Pedagojik bilgi ve beceri ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Öz

Araştırmada Wong, Chong, Choy ve Lim (2012) tarafından geliştirilerek, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılan öğretmen adaylarının Öğretimde Pedagojik Bilgi ve Beceri (ÖPBB) ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma grubunu iki farklı devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültesinin son sınıfında öğrenim gören 830 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur.  Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA), 110 (53,6%)’u kadın ve 95 (46,4 %)’’i erkek olmak üzere toplam 205 öğretmen adayından elde edilen verilerle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), 330 (52,8 %) ‘u kadın ve 295 (47,2 %)’i erkek toplam 625 öğretmen adayı üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Dil eşdeğerliğini test etmek için İngilizce-Türkçe; Türkçe-İngilizce geri çeviriler uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliği kapsamında AFA ve DFA’dan yararlanılmıştır. AFA sonucunda ölçeğin altı boyut ve 37 maddeden oluştuğu tespit edilmiştir. DFA sonucunda AFA’da elde edilen yapı doğrulanmıştır. Ölçme aracının güvenirliği için Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayı ölçeğin tümünde 0.94 iken alt boyutlarında 0.70 ile 0.88 arasında değerler almıştır. Ölçme aracının geçerli ve güvenilir ölçüm yapabilen bir veri toplama aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pedagojik bilgi ve beceri,Öğretmen adayları,Geçerlik,Güvenirlik,Ölçek uyarlama

The adaptation of the pedagogical knowledge and skills survey into Turkish: Validity and reliability study

Abstract

This research aims to adapt the Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills in Teaching (PKST) survey developed by Wong, Chong, Choy and Lim (2012) to Turkish. The participants of the study are 830 4th year students of education faculty studying at two different public universities. Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with total 205 pre-service teachers in which 110 (53. 6%) of female and 95 (46,4 %) of male. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was also carried out with total 625 preservice teachers in which 330 (52. 8 %) of them are female, 295 (47. 2 %) of them are male. Back translation was used to ensure language validity. EFA and CFA were conducted for the construct validity and to ensure psychometric characteristics of measurement tool. EFA show that survey has six factors and 37 items. Coefficient was 0.94 for the survey whereas it ranged between 0.70 and 0.88 for its factors. The analyses and findings show that the survey is a valid and reliable data collection tool.

Keywords

• Pedagogical knowledge and skills,Pre-service teachers,Reliability,Validity,Survey adaptation

References

1. Alkan, S., Korkmaz, E., Korkmaz, C., & Gelici, Ö. (2017). Determination of the relationship between pedagogical field knowledge in teaching mathematics of classroom teacher candidates. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 1 (1), 15-25.
2. Amosun, M.D., & Kolawole, O. A. (2015). Pedagogical knowledge and skill competencies of pre-school teachers in Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 19 (2), 6-14.
3. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(2), 145-172.
4. Anderson, L.W. (1988). Attitudes and their measurement. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 885-895). New York: Pergamon Press.
5. Aydeniz, M., & Kirbulut, Z.D. (2014). Exploring challenges of assessing pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 147–166. doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.890696
6. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T. Jordan A et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345157.
7. Balçın, M.D., & Ergün, A. (2016). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) self-efficacy scale for pre-service science teachers on material development: Development, reliability and validity study. Turkish Journal of Education, 5 (3), 130-143.
8. Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

9. Bukova-Güzel, E., Cantürk-Günhan, B., Kula, S., Özgür, Z., & Elçi, A.N. (2013). Scale development for pre-service mathematics teachers’ perceptions related to their pedagogical content knowledge. South African Journal of Education, 33 (2), 1-21.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E. Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Improved 11. Print). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni spss uygulamaları ve yorum (Expanded 20. Print). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
12. Byrne, B.M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
13. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N., & Guzey, S.S. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy scale (TPACK-SeS) for preservice science teachers: Construction, validation and reliability. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 37-60.
14. Chong, S., Choy, D., & Wong, F.L. (2008, March). Pedagogical knowledge and skills of pre-service primary school teachers. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved 15 October, 2015, from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2008/cho08307.pdf
15. Choy, Doris, Sylvia Chong, Angela F. L. Wong, & Isabella Y.-F. Wong. (2011). Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Levels of Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: Did They Change since Their Graduation from Initial Teacher Preparation? Asia Pacific Education Review 12 (1), 79–87.
16. Choy, D., Lim, K.M., Chong, S., & Wong, Angela F.L. (2012). A confirmatory factor analytic approach on perceptions of knowledge and Skills in teaching (PKST). Psychological Reports, 110 (2), 589-597. doi.org/10.2466/03.11.PR0.110.2.589-597.
17. Choy, D., Wong Angela, F.L., Lim, K.M., & Chong, S. (2013). Beginning teachers' perceptions of their pedagogical knowledge and skills in teaching: A three-year study. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(5), 68-79. doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n5.6.
18. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik spss ve lisrel uygulamaları (2. Print). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing.
19. De Vellis, R.F. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme: Kuram ve uygulamalar (Ed. Tarık Totan). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
20. Erkuş, A. (2014). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (2. Ed). Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
21. Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. Hill, H.C. (2010). The nature and predictors of elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41 (5), 513–545. doi:10.2307/41110412.
23. Hill, H.C., Ball, D.L., & Schilling, S.G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4),372-400.
24. Hill, H.C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D.L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 371–406. doi: 10.3102/00028312042002371
25. 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.
26. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the simple’s command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
27. Kabakçı-Yurdakul, I., Odabaşı, H.F., Kılıçer, K., Coklar, A.N., Birinci, G., & Kurt, A.A. (2012). The development, validity and reliability of TPACK-deep: A Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale. Computers and Education, 58 (3), 964-977. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.012.
28. Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri: kavramlar, teknikler ve ilkeler (27. Print). Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
29. Karp, A. (2010). Analyzing and attempting to overcome prospective teachers' difficulties during problem solving instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(2), 121-139.
30. Kaya, S., & Dağ, F. (2013). Turkish Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Survey for Elementary Teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(1), 302-306.
31. Kaya, Z., Kaya, O.N. & Emre, İ. (2013). Adaptation of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale to Turkish. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13 (4), 2367-2375.
32. Kersting, N.B., & Givvin, K.B., Thompson, B.J., Santagata, R., & Stigler, J.W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568–589. doi.org/10.3102/0002831212437853.
33. Kılıç Çakmak, E., Çebi, A., & Kan, A. (2014). Developing a social presence scale for e learning environments. Educational Sciences: Theory& Practice, 14 (2), 764-768.
34. Kleickman, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., Cheo, M., & Baumert, J. (2015). Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Taiwanese and German mathematics teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 115-126.
35. Kline, R.B. (1994). [Review of Handbook of psychological assessment, Goldstein and Herson (Eds., 1990).] Journal of Psycho Educational Assessment, 12, 180-185.
36. Kline, R.B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562-589). London: Sage.
37. Koirala, H.P., Davis, M., & Johnson, P. (2008). Development of a performance assessment task and rubric to measure prospective secondary school mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 127–138.
38. König, J., Blömeke, S., Klein, P., Suhl, U., Busse, A., & Kaiser, G. (2014). Is Teachers' General Pedagogical Knowledge a premise for noticing and interpreting classroom situations? A video-based assessment approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 76-88. doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.004.
39. König, J., Blömeke, S., & Kaiser, G. (2015). Early Career Mathematics Teachers’ General Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills: Do Teacher Education, Teaching Experience, and Working Conditions Make a Difference? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13; 331-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9618-5
40. König, J., Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Schmidt, W.H., Hsieh, F.J. (2011). General Pedagogical Knowledge of Future Middle School Teachers: On the Complex Ecology of Teacher Education in the United States, Germany, and Taiwan. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (2),188-201. doi.org/10.1177/0022487110388664.
41. König, J., Ligtvoet, R., Klemenza, S., & Rothland, M. (2017). Effects of opportunities to learn in teacher preparation on future teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge: Analyzing program characteristics and outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 122-133. doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.03.001.
42. Köse, M., & Selvi, M. (2016). A valid and reliable pedagogical content knowledge scale developing research: Example of cell divisions topic. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11 (9), 559-578. 10.7827/TurkishStudies.9508.
43. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill
44. Özel, M., Timur, B., Timur, S., & Bilen, K. (2013). The adaptation of students’ perceptions of college teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge questionnaire into Turkish. Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 14 (1), 407-428.
45. Öztürk, E., & Horzum, M.B. (2011). Teknolojik pedagojik içerik bilgisi ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlaması. Journal of Kırşehir Faculty of Education, 12 (3), 255-278.
46. Peers, I. (1996). Statistical analysis for education and psychology researchers: Tools for researchers in education and psychology. London: Falmer Press.
47. Ponte, J.P., & Chapman, O. (2006). Mathematics teachers’ knowledge and practices. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 461–494). Roterdham: Sense Publishers.
48. Sánchez, M. (2011). A review of research trends in mathematics teacher education. PNA, 5(4), 129-145.
49. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of- fit measures. Methods of psychological research Pedagog_cal knowledge and sk_ll, 8(2), 23-74.
50. Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve Lisrel ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştırma. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
51. Schumacher, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to SEM. New Jersey: Mahwah.
52. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
53. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and the Teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.
54. Sıvacı, S.Y. (2017). Examining Primary Education Senior Students’ Field Knowledge Competence and Attitudes Towards Mathematic: A Comparative Research. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(26), 244-255.
55. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P.W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11 (6), 499-511.
56. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
57. Şahin, İ. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (1), 97-105.
58. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using multivariate statistics, 3, 402-407.
59. Tatto, M.T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Conceptual framework. East Lansing: Michigan State University
60. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Publishing.
61. Tezbaşaran, A. A. (1996). Likert tipi ölcek gelistirme kılavuzu [Guide for Likert type scale development]. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
62. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
63. Timur, B., & Taşar, M.F. (2011). The Adaptation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Confidence Survey into Turkish. Gaziantep University Social Sciences Journal, 10 (2), 839-856.
64. Wong, A. F. L., Chong, S., Choy, D., Wong, I. Y-F., & Goh, K. C. (2008). A comparison of perceptions of knowledge and skills held by primary and secondary teachers: from the entry to exit of their preservice program. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 77-93. doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2008v33n3.6.
65. Wong, A., Chong, S., Choy, D., & Lim, K.M. (2012). Investigating changes in pedagogical knowledge and skills from pre-service to the initial year of teaching. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11,105–117. Doi:10.1007/s10671-011-9108-7
66. Yılmaz, Z., & Haser, Ç. (2018). Pre-Service teachers’ restructuring of mathematical content knowledge in a learning trajectories based instruction. Elementary Education Online, 17 (1), 187-206.