FEN BİLİMLERİ ÖĞRETMEN ve ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARINA YÖNELİK PERFORMANS DEĞERLENDİRME RUBRİĞİ GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

DEVELOPING A PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES OF SCIENCE TEACHERS AND TEACHER CANDIDATES

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable performance assessment rubric for science teachers and teacher candidates in accordance with national and international standards. Employing a descriptive research design, the rubric was constructed through document analysis, expert reviews, and iterative pilot testing. The item pool was derived from national teaching competencies and internationally recognized rubrics. Content validity was established via expert evaluation using the Lawshe method; construct validity was assessed through correlation and KMO analyses. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, Cohen’s Kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The final rubric consists of 14 items, each demonstrating strong internal consistency (α = .968) and high inter-rater reliability (ICC = .92–.96). Items lacking observable classroom performance were excluded based on pilot findings. The developed rubric provides a comprehensive, objective, and psychometrically sound tool for evaluating multifaceted teaching competencies in science education. This instrument addresses the need for standardized performance assessment in teacher education and professional development processes.

Keywords: Performans assesment, rubric, science education, validity, reliability.

Öz

Bu çalışma, fen bilimleri öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterliklerinin ulusal ve uluslararası standartlara uygun biçimde değerlendirilebilmesi amacıyla geçerli ve güvenilir bir performans değerlendirme rubriği geliştirmeyi hedeflemiştir. Tarama yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışmada, rubrik; doküman analizi, uzman görüşleri ve ardışık pilot uygulamalar yoluyla oluşturulmuştur. Madde havuzu, ulusal öğretmenlik yeterlikleri ile uluslararası rubrik örneklerinden türetilmiştir. Kapsam geçerliği, Lawshe yöntemiyle uzman değerlendirmesi alınarak sağlanmış; yapı geçerliği ise korelasyon ve KMO analizleriyle test edilmiştir. Güvenirlik Cronbach Alfa, Cohen Kappa ve sınıf içi korelasyon katsayıları ile değerlendirilmiştir. Nihai rubrik, yüksek iç tutarlılık (α = .968) ve puanlayıcılar arası yüksek uyum (ICC = .92–.96) sergileyen 14 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Pilot uygulama bulgularına göre sınıf ortamında gözlemlenemeyen maddeler elenmiştir. Geliştirilen rubrik, fen eğitiminde öğretmen yeterliklerinin çok boyutlu, nesnel ve psikometrik açıdan güçlü biçimde değerlendirilmesine olanak sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Performans değerlendirme, rubrik, fen eğitimi, geçerlik, güvenirlik.

KAYNAKÇA

Aktaş, M., & Özmen, H. (2022). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarına yönelik rubrik geliştirme: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 456-473.

Alias, N., & Osman, R. (2015). Learning outcomes and reliability of rubric scoring for online discussion: Peer-and self-assessment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 309–316.

Amelia, R., Santiana, S., Permana, I., & Syawaludin, A. (2024). The development of a rubric-based assessment instrument for science teacher performance. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(1), 102–118.

Antony, J. S., & Paidi, S. (2019). Development and validation of a performance assessment rubric for science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 41(5), 605–627.

Aumann, M., Schnebel, S., & Weitzel, T. (2023). Development and validation of the EnTPACK rubric: Assessing technological pedagogical content knowledge of science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104044.

Bartels, J., Schmiedebach, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2019). Development and validation of a performance-based rubric for assessing science teachers' skills in Germany and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 927-947.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.

Chasteen, S. V., & Scherr, R. E. (2020). Teacher performance assessment using video observation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 020123.

Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1–44.

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

Disher, C. (2018). The development and validation of a performance evaluation instrument for speech-language pathologists. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Edwards, A. (2017). Assessing teacher performance: A practical guide. Educational Assessment, 22(1), 15–32.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023

Huda, N., Sari, D. P., & Yuliana, M. (2020). Developing a rubric for laboratory practice: Validity and reliability studies. Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 233–245.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.

Marzano, R. J. (2012). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. ASCD.

MEB (2008). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmeni Özel Alan Yeterlikleri, 25 Temmuz 2008 tarih ve 2391 sayılı onayı, http://otmg.meb.gov.tr/alanfen.html.

MEB (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Ankara: Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.

MEB. (2023). Öğretmenlik meslek kanunu tasarısı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Ankara.

NBPTS. (2022). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: Science standards.

Ofsted. (2019). Education inspection framework. Office for Standards in Education, United Kingdom.

PACT. (2018). Performance Assessment for California Teachers. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity.

Permana, I., & Widodo, A. (2022). Content validity and reliability of a science teacher performance rubric in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 482–491.

Petrie, K. (2023). 21st century skills in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55(1), 100–120.

Santiani, S., Amelia, R., Permana, I., & Syawaludin, A. (2023). Development of an interdisciplinary thinking skills rubric (IITSSL). International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 243–260.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning (2nd ed.). Stylus.

Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(4), 1–19.

Syawaludin, A., Santiani, S., Amelia, R., & Permana, I. (2024). Science teacher performance rubric development: Psychometric evaluation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 35(2), 130–147.

Yeşildağ-Hasancebi, F., Demirci, C., & Yılmaz, M. (2022). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları için performans değerlendirme rubriği: Geliştirilmesi, geçerliği ve güvenirliği. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 19(4), 879–896.

Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçme aracı geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indeksi kullanımı. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 1(1), 25–28.

YÖK. (2021). Araştırma ve yayın etiği yönergesi. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Hakkinda/yayin-etik.aspx