SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 64 Sayı: 64

Teachers' Use of Rewards: A Scale Development and Validity-Reliability Study

Öğretmenlerin Ödül Kullanımı: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme ve Geçerlik–Güvenirlik Çalışması

Ayşe Yılmaz(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5513-4936
Ali Özdemir(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-6089-1966
Pages
209–232
Publication Date
2026-06-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted; the results indicated that the data were appropriate for factor analysis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable Likert-type scale to measure teachers’ approaches to the use of rewards in education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed a four-factor structure consisting of 14 items, explaining 67.59% of the total variance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted; the results indicated that the data were appropriate for factor analysis.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ödül · ölçek geliştirme · öğretmen

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable Likert-type scale to measure teachers’ approaches to the use of rewards in education. The research data were collected on a voluntary basis from preschool and primary school teachers working in schools affiliated with the Ministry of National Education. To assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted; the results indicated that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) revealed a four-factor structure consisting of 14 items, explaining 67.59% of the total variance. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results demonstrated a good model fit (χ²/df = 1.569; AGFI = .918; GFI = .944; CFI = .976; NFI = .936; IFI = .976; TLI = .969; RMSEA = .047; RMR = .046; SRMR = .050). Reliability analyses showed that the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the subscales were .86 for Affective Gain, .86 for Achievement and Participation, .74 for Classroom Order, .61 for Competition, and .85 for the overall scale. Additionally, the 27% upper–lower group comparisons (independent samples t-test) indicated that all items and factors were discriminative (p < .001). In conclusion, it was determined that the developed scale is a useful, valid, and reliable tool for measuring teachers' approaches to using rewards in a multidimensional way.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmenlerin eğitimde ödül kullanımına dair yaklaşımlarını ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir Likert tipi bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Araştırma verileri, Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı’na bağlı okullarda görev yapan okul öncesi ve ilkokul öğretmenlerinden gönüllülük esasına göre toplanmıştır. Verilerin faktör analizine uygunluğunu test etmek amacıyla Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) ve Bartlett Küresellik Testi uygulanmış; sonuçlar, verilerin faktör analizine uygun olduğunu göstermiştir. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) sonucunda toplam varyansın %67.59’unu açıklayan, 14 maddelik ve dört faktörlü bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) sonuçları, modelin iyi düzeyde uyum gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur (χ²/df = 1.569; AGFI = .918; GFI = .944; CFI = .976; NFI = .936; IFI = .976; TLI = .969; RMSEA = .047; RMR = .046; SRMR = .050). Güvenirlik analizlerine göre, ölçeğin alt boyutlarına ilişkin Cronbach’s Alpha katsayıları sırasıyla Duyuşsal Kazanım = .86, Başarma ve Katılım = .86, Sınıf Düzeni = .74, Rekabet = .61 ve genel ölçek için .85 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ayrıca %27’lik alt–üst grup karşılaştırmaları (bağımsız örneklem t-testi) sonucunda, tüm maddelerin ve faktörlerin ayırt edici olduğu (p < .001) saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, geliştirilen ölçeğin öğretmenlerin ödül kullanım yaklaşımlarını çok boyutlu olarak ölçmede kullanışlı, geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu saptanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yılmaz, A., Özdemir, A. (2026). Teachers' Use of Rewards: A Scale Development and Validity-Reliability Study. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 64 Sayı: 64, 209–232. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.1844306

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Allen, D. (2006). An investigation of secondary educators’ knowledge and use of classroom discipline management models [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Texas Woman's University.
  2. Andersen, I. G. (2018). Pygmalion in instruction? Tracking, teacher reward structures, and educational inequality. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1021-1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9452-z
  3. Andreánska, V. (2015). The structure of rewards and punishments in the work of teachers in Slovakia and the UK. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2566-2570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.933
  4. Arslan, H. (2007). İlköğretim okullarında istenmeyen davranışların düzeltilmesinde ödül ve cezanın öğrenci davranışları üzerindeki etkisi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi.
  5. Aypay, A. (2018). Ortaokulda ödül bağımlılığı-ceza hassasiyeti ve ödül bağımlılığı-okul tükenmişliği arasındaki yordayıcı ilişkiler. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 43(194), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.6909
  6. Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613491712
  7. Bacon, D. R., Sauer, P. L., & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural equations modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 394-406.
  8. Bayırlı, H., Doruk, O., & Tüfekci, A. (2020). Teachers’ views on values education. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(3), 865-894. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.8c.3s.5m
  9. Bear, G. G., Chen, D., Mantz, L. S., Yang, C., Huang, X., & Shiomi, K. (2016). Differences in classroom removals and use of praise and rewards in American, Chinese, and Japanese schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.003
  10. Bloom, B. S. (2016). İnsan nitelikleri ve okulda öğrenme (D. A. Özçelik, Çev.). Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal eserin basım tarihi 1976).
  11. Bolat, Ö. (2023). Developing a scale to measure teacher reward and praise behaviors for classroom management. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 285–299.
  12. Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1993.tb01070.x
  13. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
  15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E. K. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  16. Can, A. (2022). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (10. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
  17. Cao, X., Somerville, M. P., Shou, Y., Xue, Z., & Allen, J. L. (2024). Callous-unemotional traits and child response to teacher rewards, discipline, and instructional methods in Chinese preschools: A classroom observation study. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 52(3), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-023-01137-x
  18. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  19. Ching, G. S. (2012). Looking into the issues of rewards and punishment in students. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 1(2), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsp.2012.v1i2.44
  20. Choy, S. P. (1993). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1990-91: SASS. United States Government Printing.
  21. Corr, P. J. (2002). JA Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory and frustrative nonreward: A theoretical note on expectancies in reactions to rewarding stimuli. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1247-1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00115-5
  22. Costică, S. E. (2014). About rules, punishments and rewards in education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 1160-1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1280
  23. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4. bs.). Sage Publications.
  24. Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1988). Factors affecting achievement test scores and marks of black and white first graders. The Elementary School Journal, 88(5), 449-471. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/461550
  25. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2. bs.). Sage.
  26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8. bs.). Cengage Learning.
  27. Han, B., & Altunhan, M. (2022). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin ödül ve ceza uygulamalarına yönelik görüşleri. Erken Çocukluk Çalışmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 480–505. https://doi.org/10.24130/eccdjecs.1967202262309
  28. Hoffmann, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary teachers' use and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 843-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.004
  29. Hwang, S., Waller, R., Hawes, D. J., & Allen, J. L. (2020). Callous-unemotional traits and antisocial behavior in South Korean children: Links with academic motivation, school engagement, and teachers’ use of reward and discipline. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48, 1183-1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00663-2
  30. Jolliffe, I. T., & Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2065), 20150202. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0202
  31. Kalsoom, T., Akhter, M., Mujahid, A. H., Saeed, A., & Kausar, M. (2017). Teachers’ perception regarding the effect of reward system on teachers’ performance at elementary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39(2), 107–118.
  32. Karaman, H., Atar, B., & Aktan, D. Ç. (2017). Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde kullanılan faktör çıkartma yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(3), 1173-1193. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.309356
  33. Kartal, M., & Bardakcı, S. (2019). Tutum ölçekleri. Akademisyen Kitabevi.
  34. Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(2), 120–138.
  35. Kelly, S. (2008). What types of students' effort are rewarded with high marks? Sociology of Education, 81(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070808100102
  36. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
  37. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
  38. Lomos, C., Seineke, U., Kesting, F., & Luyten, J. W. (2023). The design of incentive systems in digital game-based learning: How primary school children interact with it. Education Sciences, 13(7), 668. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070668
  39. McDonald, R. P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Psychology Press.
  40. McLennan, J. D., Sampasa-Kanyinga, H., Georgiades, K., & Duku, E. (2020). Variation in teachers’ reported use of classroom management and behavioral health strategies by grade level. School Mental Health, 12(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09339-0
  41. McLeod, S. (2023). Operant conditioning: What it is, how it works, and examples. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
  42. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2. bs.). McGraw-Hill.
  43. Özdemir, A., & Yılmaz, A. (2019). Eğitimde kullanılan ödül ceza uygulamalarının, öğretmen görüşlerine göre öğrencilerin duyuşsal alanları açısından değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 14(3), 773-799. https://doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.22754
  44. Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion. John Wiley & Sons.
  45. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
  46. Rekabdarkolaei, S. M. (2011). Studying effective factors of classroom control and management in primary schools. New Educational Review, 23(1), 325-400.
  47. Reupert, A., Sullivan, A., Tippett, N., White, S., Woodcock, S., Chen, L., & Simons, M. (2023). An exploration of the experiences of substitute teachers: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 93(6), 901–941. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231174230
  48. Savage, T. V. (1999). Teaching self-control through management and discipline. Allyn & Bacon. Smith, E. E., Hoeksema, N. S., Fredrickson, B., & Loftus, R. G. (2015). Psikolojiye giriş (Ö. Öncül & D. Ferhatoğlu, Çev.; 3. bs.). Arkadaş Yayınevi.
  49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7. bs.). Pearson.
  50. Veneziano, L., & Hooper, J. (1997). A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21(1), 67-70. https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=8254f3c9-3a49-4e44-b430-1643adfc84ae
  51. Wadsworth, B. J. (2015). Piaget’nin duyuşsal ve bilişsel gelişim kuramı (Z. Selçuk, Çev.). Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal eserin basım tarihi 1975).
  52. Waller, R., & Wagner, N. (2019). The Sensitivity to Threat and Affiliative Reward (STAR) model and the development of callous-unemotional traits. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 107, 656-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.10.005
  53. Wu, S. C., & Elliott, R. T. (2008). A study of reward preference in Taiwanese gifted and nongifted students with differential locus of control. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(2), 230-244. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-848
  54. Yılmaz, N. (2007). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi disiplini sağlamada kullandıkları ödül ve ceza yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi (İstanbul ili Pendik ilçesi örneği) [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Yeditepe Üniversitesi.
  55. Yurdugül, H. (2006). Paralel, eşdeğer ve konjenerik ölçmelerde güvenirlik katsayılarının karşılaştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(1), 15-37.