Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Din Dersi Öğretmenlerine Yönelik Öğretmen Algısı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Year 2018, Volume: 8 Issue: 15, 1450 - 1473, 31.08.2018
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.444349

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin,  din dersi öğretmenlerine yönelik algı
düzeylerinin belirlenmesine yönelik kullanılabilecek bir veri toplama aracı
geliştirmektir. Ölçeğin geliştirilmesi aşaması, üç ayrı örneklem grubu üzerinde
yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin ön uygulaması ana araştırmaya katılmayan ve örneklem
özelliklerini taşıyan toplam 394 kişilik iki farklı örneklem üzerinde
yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın ana çalışma grubu ise, resmi okullarda görev yapan
713 öğretmenden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin faktörlerini belirleyebilmek için
Açımlayıcı Faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Faktörlere ayrılan ölçeğin
güvenilirliğini belirleyebilmek amacıyla, öncelikle ölçekler için önemli bir iç
tutarlılık yaklaşımı olan Cronbach’s Alfa katsayısı formülü kullanılmıştır.
Cronbach’s Alfa katsayısı sonuçları Bileşik Güvenilirlik katsayısı ile
doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliği, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test
edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, ölçeğin 58 maddeden ve 6 alt boyuttan
oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışmalara ek olarak, altı alt boyutta tasarlanan
ölçeğin, her bir alt boyutu için açıklanan ortalama varyansı hesaplanarak
modelin birleşim ve ayrışım geçerliği de belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak Din Dersi
Öğretmenlerine Yönelik Öğretmen Algısı Ölçeğinin, öğretmenlerin, din dersi
öğretmenlerine yönelik algılarını ölçebilecek nitelikte geçerli ve güvenilir
bir ölçek olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca ölçek yalnızca eğitim bilimleri alanında
değil farklı bilim dallarına katkı sağlayacak bir esnekliğe sahiptir. 

References

  • Allen, G. J., Chinsky, J. M., Larcen, S. W., Lochman, J. E., ve Selinger, H. V. (2017). Community psychology and the schools: A behaviorally oriented multilevel approach. Routledge.
  • Altan, M. (2010). Kent dindarlığı (9. Baskı). İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
  • Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3), 227-266.
  • Atkinson, R. L., Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B., Bem, D. J., ve Maren, S. (2012). Psikolojiye giriş. Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.
  • Baltacı, A. (2018). Nitel Araştırmalarda Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Örnek Hacmi Sorunsalı Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (1), 231-274.
  • Barber, P., ve Legge, D. (2017). Perception and information. Routledge.
  • Baylor, A. L., ve Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?. Computers ve education, 39(4), 395-414.
  • Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., ve Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and teacher education, 16(7), 749-764.
  • Bland, J. M., ve Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572-589.
  • Blundell, R., ve Horowitz, J. L. (2007). A non-parametric test of exogeneity. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(4), 1035-1058.
  • Bruce, V., ve Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: the science of face perception. Oxford university press.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 1-360.
  • Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis, 2.
  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-115.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., ve Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272.
  • Field, A. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 619-680.
  • Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
  • Fox, R. J. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: John Wiley ve Sons, Ltd.
  • Galanter, E. (1972). Psychological Decision Mechanisms and Perception (No. PLR-25). Columbıa Un. New York Psychophysıcs Lab.
  • Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (p. 372). Colville, WA: Optimal books.
  • Haber, R. N., ve Hershenson, M. (1973). The psychology of visual perception. Holt, Rinehart ve Winston.
  • Hamlyn, D. W. (2017). The psychology of perception: A philosophical examination of Gestalt theory and derivative theories of perception. Routledge.
  • Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Guilford Press.
  • Heine, S. J. (2015). Cultural psychology: Third International Student Edition. WW Norton ve company.
  • Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling, 465-497.
  • Jussim, L., Eccles, J., ve Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). Academic Press.
  • Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
  • McDougall, W. (2015). An introduction to social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., ve Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168.
  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual, 3rd. Edition. McGrath Hill.
  • Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied psychological measurement, 22(4), 375-385.
  • Rock, I. E. (1997). Indirect perception. The MIT Press.
  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., ve Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological methods, 21(2), 137.
  • Sherif, M. (2015). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107.
  • Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M., ve Claypool, H. M. (2014). Social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. California State University Northridge: Harper Collins College Publishers.
  • Teddlie, C., ve Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
  • Thibaut, J. W. (2017). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.
  • Wetson, R. ve Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation model. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
  • Wyer Jr, R. S. (2014). The Automaticity of Everyday Life: Advances in Social Cognition, Volume X. Psychology Press.

The Development of Teacher Perception Scale towards Religious Education Teachers

Year 2018, Volume: 8 Issue: 15, 1450 - 1473, 31.08.2018
https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.444349

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a data
collection tool which can be used to determine the perception levels of the
teachers towards the religious education teachers. The stage of development of
the scale was carried out on three separate sample groups. The preliminary
application of the scale was carried out on two different samples of 394
persons who did not participate in the main sample group and had the
characteristics of a sample. The main study group of the research was consist
of 713 teachers worked in the official schools. Explicit factor analysis was
used to determine the factors of the scale. In order to determine the
reliability of the scale separated by the factors, the Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient formula, which is an important internal consistency approach for
scales, was used first. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient results were confirmed
by the Composite Reliability coefficient. The construct validity of the scale
was tested by confirmatory factor analysis. According to the analyses results,
the scale was composed of 58 items and 6 sub-scales. In addition to these
studies, the mean variance of each sub-scale is calculated and the validity of
the combination and decomposition of the six factor model is also determined.
In conclusion, it was seen that the Teachers Perceptions towards Religious
Education Teachers Scale was a valid and reliable scale to measure the
perceptions of teachers' level towards religious education teachers. Besides,
the scale has the flexibility to contribute not only to the literature of
education but also to different branches of science.

References

  • Allen, G. J., Chinsky, J. M., Larcen, S. W., Lochman, J. E., ve Selinger, H. V. (2017). Community psychology and the schools: A behaviorally oriented multilevel approach. Routledge.
  • Altan, M. (2010). Kent dindarlığı (9. Baskı). İstanbul: Timaş Yayınları.
  • Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49(3), 227-266.
  • Atkinson, R. L., Smith, E. E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Fredrickson, B., Bem, D. J., ve Maren, S. (2012). Psikolojiye giriş. Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.
  • Baltacı, A. (2018). Nitel Araştırmalarda Örnekleme Yöntemleri ve Örnek Hacmi Sorunsalı Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (1), 231-274.
  • Barber, P., ve Legge, D. (2017). Perception and information. Routledge.
  • Baylor, A. L., ve Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?. Computers ve education, 39(4), 395-414.
  • Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., ve Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and teacher education, 16(7), 749-764.
  • Bland, J. M., ve Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572-589.
  • Blundell, R., ve Horowitz, J. L. (2007). A non-parametric test of exogeneity. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(4), 1035-1058.
  • Bruce, V., ve Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: the science of face perception. Oxford university press.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 1-360.
  • Comrey, A. L., ve Lee, H. B. (1992). Interpretation and application of factor analytic results. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis, 2.
  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-115.
  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., ve Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272.
  • Field, A. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 619-680.
  • Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
  • Fox, R. J. (1983). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: John Wiley ve Sons, Ltd.
  • Galanter, E. (1972). Psychological Decision Mechanisms and Perception (No. PLR-25). Columbıa Un. New York Psychophysıcs Lab.
  • Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (p. 372). Colville, WA: Optimal books.
  • Haber, R. N., ve Hershenson, M. (1973). The psychology of visual perception. Holt, Rinehart ve Winston.
  • Hamlyn, D. W. (2017). The psychology of perception: A philosophical examination of Gestalt theory and derivative theories of perception. Routledge.
  • Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Guilford Press.
  • Heine, S. J. (2015). Cultural psychology: Third International Student Edition. WW Norton ve company.
  • Hoyle, R. H. (2000). Confirmatory factor analysis. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling, 465-497.
  • Jussim, L., Eccles, J., ve Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). Academic Press.
  • Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
  • McDougall, W. (2015). An introduction to social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., ve Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168.
  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual, 3rd. Edition. McGrath Hill.
  • Raykov, T. (1998). Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Applied psychological measurement, 22(4), 375-385.
  • Rock, I. E. (1997). Indirect perception. The MIT Press.
  • Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., ve Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological methods, 21(2), 137.
  • Sherif, M. (2015). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107.
  • Smith, E. R., Mackie, D. M., ve Claypool, H. M. (2014). Social psychology. Psychology Press.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. California State University Northridge: Harper Collins College Publishers.
  • Teddlie, C., ve Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
  • Thibaut, J. W. (2017). The social psychology of groups. Routledge.
  • Wetson, R. ve Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation model. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
  • Wyer Jr, R. S. (2014). The Automaticity of Everyday Life: Advances in Social Cognition, Volume X. Psychology Press.
There are 41 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ali Baltacı 0000-0003-2550-8698

Mehmet Kamil Coşkun 0000-0002-5669-2777

Publication Date August 31, 2018
Acceptance Date August 14, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 8 Issue: 15

Cite

APA Baltacı, A., & Coşkun, M. K. (2018). Din Dersi Öğretmenlerine Yönelik Öğretmen Algısı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 8(15), 1450-1473. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.444349