Algılanan Öğretmen Geribildirim Ölçeği: Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2018, , 79 - 86, 02.08.2018

Feyza Meryem Kara , Feride Zişan Kazak Fevziye Hülya Aşçı

https://doi.org/10.17644/sbd.306544

Cited By: 2

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Koka ve Hein tarafından 2003 yılında geliştirilen ve
2005 yılında revize edilen Algılanan Öğretmen Geribildirim Ölçeği’nin Türkçe
versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesidir. Ölçek, 12.83 ± 1.26 yaş
ortalamasına sahip 221 kız (12.67 ± 1.25) ve 233 erkek (12.79 ± 1.27) toplam
454 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, yapı geçerliğine ilişkin
olarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ve iç tutarlığın belirlenmesi için ise
Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayısı kullanılmıştır. Yapı geçerliğine ilişkin
bulgular, orijinal anketin dört faktör yapısı ile tutarlıdır [SB-c²/sd
(159.32/70) = 2.28, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.059, TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, GFI =
0.93]. İç tutarlık katsayılarının ise 0.69 ile 0.83 arasında değiştiği
belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, “Algılanan Öğretmen Geribildirim Ölçeği”nin beden
eğitimi dersinde öğrencilerin geribildirim algılarını değerlendirmek için
yeterli düzeyde psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğretmen, Geribildirim, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

Perceived Teacher Feedback Scale: The Validity And Reliability Study

Öz

The aim of this study was to examine the validity and
reliability of Turkish version of the Perceived Teacher Feedback Scale which
has been developed in 2003 and revised in 2005 by Koka & Hein. Scale was
administered to 454 students who are 221 girls (12.67 ± 1.25) and 233 boys
(12.79 ± 1.27) with a mean of age 12.83 ± 1.26 years. The Perceived Teacher
Feedback Scale consists of 14 items and consisted of 4 subscales (Positive
nonverbal feedback, Positive general feedback, Negative nonverbal feedback,
Knowledge of performance). Construct validity was evaluated by confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA). The Internal consistency of the scale was determined
with Cronbach alpha. Findings regarding the construct validity of the scale
were rather consistent with the original scale’s four-factor structure [SB-c²/sd (159.32/70) = 2.28, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.059,
TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.93]. Internal consistency coefficients were
ranged between 0.69 and 0.83. The psychometric properties of the Turkish
version of Perceived Teacher Feedback Scale showed that the instrument is a
valuable tool for the assessment of perceived teacher feedback in physical
education class.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teacher, Feedback, Validity, Reliability

Kaynakça

• Allen JB Howe BL. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes’ perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 280–299.
• Alpar R. (2001). Spor Bilimlerinde Uygulamalı İstatistik. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, Ankara
• Amorose AJ, Horn TS. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: relationships with collegiate athletes’ gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches’ behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63–84.
• Amorose AJ, Weiss, MR. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source of information about perceptions of ability: a developmental examination. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 395–420.
• Baker DF. Buckley MR. (1996). A Historical Perspective of the Impact of Feedback On Behavior. Journal of Management History 2(4): 21-33.
• Bee R. Bee F. (1997). Yapıcı Geribildirim (Ankara: Gökçe Ofset ve Matbaacılık, 1.Baskı) (Çev.: A. Bora ; O. Cankoçak)
• Behets D. (1997) ‘Comparison of More and Less Effective Teaching Behaviors in Secondary Physical Education’, Teaching and Teacher Education 13(2): 215–24.
• Brislin RW. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series, Vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Brophy J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32.
• Büyüköztürk Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483
• Deci EL, Ryan RM. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
• Fredenburg KB, Lee AM, Solmon M. (2001). The effects of augmented feedback on students’ perception and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(3), 232–242.
• Hattie J, Timperley H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Hu L, Bentler PM. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453
• Kelloway EK, (1998), Using LISREL for Structural equation modeling, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
• Kikuchi K. (2009). Listening to our learners' voices: What demotivates Japanese high school students? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 453-471.
• Koka A, Hein V. (2003). Perceptions of teachers’ feedback and learning environment as predictors of intrinsic motivation in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 33- 346.
• Koka A, Hein V. (2005). The effect of perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 91-106.
• Leis A. (2012). Motivation and metacognition: The relationship between the L2 self and metacognitive skills in high school students. Journal of the Tohoku English Language Education Society, 32, 57-68.
• Li W, Solmon MA, Lee AM, Purvis G, Chu H. (2007). Examining the relationships between students’ implicit theories of ability, goal orientations and the preferred type of augmented feedback. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 280–291.
• London M. (2003), Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Pub., Second Edition).
• Moreno-Murcia JA. Huéscar E. (2012). Relación del tipo de feed-back del docente con la percepción de autonomía del alumnado en clases de educación física. Infancia y aprendizaje, 35(1), 87-98.
• Noels KA, Clement R, Pelletier LG. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34.
• Ntoumanis N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242.
• Papi M, Abdollahzadeh E. (2011). Teacher motivation practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning Proko,
• Ryan RM, Deci EL. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
• Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research - Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Silverman S, Tyson L, Krampitz J. (1992). Teacher feedback and achievement in physical education: Interaction with student practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(4), 333-344.
• Sümer N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
• Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
• Vallerand J. (1997) Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 29. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 271-360.
• Winne PH, Butler DL. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 5738–5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.