Metin PIŞKIN, Gökhan ATIK, Şakir ÇINKIR, Selahiddin ÖĞÜLMÜŞ, Cem BABADOĞAN, Ömay ÇOKLUK

112103

The Development and Validation of the Teacher Violence Scale

Problem Statement: One of the initial tasks of the school staff is to create a safe environment, which is free of negative behaviors and role models. However, there has been a concern for the violence in the schools. Most of studies in the literature has focused on aggression, violence, and bullying among students. But, teacher violence against students hasn't been studied sufficiently. In order to investigate this type of violence, a self-report instrument is needed. Purpose of the Study: This study aimed to develop and validate the Teacher Violence Scale (TVS), which measures different forms of violent behaviors displayed by teachers against students. Method: The psychometric properties of the TVS were explored on two separate participant groups. The first one was consisted of 583 (61.0% girls and 39.0% boys) high school students. The second one was composed of 878 (36.7% girls and 63.3% boys) high school students. The initial phases of scale development started with defining the target construct, generating items, and receiving expert reviews. The pilot form was administered to the first participant group and the final form was validated on the second participant group. In addition, some evidence for convergent, discriminant and divergent validity of the TVS were explored. Lastly, the internal consistency for the entire scale and the sub-dimensions of the TVS and the item analysis of the TVS were investigated. Findings and Results: The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that the TVS is a 36-item scale with 5 factors namely physical violence (11 items), sexual violence (6 items), accusing/humiliating (8 items), taunting (5 items), and oppressing (6 items). This 5-factor structure explained approximately 64 percent of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the 5-factor model was validated [χ2(584) = 1330.27, χ2/df = 2.28, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .99, CFI =.99]. The TVS had a strong evidence for convergent, discriminant and divergent validity. In addition, it had good internal consistency for the scores of entire scale and sub-dimensions. Conclusion and Recommendations: This study presented some psychometric evidence for the TVS. The results of EFA and CFA indicated that the TVS is a 36-item scale with 5 sub-dimensions. It is expected that the TVS will fill a gap and will be a useful instrument to measure teachers’ violence towards students. Further studies should provide additional evidence for predictive and cross validity and testretest reliability of the TVS.
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Teacher violence, scale development, validity, reliability, high school students

The Development and Validation of the Teacher Violence Scale

Problem Statement: One of the initial tasks of the school staff is to create a safe environment, which is free of negative behaviors and role models. However, there has been a concern for the violence in the schools. Most of studies in the literature has focused on aggression, violence, and bullying among students. But, teacher violence against students hasn't been studied sufficiently. In order to investigate this type of violence, a self-report instrument is needed. Purpose of the Study: This study aimed to develop and validate the Teacher Violence Scale (TVS), which measures different forms of violent behaviors displayed by teachers against students. Method: The psychometric properties of the TVS were explored on two separate participant groups. The first one was consisted of 583 (61.0% girls and 39.0% boys) high school students. The second one was composed of 878 (36.7% girls and 63.3% boys) high school students. The initial phases of scale development started with defining the target construct, generating items, and receiving expert reviews. The pilot form was administered to the first participant group and the final form was validated on the second participant group. In addition, some evidence for convergent, discriminant and divergent validity of the TVS were explored. Lastly, the internal consistency for the entire scale and the sub-dimensions of the TVS and the item analysis of the TVS were investigated. Findings and Results: The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) indicated that the TVS is a 36-item scale with 5 factors namely physical violence (11 items), sexual violence (6 items), accusing/humiliating (8 items), taunting (5 items), and oppressing (6 items). This 5-factor structure explained approximately 64 percent of the total variance. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that the 5-factor model was validated [χ2(584) = 1330.27, χ2/df = 2.28, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .99, CFI =.99]. The TVS had a strong evidence for convergent, discriminant and divergent validity. In addition, it had good internal consistency for the scores of entire scale and sub-dimensions. Conclusion and Recommendations: This study presented some psychometric evidence for the TVS. The results of EFA and CFA indicated that the TVS is a 36-item scale with 5 sub-dimensions. It is expected that the TVS will fill a gap and will be a useful instrument to measure teachers’ violence towards students. Further studies should provide additional evidence for predictive and cross validity and testretest reliability of the TVS.
Keywords:

Teacher violence, scale development, validity, reliability, high school students,

PDF

___

  • Ada, Ş. (2010). Analyzing peer bullying 6 th , 7 th , and 8 th grades primary school students from the aspects of different variables in Erzurum. Education and Science, 35 (158), 90-100.
  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Bulut, S. (2008). Öğretmenden öğrenciye yönelik olan fiziksel şiddet: Nicel bir araştırma [Violence that emerges from teachers toward students: A quantitative investigation]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 105-118.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Chen, J. K., & Astor, R. A. (2010). School violence in Taiwan: Examining how Western risk factors predict school violence in an Asian culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 (8), 1388-1410.
  • Conoley, J. C., & Goldstein, A. P. (Eds.) (2004). School violence intervention: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
  • Çakmak, M. (2011). Changing roles of teachers: Prospective teachers' thoughts. Education and Science, 36 (159), 14-24.
  • Due, P., Holstein, B. E., & Soc, M. S. (2008). Bullying victimization among 13 to 15year-old school children: Results from two comparative studies in 66 countries and regions. The International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 209-221.
  • Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, G. M. (1994). Addressing school violence as part of schools' educational mission. Preventing School Failure, 38(3), 10-17.
  • Furlong, M. J., Morrison, R., & Clontz, D. (1993). Planning principles for safe schools. School Safety, Spring , 23Gözütok, F. D. (1993a). Disiplin sağlamada öğretmen davranışları [Teacher behaviour in maintaining discipline]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 , 703-711.
  • Gözütok, F. D. (1993b). Okulda dayak [Beating students in schools]. Ankara: 72 Ofset.
  • Gözütok, F. D., Er, K. O., & Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2006). Okulda dayak: 1992 ve 2006 yılları karşılaştırması [Beating in school: Comparing 1992 and 2006 years] . Toplumsal Bir Sorun Olarak Şiddet Sempozyumu [Violence as a Social Problem Symposium]. Retrieved March 09, 2011 http://ekutuphane.egitimsen.org.tr/pdf/1595.pdf
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
  • Hatunoğlu, B. Y., & Hatunoğlu, A. (2005). Öğretmenlerin fiziksel cezalandırmaya ilişkin görüşleri [Opinions of teachers about physical punishment]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6 (2), 105-115.
  • Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Pagani, L. S., Pascal, S., Morin, A. J. S., & Bowen, F. (2008). Are there detrimental effects of witnessing school violence in early adolescence? Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 600-608.
  • Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (16), 2094-2100.
  • Öğülmüş, S. (1995). Okullarda (liselerde) şiddet ve saldırganlık [Violence and aggresiveness in schools (in high schools)] . Unpublished report. Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Pişkin, M. (2010). Examination of peer bullying among primary and middle school children in Ankara. Education and Science, 35(156), 175-189.
  • Pişkin, M. (2006a). Okul şiddeti: Tanımı, yaygınlığı ve önleme stratejileri [School violence: Definition, prevalence, and prevention strategies]. Kamuda Sosyal Politika, 1 (2), 43-62.
  • Pişkin, M. (2006b). Validity and reliability of Myths About Bullying Inventory - MABI. Paper presented at the 10th EARA Conference (European Association for Research of Adolescence), Antalya, Sheraton Voyager Hotel.
  • Pişkin, M., & Ayas, T. (2005, September). Lise öğrencileri arasında yaşanan akran zorbalığı olgusunun okul türü bakımından karşılaştırılması [A comparison of peer bullying among high school students with respect to school types] . Paper presented at the VIII. National Psychological Counseling and Guidance Congress, Marmara University, Istanbul.
  • Pişkin, M., Çınkır, Ş., Kalafat, T., Öğülmüş, S., Atik, G., Babadoğan, C., … Şahan, B. (2011, October). Öğretmenlerin ve okul yöneticilerinin okul şiddetine ilişkin görüşleri [The perceptions of teachers and school principals related to school violence] . Paper presented at XI. National Psychological Counseling and Guidance Congress, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Pişkin, M., Öğülmüş, S., Atik, G., Çınkır, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., Babadoğan, C., … Şahan, B. (2011, October). Liselerde öğrenciler arasındaki şiddetin saptanması [Determining school violence among high school students] . Paper presented at XI. National Psychological Counseling and Guidance Congress, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Saruhan, A. (1987). Bu çocuklar resmen dayak istiyor [These children actually deserve spanking]. Öğretmen Dünyası, 8(86), 22-24.
  • Straus, M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38(2), 133-154.
  • Sümer, Z. H., & Aydın, G. (1999). Incidence of violence in Turkish schools: A review. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 21 , 335–347.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Telli, S., den Brok, P., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2008). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the ideal teacher. Education and Science, 33(149), 118-129.
  • Timuroğlu, V. (1983). Dayak ve demokratik eğitim [Corporal punishment and democratic education]. Öğretmen Dünyası, 4(39), 21.
  • Ünal, H., & Çukur, C. Ş. (2011). The effects of school bonds, discipline techniques in school and victimization on delinquency of high school students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11 (2), 560-570.
  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2002). World report on violence and health:
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-597X
  • Başlangıç: 2015
  • Yayıncı: Anı Yayıncılık
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Gender Discrimination in Higher Education in Pakistan: A Survey of University Faculty

Sadia SHAUKAT, Aishah SIDDIQUAH, Anthony William PELL

The Development and Validation of the Teacher Violence Scale

Metin PIŞKIN, Gökhan ATIK, Şakir ÇINKIR, Selahiddin ÖĞÜLMÜŞ, Cem BABADOĞAN, Ömay ÇOKLUK

Kamu ve Özel Okul Öğretmenlerinin Psikolojik Sözleşme Algıları ve İş Çevresine Uyum Düzeyleri

Nihan DEMIRKASIMOĞLU

İletişim Yeterliği ile Örgütsel Çatışma Arasındaki İlişki: Eğitim Denetmenleri Başkanlığı Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Mehmet ÜSTÜNER, Ali KIŞ

Development of Dyadic Relationship Scale

Özlem Haskan AVCI

Öğrenme Stratejileri ve Hedef Yönelimleri Arasındaki İlişki: Çok Düzeyli Veri Analizi

Cansel KADIOGLU, Esen Uzuntiryaki KONDAKCI