Development of Inquiry Based Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale for STEM+S Education: Validity and Reliability Study
Author :
Abstract
In this research, it is aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument that will enable teachers to measure the inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy for STEM+S education. The research was conducted on 535 teachers who actively pursued their profession in the schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in different regions of Turkey in March-April-May 2017. For the face and content validity of the scale, expert opinion was applied and Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were applied for the validity of the scale. As a result of EFA, a structure consisting of 17 items and four factors explaining 62.72% of the total variance was obtained. The emerging factors; discussion and reflection, investigate and creation, asking and relation with daily life. Findings from the CFA show that the inquiry-based teaching scale structure is containing 17 items and 4 dimensions has good indices. The reliability of the measurement tool was examined in terms of consistency and stability. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for the subscales of discussion and reflection, investigate and creation, asking and relation with daily life were found to be .85, .80, .73 and .69, respectively. Based on these findings, it can be said that this scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to measure the inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy for STEM + S education.
Keywords
Abstract
In this research, it is aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement instrument that will enable teachers to measure the inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy for STEM+S education. The research was conducted on 535 teachers who actively pursued their profession in the schools affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in different regions of Turkey in March-April-May 2017. For the face and content validity of the scale, expert opinion was applied and Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were applied for the validity of the scale. As a result of EFA, a structure consisting of 17 items and four factors explaining 62.72% of the total variance was obtained. The emerging factors; discussion and reflection, investigate and creation, asking and relation with daily life. Findings from the CFA show that the inquiry-based teaching scale structure is containing 17 items and 4 dimensions has good indices. The reliability of the measurement tool was examined in terms of consistency and stability. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for the subscales of discussion and reflection, investigate and creation, asking and relation with daily life were found to be .85, .80, .73 and .69, respectively. Based on these findings, it can be said that this scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to measure the inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy for STEM + S education.
Keywords
- Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
- BAUSTEM, (2017, May 11). http://www.stem.bahcesehir.edu.tr. adresinden 02.10.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Berlin, D. Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18032.x
- Bernardi, R. A. (1994). Validating research results when cronbach's alpha is below .70: A methodological procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 766-775. doi: 10.1177/0013164494054003023
- Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. 22. Baskı, Ankara: PegemAkademi.
- Bybee, R. W. (2010). Advancing STEM education: A 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30-35.
- Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education? Science, 329, 996. doi: 10.1126/science.1194998
- Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press.
- Corlu, M. S. (2012). A pathway to STEM education: Investigating pre-service mathematics and science teachers at Turkish universities in terms of their understanding of mathematics used in science. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Texas AveM University, USA.
- Corlu, M. S., Capraro, R. M. ve Capraro, M. M. (2014). Introducing STEM education: implications for educating our teachers for the age of innovation. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(171), 74-85.
- Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
- Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. Baskı). Ankara: PegemAkademi.
- European Schoolnet (2017, May 15). http://www.eun.org adresinden 13.11.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Everitt, B. S. (1975). Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 126(3), 237-240.
- Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
- Fleissner, S., Chan, Y. Y., Yuen, T. H., Ng, V. (2006). WebQuest markup language (WQML) for sharable inquiry-based learning. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, 383-392, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/11751540_41
- Honey, M., Pearson G. ve Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: status, prospects and an agenda for research. Washington: The National Academic Press.
- Hu, L., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
- Karahan, E. (2016). STEAM: Mekanik ve estetik. https://enginkarahan.com/tag/stem/ adresinden 14.10.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Karamustafaoğlu, S.; Celep Havuz, A. (2016). Inquiry based learning and ıts effectiveness. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 3(1), 40-54.
- Kartal, T. (2014). Sorgulamaya Dayalı Öğrenme-Öğretme Yaklaşımı, Etkinlik Örnekleriyle Güncel Öğrenme- Öğretme Yaklaşımları-1, Ed: Gülay Ekici, (472-520).Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
- Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications.
- Levy, P., Lameras, P., McKinney, P., Ford, N. (2011). The features of inquiry learning: theory, research and practice. Pathway to Inquiry Based Science Teaching, (Deliverable 2.1). European Commission: CSASA Support Actions, Project Number 266624. http://www.pathwayuk.org.uk/what-is-ibse.html adresinden 11.09.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (MEB). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB.
- Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M.S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K.M., Glancy, A.W., Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Ş. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Research into practices (pp. 35-60). West Lafayette: Purdue Press.
- Reiss, M., Holman, J. (2007). S-T-E-M working together for schools and colleges. 1–8, The Royal Society.
- Riechert, S. E., Post, B. K. (2010). From skeletons to bridges & other, STEM enrichment exercises for high school biology. The American Biology Teacher, 72(1), 20-22. doi: 10.1525/abt.2010.72.1.6
- Sarıca, R. (2016). Araştırmaya dayalı öğretim uygulamalarının ölçme ve değerlendirme dersindeki etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi), Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep.
- Scientix (2017, May 20). www.scientix.eu. adresinden 08.10.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Smith, J., Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: a literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED443172 adresinden 09.09.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Spronken-Smith, R., Bullard, J. O., Ray, W., Roberts, C., Keiffer, A. (2008). Where might sand dunes be on Mars? Engaging students through inquiry-based learning in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 71-86. doi: 10.1080/03098260701731520
- Şahin, A., Ayar, M. C., Adıgüzel, T. (2014). STEM Related After-School Program Activities and Associated Outcomes on Student Learning. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 297- 322.
- Voet, M., De Wever, B. (2016). History teachers' conceptions of inquiry-based learning, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 57-67. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.008
- Voutour, J. (2014). What is STEM education? – Definition and programs. http://championmovement.com/ what -is-stem-education adresinden 23.11.2017 tarihinde erişim sağlanmıştır.
- Worthington, R. L., Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale Development Research: A Content Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.
- Yamak, H., Bulut, N., Dündar, S. (2014). 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Süreç Becerileri ile Fene Karşı Tutumlarına FeTeMM Etkinliklerinin Etkisi. Gazi University Gazi Education Faculty Journal, 34(2).
- Yavuz Konokman, G. (2015). Araştırma temelli öğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı dijital öykü oluşturmanın öğretmen adaylarının direnç davranışlarına ve öğrenme yaklaşımlarına etkisi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi), Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin.
- Yıldırım, B., Altun, Y. (2015). STEM Eğitim ve Mühendislik Uygulamalarının Fen Bilgisi Laboratuar Dersindeki Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40.
