International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2021, Vol. 16(3) 299-315

Turkish Adaptation of Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale

Metin Aşçı & Remzi Yıldırım

pp. 299 - 315   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2021.373.15   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2105-26-0001.R2

Published online: September 20, 2021  |   Number of Views: 28  |  Number of Download: 45


Abstract

With this study, it is aimed to adapt the Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale into Turkish Language. The adaptation process has been done within four study groups. The first group took part in the study after having the Turkish form of the scale as required according to the translation steps. The study has been done with the MCBU Faculty of Education during the 2021 Spring Term. With the first study group, language validity was ensured with 30 participants by applying the Turkish and English versions of the scale in an interval of two weeks. According to language validity findings the Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation value has been found above .70. Then pilot study has been done with second group with 62 participants. The total correlation values of the items are between .55 and .80. The third group consisted of 436 participants and after second run the CFA results are found like that; χ² / df = 3.582, RMSEA = .80, SRMR = .35; CFI = .95; TLI = .94, NNFI = .95. With the third study group the validation study has been finished and continued to reliability study. The fourth and the last group which consisted of 96 participants and the applications has been done in an interval of three weeks. According to the Cronbach’s Alpha values each of the dimensions and the total of the scale have points between .70 and .97. The test – retest values are between .72 and .94. Based on the findings the Turkish version of the scale is valid and reliable for usage.

Keywords: Online Teaching, Distance Learning, Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness, Instructor Effectiveness


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Asci, M. & Yildirim, R. (2021). Turkish Adaptation of Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), 299-315. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2021.373.15

Harvard
Asci, M. and Yildirim, R. (2021). Turkish Adaptation of Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), pp. 299-315.

Chicago 16th edition
Asci, Metin and Remzi Yildirim (2021). "Turkish Adaptation of Online Teaching Effectiveness Scale ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 16 (3):299-315. doi:10.29329/epasr.2021.373.15.

References
  1. Al, U. & Madran O. (2004). Web tabanlı uzaktan eğitim sistemleri: sahip olması gereken özellikler ve standartlar. Bilgi Dünyası Dergisi, 5 (2), 259 – 271. https://bd.org.tr/index.php/bd/article/view/491/487 (24.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  2. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross – cultural adaptation of self – report measures. Spine, 25 (24), 3186 – 3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 (12.03.2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Blackman, G., Pedersen, J., March, M., Reyes – Fournier, E., & Cumella, E. J. (2019). A comprehensive literature review of online teaching effectiveness: Reconstructing the conceptual framework [Unpublished manuscript]. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, T., A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analiz El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akedemi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabı, E. (2018). Teaching computer literacy via distance education: Experiences of the instructors. Başkent University Journal of Education, 5 (1), 61 – 68. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HcBb9w4ZqUMJ:buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/download/93/90/+&cd=3&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr (23.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  8. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf (20.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  9. Dinçer, S. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim ve uzaktan eğitime genel bir bakış. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı 2006, Denizli. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298192658_Bilgisayar_destekli_egitim_ve_uzaktan_egitime_genel_bir_bakis (20.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  10. Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide Ölçme ve Ölçek Geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  11. Eygü, H., & Karaman, S. (2013). A study on the satisfaction perceptions of the distance education students. Kırıkkale University Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (1), 36 – 59. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/181058 (19.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu, L.-t., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Jones, D. (1996). Computing by distance education: Problems and solutions. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28 (SI), 139 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1145/237477.237616 (03.03.2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Karakoç, F.Y., ve Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek gelı̇ştı̇rme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 13 (40), 39 – 49. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/199275 (22.05.2021). [Google Scholar]
  15. Kline, T., J., B. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kenny, D., A. (2020). Measuring Model Fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm (22.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  17. Meydan, C.H. ve Şeşen H. (2015). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  18. O’neill, K., Singh, G., & O’donoghue, J. (2004). Implementing eLearning programmes for higher education: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 3 (1), 313 – 323. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/111456/ (18.03.2021) [Google Scholar]
  19. Ottenbreit – Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55 (3), 1321 – 1335. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131510001612 (12.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  20. Reyes – Fournier, E., Cumella, E. J., Blackman, G., March, M., & Pedersen, J. (2020). Development and validation of the online teaching effectiveness scale. Online Learning, 24 (2), 111 – 127. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1260360.pdf (01.02.2021). [Google Scholar]
  21. Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). On – line course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 18 (1), 57 – 73. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/121/102 (04.04.2021). [Google Scholar]
  22. Saleh, A., & Bista, K. (2017). Examining factors impacting online survey response rates in educational research: Perceptions of graduate students. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 13 (29), 63 – 74. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596616.pdf (12.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  23. Savaşır, I. (1994). Ölçek uyarlamasındaki bazı sorunlar ve çözüm yolları. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 33 (9), 27 – 32. https://www.psikolog.org.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpd1300443319940000m000295.pdf (11.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  24. Seçer, İ. (2015). Psikolojik Test Geliştirme ve Uyarlama Süreci: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  25. Seufert, S., Guggemos, J. & Sailer, M. (2021). Technology – related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre – and in – service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 115 (2021), 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552 (11.03.2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Shifflet, R., & Weilbacher, G. (2015). Teacher beliefs and their influence on technology use: A case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15 (3), 368 – 394. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/147400/ (11.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  27. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd Edition). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomas, J. E. & Graham, C. R. (2017). Common practices for evaluating post – secondary online instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20 (4). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188473/ (15.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  29. Tuncer, M., & Taspinar, M. (2008). The future of education and training in virtual environments and possible problems. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Science, 10 (1), 125 – 144. https://sbd.aku.edu.tr/Say%C4%B1lar/Cilt%20X%20Say%C4%B1%201%20Haziran%202008/B.6%20%20makale%20M.%20Tuncer,%20M.Ta%C5%9Fp%C4%B1nar.pdf (03.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  30. Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 381 – 394. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.15.1.381.pdf (20.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  31. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47 – 59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0742051X16304681 (16.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  32. Wexler, D. H. (2003). Shifting pedagogies: Intersections of computer-supported technologies, education, and power (Ph.D. Thesis). The Graduate School, Syracuse University. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/127957/ (17.03.2021). [Google Scholar]
  33. Wieland, A., Durach, C. F., Kembro, J., & Treiblmaier, H. (2017). Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22 (4), 321 – 328. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2016-0230 (12.03.2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]