ÖĞRETMENLERİN OKUL SEÇME NEDENLERİNİ BELİRLEME ÖLÇEĞİNİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLIK VE GÜVENIRLIK ÇALIŞMASI
Author :
Abstract
Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin okullar arası hareketliliklerinde, çalışmak istedikleri okulları tercih ederken, okul seçme kararlarında etkili olan faktörleri öğretmen görüşlerine göre incelemeye elverişli olan bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu kapsamda Öğretmenlerin Okul Seçme Nedenlerini Belirleme Ölçeği (ÖOSNBÖ) geliştirilerek, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin geliştirilmesi sürecinde, ilgili kavramsal çerçeve incelenerek madde havuzu oluşturulmuş ve kapsam geçerliği için uzman görüşüne başvurulmuştur. Daha sonra oluşturulan taslak ölçeğin pilot çalışması, İstanbul ilinde yer alan resmi ve özel okullarda çalışan 228 öğretmenin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu aşamada veriler açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ile analiz edilmiş ve AFA sonucunda ölçeğin beş faktörlü bir ölçek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İlk uygulama sonucuna göre ölçek tekrar düzenlenerek ikinci uygulamaya geçilmiştir. Öğretmenlerin Okul Seçme Nedenlerini Belirleme Ölçeği’nin ana uygulaması İstanbul ili evreninden tabakalı örnekleme yoluyla seçilen 256 öğretmenin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu uygulamada ölçeğin geçerliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA), güvenirliği ise Cronbach alfa katsayısı ile değerlendirilmiştir. DFA sonuçları ile pilot çalışma evresinde geliştirilmiş olan ölçeğin beş boyutlu yapısı tekrar ortaya konularak doğrulamıştır. Cronbach alfa sonuçları da geliştirilen ölçeğin güvenilir bir veri toplama aracı olduğunu ortaya çıkartmıştır. Gerek pilot çalışma ve gerekse ana uygulama bulgularına dayalı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen Öğretmenlerin Okul Seçme Nedenlerini Belirleme Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu genel sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Keywords
Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a scale that is suitable for examining the factors affecting teachers' inter-school mobility and school selection decisions. In this context, the validity and reliability studies were conducted by determining the “Scale for Determining the Reasons of Teacher's School Choices”. During the development of the scale, the related conceptual framework was examined and an item pool was created and expert opinion was applied for the content validity. The pilot study of the draft scale was then carried out with the participation of 228 teachers working in public and private schools in Istanbul. At this stage, the data was analyzed with exploratory factor analysis and it was found that the scale was a five-factor scale. Then, the main application of the scale was carried out with the participation of 256 teachers selected through stratified sampling from the universe of Istanbul. In this application, the validity of the scale was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis and its reliability was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. With the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the five-dimensional structure of the Scale for Determining the Reasons for Choosing the School of Teachers, which was developed in the pilot study phase, was re-established and confirmed. Cronbach's alpha results also revealed that the developed scale was a reliable data collection tool. Based on the findings of two applications, it was concluded that the Scale for Determining the Reasons of Teacher's School Choices was a valid and reliable scale.
Keywords
- Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., and Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining Teachers of Color: A Pressing Problem and A Potential Strategy For “Hard-To-Staff” Schools. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71-107.
- Allensworth, E., Ponisciak, S., and Mazzeo, C. (2009). The Schools Teachers Leave: Teacher Mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research. Erişim tarihi: 31 Ekim 2018, https://consortium-pub.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/2018-10/CCSR_Teacher_ Mobility.pdf
- Aydoğdu, H. (2009). Tevhid-i Tedrisat Kanunu ve Eğitimdeki Gelişmeler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, Sayı: 182, s.372-383.
- Balyer, A., ve Özcan, K. (2017). Organizational Climate at Primary Schools and Its Influences on Teachers Job Satisfaction. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(5).
- Berry, B. (2007). Recruiting and Retaining Quality Teachers for High-Needs Schools: Insights from NBCT Summits and Other Policy Initiatives. Center for Teaching Quality. Erişim tarihi: 31 Ekim 2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519714.pdf
- Betts, J. R., Reuben, K. S., and Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal Resources, Equal Outcomes? The Distribution of School Resources and Student Achievement in California. Public Policy Institute of California, 500 Washington Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94111.
- Bogler, R. (2001). The Influence of Leadership Style on Teacher Job Satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.
- Bonhomme, S., Jolivet, G., and Leuven, E. (2016). School Characteristics and Teacher Turnover: Assessing the Role of Preferences and Opportunities. The Economic Journal, 126(594), 1342-1371.
- Bryk, A., and Schneider, B. (2002). Trust In Schools: A Core Resource For Improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
- Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., and Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
- Brown, M. K., and R. Wynn, S. (2009). Finding, Supporting, And Keeping: The Role of The Principal in Teacher Retention Issues. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37-63.
- Buckley, J., Schneider, M., and Shang, Y. (2005). Fix It And They Might Stay: School Facility Quality And Teacher Retention In Washington, DC. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1107-1123.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal Bilimler Için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 001-214.
- Cabrera-Nguyen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the journal of the society for social work and research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), 99-103.
- Can, A. (2019). SPSS ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Cerit, Y. (2008). Öğretmen Kavrami Ile Ilgili Metaforlara Ilişkin Öğrenci, Öğretmen Ve Yöneticilerin Görüşleri. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(4), 693-712.
- Cochran-Smith, M., Mcquillan, P., Mitchell, K., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., D’Souza, L., and Gleeson, A. M. (2012). A Longitudinal Study of Teaching Practice and Early Career Decisions: A Cautionary Tale. American Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 844-880.
- Cosmas, M., Sithulisiwe, B., and Jenny, S. (2014). Factors Influencing Trainee Teachers’ Choice of Schools on Deployment After Completion of Training. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(16), 346.
- Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler Için Çok Değişkenli Istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing What Matters Most: Investing In Quality Teaching. National Commission On Teaching America's Future, Kutztown Distribution Center, 15076 Kutztown Road, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
- Deal, T. E., and Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping School Culture: The Heart of Leadership. Adolescence, 34(136), 802.
- Deangelis, K. J., and Presley, J. B. (2007). Leaving Schools or Leaving the Profession: Setting Illinois' Record Straight on New Teacher Attrition. Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council. Erişim tarihi: 31 Ekim 2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497703.pdf
- DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage publications.
- Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., ve Sanisoğlu, S. Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223.
- Erkuş, A. (2016). Ölçek geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışmalarındaki sorunlar ile yazım ve değerlendirilmesi. Pegem Atıf İndeksi, 1211-1224. doi:10.14527/9786053183563.075
- Ferguson, G. A. (1959). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. Mcgraw Hill Book Company.
- Goldhaber, D., Choi, H. J., Cramer, L. (2007). A Descriptive Analysis of The Distribution Of NBPTS- Certified Teachers In North Carolina. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 160-172.
- Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations About Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-71.
- Henkin, A. B., Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban Teacher Commitment: Exploring Associations With Organizational Conflict, Support For Innovation, And Participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160180.
- Henson, R. ve Roberts, J. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
- Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, And the Organization of Schools. CPRE Research Reports. Erişim adresi: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=cpre_researchreports
- Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-Of-Field Teaching, Educational Inequality, And the Organization of Schools: An Exploratory Analysis. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. University of Pennsylvania.
- Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing A “Sense of Success”: New Teachers Explain Their Career Decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581-617.
- Johnson, S. M. (2006). The Workplace Matters: Teacher Quality, Retention, And Effectiveness. Working Paper. National Education Association Research Department.
- Kalaycı, Ş. (2005). Faktör Analizi. İçinde Ş. Kalaycı. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli Istatistik Teknikleri, 321-331.
- Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications. Newyork: Guildford
- Luekens, M. T., Lyter, D. M., Fox, E. E. (2004). Teacher Attrition And Mobility: Results From The Teacher Follow-Up Survey, 2000-Tabs. NCES 2004-301. US Department of Education.
- Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Questionnaire design and scale development. The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, And Future Advances, 83-94.
- Marinell, W. H., Coca, V. M. (2013). " Who Stays and Who Leaves?" Findings from A Three-Part Study of Teacher Turnover in NYC Middle Schools. Online Submission.
- Mccaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability. Monograph. RAND Corporation. PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA
- Odland, G., Ruzicka, M. (2009). An Investigation into Teacher Turnover in International Schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 8(1), 5-29.
- Qin, L. (2019). Factors Relating to Teachers’ Intention to Change School: A Multilevel Perspective. Policy Futures in Education, 17(3), 318-338.
- Quartz, K. H., TEP Research Group. (2003). " Too Angry to Leave" Supporting New Teachers' Commitment to Transform Urban Schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111.
- Seçer, İ. (2017). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri Analizi Analiz ve Raporlaştırma. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık Schumacker, R. E., Lomax, R. G. (2004). Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Simon, N. S., Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher Turnover In High-Poverty Schools: What We Know And Can Do. Teachers College Record, 117(3), 1-36. Stuit, D. A., Smith, T. M. (2012). Explaining the Gap in Charter and Traditional Public-School Teacher Turnover Rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268-279.
- Worthington, R. L. ve Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806-838.
- Wynn, S. R., Carboni, L. W., Patall, E. A. (2007). Beginning Teachers' Perceptions Of Mentoring, Climate, And Leadership: Promoting Retention Through A Learning Communities Perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(3), 209-229.
- Yıldız, S., Balyer, A. (2019). Okul Paydaşları Bağlamında Kamu Okullarındaki Parasal Sorunlar: Fenomenolojik Bir Araştırma. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(46), 349-364. Doi: 10.9779/pauefd.463715.
