Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğretmen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 641 - 650, 29.09.2024

Ahmet Uyar , Burcu Karafil

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1402989

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, öğretmenlerin biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik okuryazarlıklarını belirlemek için Yan ve Pastore tarafından (2022) geliştirilen Öğretmen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması üzerine geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapmaktır. Çalışma kapsamında, 2023-2024 eğitim-öğretim yılında Elazığ ve Yalova illerinde görev yapan 183 öğretmenden oluşan bir çalışma grubu kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin orijinal hali, 6'lı Likert tipinde düzenlenmiş ve İngilizce olarak yazılmış 21 maddeden oluşmaktadır. İlk olarak, ölçeğin Türkçeye çevirisi yapılmış ve çeviri sonrasında dil geçerlik çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Daha sonra, ölçeğin pilot uygulaması 30 öğretmen üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Geçerliliği sağlanan ölçek, 183 öğretmene çevrimiçi olarak uygulanmış ve bu çalışmanın ardından doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. DFA sonuçları, orijinal faktör yapısının korunduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliğini belirlemek için, ölçeğin Türkçe ve İngilizce formları 28 İngilizce öğretmenine uygulanmıştır. Bu şekilde test - tekrar test güvenirliğinin sağlandığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca, ölçeğin tamamı ve alt boyutları için iç tutarlılık katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen Cronbach Alpha katsayıları, ölçeğin tamamı için 0.94, kavramsal alt boyutu için 0.87, uygulama alt boyutu için 0.88, sosyo-duygusal alt boyutu için ise 0.88 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, 21 madde ve üç faktörden oluşan Öğretmen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Okuryazarlığı Ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uygun bir şekilde geçerli ve güvenilir hale getirildiğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

Biçimlendirici değerlendirme öğretmen uyarlama okuryazarlık ölçek

References

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0
  • Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223
  • Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  • Berry, R. (2010). Teachers’ orientations towards selecting assessment strategies. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 96–107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ966618
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education. Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  • Boston, C. (2019). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(9), https://doi.org/10.7275/kmcq-dj31
  • Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. (9. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
  • Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House, 83(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
  • Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
  • Crichton, H., & McDaid, A. (2016). Learning intentions and success criteria: Learners’ and teachers’ views. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1103278
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik (6.baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Dağlı, B., & Baysal, N. (2016). Yaşam doyumu ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(59), 1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.75955
  • DeLuca, C., Chapman-Chin, A., & Klinger, D. A. (2019). Toward a teacher professional learning continuum in assessment for learning. Educational Assessment, 24(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Pscyhological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  • Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
  • Gipps, C., & Brown, M. (1999). Primary teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517990100109
  • Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2003). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi, 5(1), 3-14.
  • Heitink, M., van der Kleij, F., Veldkamp, B., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
  • İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26- 42. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126 Karaman, P., & Sahin, C. (2017). Adaptation of teachers’ conceptions and practices of formative assessment scale into turkish culture and a structural equation modeling. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017236114
  • Kişin, M., & İlhan, N. (2022). Öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının fen derslerindeki değerlendirme hakkındaki inanç ve uygulama düzeyleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 20-43. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1074979
  • Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Koç Başaran, Y. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde örnekleme kuramı. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 47, 480-495. https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.12368
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
  • Metin, M., & Özmen, H. (2010). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik öğretmen adaylarının düşünceleri [Prospective teachers’ views about formative assessment]. Milli Eğitim, 187, 293-310.
  • Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  • Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket Programlarla İstatistiksel Veri Analizi-1 (4.baskı). Kaan Kitabevi.
  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
  • Rashid, R. A., & Jaidin, J. H. (2014). Exploring primary school teachers’ conceptions of “assessment for learning”. International Education Studies, 7(9), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n9p69
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  • Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
  • So, W. W. M., & Lee, T. T. H. (2011). Influence of teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning on the implementation of assessment for learning in inquiry study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.577409
  • Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). Routledge.
  • Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 239–255. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936752.pdf
  • Yan, Z. (2014). Predicting teachers’ intentions to implement school-based assessment using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.877394
  • Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: A case of policy borrowing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100985
  • Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
  • Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101183.

Adaptation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale into Turkish Culture: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 641 - 650, 29.09.2024

Ahmet Uyar , Burcu Karafil

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1402989

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the “Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale”, developed by Yan and Pastore (2022), into Turkish culture by conducting validity and reliability studies with the aim of determining teachers’ literacy in formative assessment.The participants consisted of 183 teachers working in Elazığ and Yalova Provinces during 2022-2023 academic year. The original scale included 21 six-point Likert-type items in English. Firstly, the scale was translated into Turkish, and language validity studies were conducted after the translation. Subsequently, a pilot application of the scale was conducted with 30 teachers. The scale with language validity was administered online to 183 teachers, which would provide data regarding construct validity. Then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. CFA showed that the adapted scale had the same factor structure with the original. To determine the reliability of the scale, both Turkish and English versions of the scale were applied to 28 English teachers, demonstrating test-retest reliability. Additionally, internal consistency coefficients were calculated for both the entire scale and its sub-dimensions. The obtained Cronbach Alpha coefficients were determined as .94 for the entire scale, .87 for the conceptual sub-dimension, .88 for the practical sub-dimension, and .88 for the socio-emotional sub-dimension. These results indicate that the Turkish form of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale, consisting of 21 items and three sub-dimensions, is a valid and reliable data collection tool.

Keywords

Formative assessment teacher adaptation literacy scale

References

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0
  • Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223
  • Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  • Berry, R. (2010). Teachers’ orientations towards selecting assessment strategies. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 96–107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ966618
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education. Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  • Boston, C. (2019). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(9), https://doi.org/10.7275/kmcq-dj31
  • Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A., & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (28. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. (9. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_4
  • Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. The Clearing House, 83(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903267784
  • Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
  • Crichton, H., & McDaid, A. (2016). Learning intentions and success criteria: Learners’ and teachers’ views. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1103278
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik (6.baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  • Dağlı, B., & Baysal, N. (2016). Yaşam doyumu ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(59), 1250-1262. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.75955
  • DeLuca, C., Chapman-Chin, A., & Klinger, D. A. (2019). Toward a teacher professional learning continuum in assessment for learning. Educational Assessment, 24(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Pscyhological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  • Gikandi, J., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
  • Gipps, C., & Brown, M. (1999). Primary teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517990100109
  • Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2003). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi, 5(1), 3-14.
  • Heitink, M., van der Kleij, F., Veldkamp, B., Schildkamp, K., & Kippers, W. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002
  • İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (YEM) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 5(2), 26- 42. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126 Karaman, P., & Sahin, C. (2017). Adaptation of teachers’ conceptions and practices of formative assessment scale into turkish culture and a structural equation modeling. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2017236114
  • Kişin, M., & İlhan, N. (2022). Öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının fen derslerindeki değerlendirme hakkındaki inanç ve uygulama düzeyleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 20-43. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.1074979
  • Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Koç Başaran, Y. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde örnekleme kuramı. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 47, 480-495. https://doi.org/10.16992/ASOS.12368
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1
  • Metin, M., & Özmen, H. (2010). Biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik öğretmen adaylarının düşünceleri [Prospective teachers’ views about formative assessment]. Milli Eğitim, 187, 293-310.
  • Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  • Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket Programlarla İstatistiksel Veri Analizi-1 (4.baskı). Kaan Kitabevi.
  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
  • Rashid, R. A., & Jaidin, J. H. (2014). Exploring primary school teachers’ conceptions of “assessment for learning”. International Education Studies, 7(9), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n9p69
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
  • Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
  • So, W. W. M., & Lee, T. T. H. (2011). Influence of teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning on the implementation of assessment for learning in inquiry study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.577409
  • Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 18–40). Routledge.
  • Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 239–255. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936752.pdf
  • Yan, Z. (2014). Predicting teachers’ intentions to implement school-based assessment using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.877394
  • Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: A case of policy borrowing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100985
  • Yan, Z., & Cheng, E. C. K. (2015). Primary teachers’ attitudes, intentions and practices regarding formative assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.002
  • Yan, Z., & Pastore, S. (2022). Are teachers literate in formative assessment? The development and validation of the Teacher Formative Assessment Literacy Scale. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 74, 101183.
There are 40 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Curriculum Evaluation in Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ahmet Uyar 0000-0001-9694-8629

Burcu Karafil 0000-0001-7297-7871

Publication Date September 29, 2024
Submission Date December 11, 2023
Acceptance Date March 6, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024Volume: 13 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Uyar, A., & Karafil, B. (2024). Öğretmen Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Okuryazarlığı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 13(3), 641-650. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1402989
 Download Cover Image

14550                 

© Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education