Sınıf İçi Değerlendirme Uygulamalarında Adalet Algısı: Adil Sınıf Değerlendirmesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Öz

Bu çalışmada, sınıf içi değerlendirme süreçlerinde adalet algısını ölçmeyi hedefleyen Adil Sınıf Değerlendirmesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanarak ortaokul öğretmenleri örnekleminde geçerlik ve güvenirlik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Adalet, çağdaş ölçme ve değerlendirme uygulamalarının temel ilkelerinden biri olarak öne çıkmakta; ancak alanyazında bu kavramı bütüncül şekilde ele alan ölçme araçlarının sayısı sınırlı kalmaktadır. Sosyal adalet psikolojisi ve örgütsel adalet kuramına dayanan bu ölçek, dağıtımsal, prosedürel ve etkileşimsel adaleti kapsayan beş faktörlü bir yapıya sahiptir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2024–2025 eğitim öğretim yılında bir ilin merkez ilçesinde görev yapan 712 ortaokul branş öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Adil Sınıf Değerlendirmesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanmış formu kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin Türkçe uyarlaması, çeviri–tersine çeviri, uzman görüşü ve dil geçerliği uygulamalarını içeren çok aşamalı bir süreç izlenerek gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi, Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayıları, madde-toplam korelasyonları ve %27’lik alt-üst grup karşılaştırmaları yapılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi sonuçları, ölçeğin özgün beş faktörlü yapısının Türkçe formda da geçerli olduğunu göstermiş ve modelin uyum indekslerinin yeterli düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçekteki faktörlerin iç tutarlılığına ilişkin hesaplanan Cronbach alfa katsayıları .76 ile .84 arasında değişmiş ve tüm alt boyutlar açısından kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak Adil Sınıf Değerlendirmesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formu geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçek, öğretmen eğitimi, değerlendirme farkındalığı ve okul temelli politika geliştirme süreçlerinde kullanılabilecek işlevsel bir araç niteliğindedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Adalet algısı
• Sınıf içi değerlendirme
• Adil sınıf değerlendirmesi
• Ölçek uyarlama

Perceptions of Fairness in Classroom Assessment Practices: Adaptation of the Fair Classroom Assessment Scale into Turkish

Öz

The aim of this study is to adapt the Classroom Assessment Fairness Inventory into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability among a sample of middle school teachers. Fairness is emphasized as one of the core principles of contemporary assessment practices; however, the number of instruments that address this construct comprehensively in the literature remains limited. This scale, grounded in social justice psychology and organizational justice theory, consists of five factors encompassing distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness. The study group consisted of 712 subject-matter middle school teachers working in the central district of a province in Türkiye during the 2024–2025 academic year. The Turkish-adapted version of the Classroom Assessment Fairness Scale was used as the data collection instrument. The adaptation process was conducted using a multi-step procedure including translation, back-translation, expert review, and language validity assessment. Data were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients, item-total correlations, and 27% upper-lower group comparisons. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis results confirmed the original five-factor structure of the scale for the Turkish version, and the model fit indices indicated excellent fit. Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .76 to .84, demonstrating an acceptable level of internal consistency for all sub-dimensions. In conclusion, the Turkish version of the Classroom Assessment Fairness Inventory was found to be a valid, reliable, and contextually appropriate tool for assessing fairness in classroom assessment. The scale offers functional utility in teacher education, assessment awareness, and school-based policy development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Perception of fairness
• Classroom assessment
• Fair classroom assessment
• Scale adaptation

Kaynakça

1. Alkharusi, H. A. (2011). An analysis of the internal and external structure of the teacher assessment literacy questionnaire. The International Journal of Learning, 18(1), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v18i01/47461
2. Alm, F. & Colnerud, G. (2015). Teachers’ experiences of unfair grading. Educational Assessment, 20(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.1028620
3. Bazvand, A. D. & Rasooli, A. (2022). Students’ experiences of fairness in summative assessment: A study in a higher education context. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101118
4. Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (c. 1, s. 43–55).
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25. b.). Pegem.
6. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2010.00195.x
7. Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Assessment of student achievement. Routledge.
8. Brown, G. T. L. (2021). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications. Routledge.

9. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2. b.). Routledge.
10. Chory, R. M. (2007). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Communication Education, 56(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600994300
11. Chory-Assad, R. M. & Paulsel, M. L. (2007). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265189
12. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
13. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
14. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
15. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem.
16. Dalbert, C., & Stoeber, J. (2002). Gerechtes Schulklima. J. Stoeber (Ed.), Skalendokumentation "Persönliche Ziele von SchülerInnen" (Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie(3), s. 32–34). Martin Luther Universität.
17. Daniels, L. M., Poth, C., Papile, C., & Hutchison, M. (2014). Validating the conceptions of assessment-iii scale in canadian preservice teachers. Educational Assessment, 19(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.903654
18. DeLuca, C. & Bellara, A. (2013). The current state of assessment education: Aligning policy, standards, and teacher education curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113488144
19. DeLuca, C. & Klinger, D. A. (2010). Assessment literacy development: Identifying gaps in teacher candidates’ learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.516643
20. DeLuca, C., LaPointe-McEwan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6
21. Dorman, J. P. & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational Studies, 32(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03055690500415951
22. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
23. Flores, M. A., Veiga Simão, A. M., Barros, A., & Pereira, D. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881348
24. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management içinde (s. 79–103). Erlbaum.
25. Guskey, T. R. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6–11.
26. Gipps, C. & Stobart, G. (2009). Fairness in assessment. C. Wyatt-Smith & J. J. Cumming (Ed.), Educational assessment in the 21st century içinde (s. 105–118). Springer.
27. Hambleton, R. K. & Patsula, L. (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research(45), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006941729637
28. Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8. b.). Cengage Learning.
29. Herman, J. & Cook, L. (2019). Fairness in classroom assessment. S. M. Brookhart & J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Classroom assessment and educational measurement içinde (s. 243–264). Routledge/Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507533-14
30. Kazemi, A. & Törnblom, K. Y. (2008). Social psychological perspectives on distributive and procedural justice theories. T. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Ed.), Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications içinde (s. 15–50). Routledge.
31. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Ed.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research içinde (s. 27–55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
32. McMillan, J. H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (6. b.). Pearson.
33. McMillan, J. H. (2016). Section discussion: Students’ perceptions of assessment. G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Ed.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment içinde (s. 237–260). Routledge.
34. Murillo, F. J. & Hidalgo, N. (2017). Students’ conceptions about a fair assessment of their learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.001
35. Murillo, F. J. & Hidalgo, N. (2020). Fair student assessment: A phenomenographic study on teachers’ conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 100860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100860
36. Putnick, D. L. & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
37. Rasooli, A. (2021). Fairness in classroom assessment: Conceptual and empirical investigations. (Doktora Tezi). http://hdl.handle.net/1974/29060 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
38. Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2018). Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.008
39. Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2019). Conceptualising fairness in classroom assessment: Exploring the value of organisational justice theory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(5), 584–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2019.1593105
40. Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2023a). Measuring fairness and justice in the classroom: a systematic review of instruments’ validity evidence. School Psychology Review, 52(5), 639–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2000843
41. Rasooli, A., DeLuca, C., Cheng, L., & Mousavi, A. (2023b). Classroom assessment fairness inventory: A new instrument to support perceived fairness in classroom assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 30(5–6), 372–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2023.2255936
42. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
43. Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., Miri, M., & Kumar, T. (2022). Demographic biases and assessment fairness in classroom: Insights from Iranian university teachers. Language Testing in Asia, 12(8), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00157-6
44. Resh, N. & Sabbagh, C. (2014). Justice, belonging and trust among Israeli middle school students. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1036–1056. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3129
45. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik test geliştirme ve uyarlama süreci (SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları). Anı.
46. Sonnleitner, P. & Kovacs, C. (2020). Differences between students’ and teachers’ fairness perceptions: Exploring the potential of a self-administered questionnaire to improve teachers’ assessment practices. Frontiers in Education, 5, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00017
47. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099102
48. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. b.). Pearson.
49. Tierney, R. (2013). Fairness in classroom assessment. J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment içinde (s. 125–144). Sage.
50. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.