Adaptation of the Good Teaching Scale into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 133 - 149, 31.12.2022

İlhan İlter , Gökhan Izgar

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.1184754

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the “Good Teaching Scale” (GTS) developed by Alhija (2017) into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability. The original form of the scale consisted of 5 sub-dimensions and a total of 35 items. The study data were collected from 491 students who enrolled in different postgraduate programs at a higher education institution in Turkey. In order to adapt the scale into Turkish, the language validity was verified, and then EFA and CFA with the different study data were performed for the construct validity of the GTS-Turkish form. Cronbach Alpha and the composite reliability coefficient were calculated to test internal consistency reliability. Results of the factor analysis showed that it was found that the items of the GTS translated into Turkish were collected in a 5-dimensional structure, as in the original scale. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was found as .905, and the composite reliability value as .872. The Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients of sub-dimensions of GTS-Turkish version were found to vary between .796 and .841. According to the results of the item-total correlation for item discrimination, it was determined that the item discrimination of the scale was at a good level. These findings indicated that, the Good Teaching Scale-Turkish version, which consisted of 35 items, is a valid and reliable measurement tool for measuring the university students’ perceptions of good teaching in Turkey and the perceived characteristics of good teaching in higher education.

Keywords

Good teaching, Scale adaptation, Validity, Reliability

References

• Alhija, F. N. A. (2017). Teaching in higher education: Good teaching through students’ lens. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 4-12.
• Alpar, R. (2010). Spor, sağlık ve eğitim bilimlerinden örneklerle uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher education, 8(4), 381-394.
• Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). The Society for Research into Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Biggs, J. (2012) What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 39-55.
• Brew, A. (2013). Integrating research and teaching: Understanding excellence. In International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education (pp. 88-102). Routledge.
• Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
• Cücük, E., Kara, K., Şiraz, F., & Bay, E. (2018). Etkili öğretim stratejileri ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi (EÖSÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(67), 1181-1198.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yay.
• Devine, D., Fahie, D., & McGillicuddy, D. (2013). What is ‘good’teaching? Teacher beliefs and practices about their teaching. Irish Educational Studies, 32(1), 83-108.
• Doğanay, A., Uyar, M.Y., Dinçer, S., & Karaçoban, F. (2021). Öğretim elemanlarının öğretim yeterliklerini değerlendirme ölçeği (ÖYDÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(1), 201-214.
• Duman, B., & Yakar, A. (2017). Öğretime yönelik duyuşsal farkındalık ölçeği. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 6(1), 200-229.
• Durak, I., & Karagöz, Y. (2021). Adaptation of Statistics Anxiety Scale to Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(3), 667-683.
• Erkuş, A. (2014), Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-I: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (2. Baskı). Ankara:
• Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using spss for windows. London. Sage Paplications.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill, New York
• Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
• Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
• International Test Commission. (2018). Guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101–134.
• Jacob, B., Frenzel, A. C., & Stephens, E. J. (2017). Good teaching feels good—but what is “good teaching”? Exploring teachers’ definitions of teaching success in mathematics. ZDM, 49(3), 461-473.
• Kan, A. (2007). Ölçmenin temel kavramları. İçinde H. Atılgan (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (ss: 1-22). Ankara: Anı Yayınları.
• Kandemir, E. M., & Kıran, H. (2021). Öğretim becerileri ölçeği: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Uluslararası Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 52-64.
• Kember, D., & Kwan, K. P. (2000). Lecturers' approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28(5), 469-490.
• Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3th ed.). McGraw-Hill
• Pallant, J. (2017). SPSS kullanma kılavuzu. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Parpala, A., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2007). University teachers’conceptions of good teaching in the units of high-quality education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(3-4), 355-370.
• Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all?. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 5-16.
• Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1999). Measures of political attitudes. Academic Press.
• Roy, A., Guay, F., & Valois, P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: Development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(11), 1186-1204.
• Ruzgar, M. E. (2021). A Descriptive analysis of good teaching and good teachers from the perspective of preservice teachers. ie: Inquiry in Education, 13(2), 14-25.
• Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763-770
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müler, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive GoodnessOf-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Serbati, A., Aquario, D., Da Re, L., Paccagnella, O., & Felisatti, E. (2020). Exploring good teaching practices and needs for improvement: Implications for staff development. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal), 21, 43-64.
• Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Sürücü, L. & Maslakçı, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research, BMIJ, 8(3), 2694-2726.
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481-498). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
• Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher education, 37(1), 57-70.
• Turgut, M. F. (1983). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme metotları. Ankara: Saydam Matbaacılık.
• Yılmaz, H. (1998). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (Üçüncü baskı). Konya: Mikro Yayınları.