twente University Press.
• Mccaffrey, D.F., Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S P., Bugliari, D. & Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions Among Instructional Practices, Curriculum, And Student Achievement: The Case Of Standards-Based High School Mathematics.Journal For Research in Mathematics Education, 32,(5),493-517. Doi: 10.2307/749803.
• Mcdonald, R.P. & Ho, M.H.R. (2002). Principles And Practice İn Reporting Structural Equation Analyses. Psychological Methods,7(1), 64.
• Mclaughlin, M.W. & Talbert, J.E. (2006). Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies To İmprove Student Achievement (Vol. 45). Teachers College Press.
• Messick, S. (1995). Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation Of İnferences From Persons’ Responses And Performances As Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
• Mouza, C. (2003). Learning To Teach With New Technology: Implications For Professional Development. Journal Of Research On Technology in Education, 35(2), 272–289.
• Munro, B.H. (2005). Statistical Methods For Health Care Research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams ve Wilkins.
• Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A Step By Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows. NSW: AllenveUnwin.
• Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. & Sullivan, J.J. (2003). Making Sense Of Factor Analysis: The Use Of Factor Analysis For İnstrument Development in Health Care Research. CA: Sage Publications.
• Rowan, B., Correnti, R. & Miller, R. (2002). What Large-Scale Survey Research Tells Us About Teacher Effects On Student Achievement: Insights From The Prospects Study Of Elementary Schools. The Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
• Satorra, A. & Bentler, P.M. (1994). Corrections to Test Statistics And Standard Errors İn Covariance Structure Analysis. In AlexanderVon Eye ve C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Seiz, J., Voss, T. & Kunter, M. (2015). When Knowing is Not Enough–The Relevance Of Teachers’ Cognitive And Emotional Resources For Classroom Management. Frontline Learning Research, 3(1), 54-75.
• Sezer, F. (2016). Öğrenci Gözüyle Başarısızlığının Nedenleri. Journal Of Human Sciences, 13(3), 4818-4830. Doi:10.14687/Jhs.V13i3.4157
• Sezer, F., & İşgör, İ.Y. (2010). İlköğretim ve Ortaöğretim Kurumlarındaki Öğrencilerin Problem Alanlarının Tespiti (Erzurum ili örneği). Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 39(186), 235-248.
• Skinner, E.A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in The Classroom: Reciprocal Effects Of Teacher Behavior And Student Engagement Across The School Year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
• Skipper, Y. & Douglas, K. (2015). The Influence of Teacher Feedback On Children's Perceptions Of Student–Teacher Relationships. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3). 276-288. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12070.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.
• Şimşek Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş, Temel İlkeler ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts And Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.) (pp. 653-771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Urhahne, D. (2015). Teacher Behavior As A Mediator Of The Relationship Between Teacher Judgment and Students' Motivation and Emotion. Teaching and Teacher Education,45, 73-82.
• Wang, J. & Wang,X. (2012). Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus: Methods and Applications. West Susex: John Wiley & Sons.
• Wentzel, K.R. & Brophy, J. E. (2014). Motivating Students to Learn. New York: Routledge.
• Yılmaz, K. (2011). İlköğretim Okulu Öğretmenlerinin Sınıf Yönetimi Tarzları ile Demokratik Değerlere İlişkin Görüşleri Arasındaki İlişki. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi, 9 (21), 147-170.