Adaptation of Design Self-Efficacy Scale into Turkish Language

The purpose of this study was to develop a Turkish version of the Design Self-Efficacy Scale (Beeftink, van Eerde, Rutte, & Bertrand, 2012) and to explore its psychometric properties. Design Self-Efficacy Scale may be used for measuring preservice and inservice teachers’ design self-efficacy and for producing knowledge which may be useful for explaining teachers’ design expertise. Participants were 510 preservice teachers enrolled in a public university in Turkey (N=510). Out of 510 preservice teachers, 269 (52.75%) participated in the first study for the exploratory factor analysis and 241 (47.25%) participated in the second study for the confirmatory factor analysis. Of all the participants, 377 (73.9%) were female and 133 (26.1%) were male. Design Self-Efficacy Scale which is an 8-item Likert-type English questionnaire was translated into Turkish by the researcher. A total of eight researchers who were expert in English language education, educational measurement and evaluation, Turkish education, elementary education, and educational technology fields participated in the back-translation and expert review processes. The experts were employed in the faculty of education of the university that the study took place. Exploratory factor analysis resulted with a single-factor model similar with the original scale. Cronbach’s α coefficients was 0.877. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a statistically significant model fit to the data. Results validated the factor structure of the adapted scale: χ2/df=2.401, RMSEA=0.074, GFI=0.963, AGFI=0.922, RMR=0.023, SRMR=0.03, NFI=0.96, NNFI=0.976, CFI=0.976. All fit indices except RMSEA and AGFI were calculated to be in the best evaluation range. The present study suggested that Turkish adaptation of the Design Self-Efficacy Scale possesses adequate psychometric properties. Findings revealed that design self-efficacy did not correlate with the age of the participants and did not differ according to sex, department, or grade level of the participants.

Tasarım Özyeterliliği Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Tasarım Özyeterliliği Ölçeğini (Beeftink, van Eerde, Rutte, & Bertrand, 2012) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Tasarım Özyeterliliği Ölçeği, öğretmen adaylarının ve öğretmenlerin tasarım özyeterliliklerini ölçmek ve öğretmenlerin tasarım uzmanlığını açıklamak için yararlı olabilecek bilginin üretilmesinde kullanılabilecek bir ölçektir. Çalışmaya Türkiyedeki bir kamu üniversitesinde okumakta olan 510 öğretmen adayı katılmıştır (N=510). Katılımcıların 269’u (%52,75) açımlayıcı etken çözümlemesi için ilk çalışmaya, 241’i ise (%47,25) doğrulayıcı etken çözümlemesi için ikinci çalışmaya katılmıştır. Katılımcıların 377’si (%73,9) kadın 133’ü (%36,1) erkektir. Likert tipinde 8 maddelik İngilizce bir ölçek olan Tasarım Özyeterliliği Ölçeği araştırmacı tarafından Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Çeviri ve uzman incelemesi süreçlerine; araştırmanın gerçekleştirildiği üniversitenin eğitim fakültesinde çalışmakta olup İngilizce dil eğitimi, eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme, Türkçe eğitimi, ilköğretim ve eğitim teknolojisi alanlarında uzman toplam sekiz araştırmacı katılmıştır. Açımlayıcı etken çözümlemesi, özgün ölçekle benzer bir biçimde tek etkenli bir model ile sonuçlanmıştır. Cronbach’s α iç tutarlılık katsayısı 0,877 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı etken çözümlemesi modelin verilere uygunluğunun istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuçlar uyarlanmış ölçeğin etken yapısını doğrulamıştır: χ2 /df=2,401, RMSEA=0,074, GFI=0,963, AGFI=0,922, RMR=0,023, SRMR=0,03, NFI=0,96, NNFI=0,976, CFI=0,976. RMSEA ve AGFI dışındaki tüm uygunluk endekslerinin en iyi değerlendirme aralığında olduğu hesaplanmıştır. Bu çalışma, Tasarım Özyeterliliği Ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlamasının yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Bulgular, tasarım öz yeterliliğinin katılımcıların yaşı ile ilişkili olmadığı gibi katılımcıların cinsiyet, bölüm veya sınıf düzeyine göre farklılık göstermediğini ortaya koymuştur.

PDF

___

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670

Akbaba, B., & Erbaş, S. (2019). Self-efficacy scale for designing and using information technology supported materials: Validity and reliability studies. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 17(1), 174-194.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1995a). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prenctice Hall.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995b). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692

Beeftink, F., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Bertrand, J. W. M. (2012). Being successful in a creative profession: The role of innovative cognitive style, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9214-9

Bennett, S. Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2005). Reusable learning designs in university education. In T. C. Montgomerie & J. R. Parker (Eds.), Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Education and Technology (pp.102-106). Anaheim:ACTA.

Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2008). Understanding university teachers’ approaches to design. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED- MEDIA 2008-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 3631-3637). Vienna: AACE. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28888/

Bennett, S., Thomas, L., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2011). Understanding the design context for Australian university teachers: Implications for the future of learning design. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.553622

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238- 246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588−606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.88.3.588

Blândul, V. C. (2015). Inovation in education–fundamental request of knowledge society. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 484-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.148

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x

Brown, T. J., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). The impact of design and innovation on the future of education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 147-151. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000010

Cho, Y., & Shim, S. S. (2013). Predicting teachers’ achievement goals for teaching: The role of perceived school goal structure and teachers’ sense of efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 12-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.003

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-642-77750-9_2

Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168- 9830.2010.tb01043.x

Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., & Spilka, G. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Edison, S. W., & Geissler, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104

Eraut, M. (1975). Promoting innovation in teaching and learning: Problems, processes and institutional mechanisms. Higher Education, 4(1), 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01569099

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). London: Sage.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self‐efficacy and post‐training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837-861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00701.x

Goodman, S. B., & Cirka, C. C. (2009). Efficacy and anxiety: An examination of writing attitudes in a first-year seminar. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 20(3), 5-28. Retrieved from http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/issue.php?v=20&n=3

Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27-50.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Hatlevik, O. E. (2017). Examining the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy, their digital competence, strategies to evaluate information, and use of ICT at school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 555-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172501

Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007

Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077

Im, T., & Kang, M. (2019). Structural relationships of factors which impact on learner achievement in online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i1.4012

International Society for Technology in Education. (2014). ISTE Standards Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf

Jobst, B., Köppen, E., Lindberg, T., Moritz, J., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2012). The faith-factor in design thinking: Creative confidence through education at the design thinking schools Potsdam and Stanford? In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research, Understanding innovation (pp. 35–46). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642- 31991-4_3

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood: SSI.

Kanadlı, S. (2017). Prospective teachers' professional self-efficacy beliefs in terms of their perceived autonomy support and attitudes towards the teaching profession: A mixed methods study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(5), 1847-1871. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.5.0597

Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by design™: Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338-350. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.9.338

Lauermann, F., & König, J. (2016). Teachers’ professional competence and wellbeing: Understanding the links between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 45, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.006

Le Fevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers' perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007

Lee, Y. J. (2011). A study on the effect of teaching innovation on learning effectiveness with learning satisfaction as a mediator. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 9(2), 92-101.

Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 2, 63- 74. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20142.63.74

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Roche, L., Craven, R., Balla, J., & McInerney, V. (1994). Problems in the application of structural equation modeling: Comment on Randhawa, Beamer, and Lundberg (1993). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 457-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.86.3.457

Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.

Miller, A. D., Ramirez, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2017). The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy on perceptions: Perceived teacher competence and respect and student effort and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.008

Miller, L. C., Russell, C. L., Cheng, A. L., & Skarbek, A. J. (2015). Evaluating undergraduate nursing students' self-efficacy and competence in writing: Effects of a writing intensive intervention. Nurse Education in Practice, 15(3), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2014.12.002

Mugaloglu, E., & Sarıbas, D. (2010). Pre-service science teachers’ competence to design an inquiry based lab lesson. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4255-4259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.674

Owen, C. L. (2006). Design thinking: Driving innovation. The Business Process Management Institute, 1-5.

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. (2002). Development of academic self-efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp.16-31). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883- 0355(99)00015-4

Puente, S. M. G., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x

Rahmi, S., Nadia, R., Hasibah, B., & Hidayat, W. (2017). The Relation between Self-Efficacy toward Math with the Math Communication Competence. Infinity Journal, 6(2), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v6i2.p177-182

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429

Rump, C. Ø., Nielsen, J. A., Andersson, P. H., & Christiansen, F. V. (2013). A framework for teaching educators to teach innovation. Paper presented at SEFI2013 Annual Conference, Leuven, Belgium.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.

Schunk, D. H. (1985). Self‐efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools, 22(2), 208-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:23.0.CO;2-7

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4

Tavşancıl, E. 2002. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429

van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2015). The contribution of assessment experiences to student teachers' self-efficacy in competence-based education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.013

Wright, N., & Wrigley, C. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86, 981-1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

Turkish Studies - Information Technologies and Applied Sciences-Cover

ISSN: 2667-5633
Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
Başlangıç: 2006
Yayıncı: ASOS Eğitim Bilişim Danışmanlık Otomasyon Yayıncılık Reklam Sanayi ve Ticaret LTD ŞTİ