Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

Curriculum Competence in Higher Education: A Scale Development Research

Yükseköğretimde Program Yetkinliği: Bir Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Adnan Küçükoğlu(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8522-258X
Pages
462–484
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️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)

It was concluded that a one-dimensional structure emerged due to the fact that the first and second eigenvalue ratio was greater than three (18.820/6.273).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While the quality goals in higher education are coming to the fore day by day, it has been determined that the Curriculum Competence Scale, which was developed in the five-point likert type in order to examine the curriculum competence levels of the lecturers which is considered to be of critical importance in designing innovative curriculum(s) with high efficiency both nationally and internationally, consists of 105 items and a single dimension.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data obtained from the research group were randomly divided into two subgroups, and EFA was performed on the first group (336 people) and CFA was performed on the other group (336 people).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that a one-dimensional structure emerged due to the fact that the first and second eigenvalue ratio was greater than three (18.820/6.273).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yükseköğretim · Öğretim elemanı · Program yetkinliği

Abstract

While the quality goals in higher education are coming to the fore day by day, it has been determined that the Curriculum Competence Scale, which was developed in the five-point likert type in order to examine the curriculum competence levels of the lecturers which is considered to be of critical importance in designing innovative curriculum(s) with high efficiency both nationally and internationally, consists of 105 items and a single dimension. Within the scope of this research, while determining the research group, the purposive sampling method, which allows an in-depth research to be carried out by selecting information-rich situations, was used and data were collected from a research group consisting of lecturers. The data obtained from the research group were randomly divided into two subgroups, and EFA was performed on the first group (336 people) and CFA was performed on the other group (336 people). In addition, considering the similar studies in the relevant literature, the “Ranking-Scale Model-Based Rasch Analysis” under the umbrella of Item Response Theory was performed on the research group that Classical Test Theory was carried out. As a result of the data analysis, when the AFA findings were examined, it was seen that a 26-factor structure with an eigenvalue greater than one emerged. On the other hand, although there are studies suggesting that there are various dimensions related to curriculum competence in the relevant literature, considering that a complete distinction cannot be made between the dimensions due to the intertwining of these dimensions, the ratio of the first and second selfvalue to each other has also been examined within the scope of this research. It was concluded that a one-dimensional structure emerged due to the fact that the first and second eigenvalue ratio was greater than three (18.820/6.273). It was found that this one-factor structure explained 46.475% of the total variance. In addition, considering that one-dimensionality is divided into two as essential and strict, it is thought that the scale structure is suitable for essential one-dimensionality due to the presence of secondary minor dimensions/factors with eigenvalues greater than one on this scale. In other words, it has been concluded that it would be appropriate to use the scale as a single factor/dimensional due to the problems experienced in the interpretation and naming of these factors. However, in order to test the single-factor structure of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis was performed and as a result of the data analysis, it was determined that the fit indices (GFI=.86, AGFI=.87, CFI=.96 and RMSEA=.07) were within the acceptable range. In addition, when the results obtained from the Rasch analysis were examined, it was determined that the in-fit and out-fit statistics (between 0.54 and 1.39) were in the range of 0.5 and 1.5, which is accepted as the acceptable limit for these statistics, and it was understood that model-data fit was achieved. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the research data confirm the one-dimensional structure in the scale development process. On the other hand, the reliability level of the scale developed within the scope of this study was calculated using the Cronbach alpha reliability method. Also the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was determined as a=0.962. If this value is higher than 0.80, it indicates that there is a high level of internal consistency among the items. As a result, it was determined that the validity and reliability values of the Curriculum Competence Scale were high, and the findings revealed that this scale, which is the first measurement tool to determine the curriculum competence levels of the lecturers, is a valid and reliable tool for determining the curriculum competence levels of the lecturers.

Özet

Yükseköğretimde kalite hedefleri her geçen gün biraz daha ön plana çıkarken gerek ulusal gerekse de uluslararası ölçekte etkinliği yüksek, yenilikçi program(lar)ın tasarlanabilmesi noktasında kritik bir öneme sahip olduğu düşünülen öğretim elemanlarının programa ilişkin (öğretim, araştırma vb.) yetkinlik düzeylerinin incelenebilmesi amacıyla beşli likert türünde derecelendirilen Program Yetkinliği Ölçeği’nin 105 madde ve tek boyuttan oluştuğu saptanmıştır. Bu araştırma kapsamında araştırma grubu belirlenirken, bilgi açısından zengin durumların seçilerek derinlemesine bir araştırmanın yapılmasına olanak sağlayan amaçsal örnekleme yöntemine başvurulmuş olup öğretim elemanlarından oluşan bir araştırma grubundan veri toplanmıştır. Araştırma grubundan elde edilen veriler rastgele iki alt gruba bölünmüş olup ilk grup üzerinde (336 kişi) AFA ve diğer grup üzerinde (336 kişi) ise DFA gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra ilgili alan yazında yer alan benzer araştırmalar göz önünde bulundurularak Klasik Test Kuramı’na dayalı analizlerin gerçekleştirildiği araştırma grubu üzerinden Madde Tepki Kuramı çatısı altında yer alan “Sıralama Ölçekli Modele Dayalı Rasch Analizi” gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri analizi sonucunda AFA bulguları incelendiğinde, öz değeri birden büyük olan 26 faktörlü bir yapının ortaya çıktığı gözlenmiştir. Öte yandan ilgili alanyazında program yetkinliğine ilişkin çeşitli boyutların olduğunu öne süren araştırmalar bulunsa da bu boyutların iç içe geçmesi nedeniyle boyutlar arasında tam bir ayrımın yapılamadığı göz önünde bulundurularak bu araştırma kapsamında birinci ve ikinci öz değer oranı da incelenmiştir. Nitekim birinci ve ikinci öz değer oranının üçten büyük olması (18.820/6.273) nedeniyle tek boyutlu bir yapının ortaya çıktığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Tek faktörlü bu yapının toplam varyansın %46.475’ini açıkladığı bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca tek boyutluluğun temel ve katı olmak üzere ikiye ayrıldığı göz önünde bulundurularak bu ölçekte öz değeri birden büyük olan ikincil minör boyutların/faktörlerin bulunması nedeniyle ölçek yapısının temel tek boyutluluğa uygun olduğu düşünülmüştür. Başka bir ifadeyle, söz konusu faktörlerin yorumlanması ve adlandırılması noktasında yaşanan problemler nedeniyle ölçeğin tek faktörlü/boyutlu olarak kullanılmasının uygun olacağı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bununla birlikte ölçeğin tek faktörlü yapısını test etmek amacıyla doğrulayıcı faktör analizi gerçekleştirilmiş olup veri analizi sonucunda uyum indekslerinin (GFI=.86, AGFI=.87, CFI=.96 ve RMSEA=.07) kabul edilebilir aralıkta olduğu saptanmıştır. Ayrıca Rasch analizinden elde edilen sonuçlar incelendiğinde, (0.54 ile 1.39 değerleri arasında yer alan) uyum-içi ve (0.51 ile 1.38 değerleri arasında yer alan) uyum-dışı istatistiklerinin bu istatistiklere ilişkin kabul edilebilir sınır olarak kabul edilen 0.5 ile 1.5 aralığında yer aldığı saptanmış olup model-veri uyumunun sağlandığı gözlenmiştir. Bu bulgulara dayanarak araştırma verilerinin ölçek geliştirme sürecinde esas alınan tek boyutlu yapıyı doğruladığı şeklinde bir sonuca varılabilmektedir. Öte yandan bu araştırma kapsamında geliştirilen ölçeğin güvenirlik düzeyi, Cronbach alfa güvenirlik yöntemi kullanılarak hesaplanmış olup Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı a=0.962 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Bu değerin 0.80’den yüksek olması ise ölçeği oluşturan maddeler arasında yüksek düzeyde iç tutarlılık olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Sonuç olarak Program Yetkinliği Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik değerlerinin yüksek düzeyde olduğu saptanmış olup elde edilen bulgular, öğretim elemanlarının program yetkinliği düzeylerini belirlemeye yönelik ilk ölçme aracı olma özelliği taşıyan bu ölçeğin öğretim elemanlarının program yetkinliği düzeylerini belirleme noktasında geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılıç, A. D., Küçükoğlu, A. (2024). Curriculum Competence in Higher Education: A Scale Development Research. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 462–484. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1478671

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (94)

  1. Adam, F. (2009). Curriculum reform in higher education: A humanities case study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of the Witwatersrand.
  2. Alan, B. & Güven, M. (2022). Uluslararası bir kavram karmaşası: Yeterlik, yeterlilik ve yetkinlik kavramları üzerine bir doküman incelemesi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 12(1), 271-293. https://doi.org/10.18039/ajesi.1004416
  3. Alheet, A. F., Adwan, A. Al, Areiqat, A. Y., Zamil, A. M. A. & Saleh, M. A. (2021). The effect of leadership styles on employees’ innovative work behavior. Management Science Letters, 11, 239–246. https:// doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.010
  4. Andrich, D. (1978). Application of a psychometric rating model to ordered categories which are scored with successive integers. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(4), 581-594. https://doi. org/10.1177/014662167800200413
  5. Annala, J., Lindén, J. & Mäkinen, M. (2016). Curriculum in higher education research. In J. Case & J. Huisman (Eds.), Researching higher education: International perspectives on theory, policy and practice (pp. 171-189). Routledge.
  6. Ariav, T. (1988, 5-9 April). Growthin teachers’ curiculum knowledge through the proces of curiculum analysis [Paper presentation]. Anual Meeting of the American Educational Research Asociation, New Orleans.
  7. Arslan, S. & Özpınar, İ. (2008). Öğ retmen nitelikleri: ilköğ retim programlarının beklentileri ve eğitim fakültelerinin kazandırdıkları. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(1), 38-63. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/balikesirnef/ issue/3366/46484
  8. Atomatofa, R. O., Andrew, A. E., & Ewesor, S. E. (2013). A survey of science teachers’ awareness of new basic education curriculum in Nigeria. International J. Social Science. & Education, 4(2), 339- 345. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303339338_A_ Survey_of_Science_Teachers%27_Awareness_of_New_Basic_ Education_Curriculum_in_Nigeria
  9. Awopeju, O. A. & Afolabi, E. R. I. (2016). Comparative analysis of classical test theory and item response theory based item parameter estimates of senior school certificate mathematics examination. European Scientific Journal, 12(28), 263-284. http:// dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n28p263
  10. 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/10.1177/0748175613513808
  11. Baryanto, B. (2023). Lecturers’ professionalism development strategies: Portrayals in the field of research. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 10(4), 10-23. https://ijmmu.com/index.php/ijmmu/article/view/4451/3900
  12. Baykul, Y. (1979). Örtük özellikler ve klasik test kuramları üzerine bir karşılaştırma [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  13. Beavers, A., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J. & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18(6), 1-13. https://doi. org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
  14. Behar, L. S. & George, P. S. (1996). Our evolving curriculum. Routledge.
  15. Bhandari, P. & Nikolopoulou, K. (2023). What is a likert scale? Guide & examples. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/likertscale/#:~: text=A%20Likert%20scale%20is%20a,about%20the%20 statement%20or%20question.
  16. Bitzer, E. (Ed.). (2009). Higher education in South Africa: A scholarly look behind the scenes (Vol. 1). African Sun Media.
  17. Blaskova, M., Blasko, R., Matuska, E. & Rosak-Szyrocka, J. (2015). Development of key competences of university teachers and managers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.755
  18. Bolat, Y. (2017). Eğitim programı okuryazarlığı kavramı ve eğitim programı okuryazarlığı ölçeği. International Periodica for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12(18), 121-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.12103
  19. Brink, S., Carlsson, C. J., Enelund, M., Georgsson, F., Keller, E., Lyng, R. & McCartan, C. (2021, October 13-16). Curriculum agility: Responsive organization, dynamic content and flexible education [Paper presentation]. 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Lincoln.
  20. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  21. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi.
  22. Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioural and life sciences. Plenum.
  23. Collins, L., Maye, P., Rogers, K. & Coyne, F. (2013, October). The lecturer-as-learner: A critical analysis of a team-teaching pilot programme [Paper presentation]. 6th Annual Learning Innovation Network Conference – Sustainable Models of Student Engagement – Rhetoric or Achievable?, Dublin, Ireland.
  24. Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
  25. Coulson, J. C. (2008). Exercising at work and self–reported work performance. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 1(3), 176-197. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538350810926534
  26. Çelen, Ü. (2008). Klasik test kuramı ve madde tepki kuramı yöntemleriyle geliştirilen iki testin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğinin karşılaştırılması, İlköğretim Online, 7(3), 758-768. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ilkonline/issue/8600/107095
  27. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K. & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107. https:// keg.aku.edu.tr/arsiv/c4s1/c4s1m6.pdf
  28. de Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford Press.
  29. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory. Oxford University Press.
  30. Demir, B., Yücesoy, Y. & Serttaş, Z. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının program okuryazarlık seviyeleri: KKTC örneği. Uluslararası Türk Kültür Coğrafyasında Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(1), 28-37. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/turksosbilder/issue/58519/825663
  31. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
  32. Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M., Melotti, G. & Berti, C. (2022). Lecturer competence from the perspective of undergraduate psychology students: A qualitative pilot study. Education Sciences, 12(2), 139- 152. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020139
  33. Doğan, N., Soysal, S. & Karaman, H. (2017). Aynı örnekleme açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanabilir mi? Ö. Demirel & S.
  34. Dinçer (Eds.), Küreselleşen dünyada eğitim içinde (ss. 373-400). Pegem Akademi.
  35. Efendi, S. (2021). Lecturer’s pedagogic competence in developing student learning at the national university. Jurnal Mantik, 5(2), 701-706. www.iocscience.org/ejournal/index.php/mantik/index
  36. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications.
  37. Gagne, M. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2(6), 331-362. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.322
  38. Gardner, D. C. (2002). Student learning outcomes assessment and faculty work in higher education: A comparatıve study of assessment implementation in a research extensive setting [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin- Madison.
  39. Gorsuch, R. L. (2014). Factor analysis: Classic edition. Routledge.
  40. Gözen-Çıtak, G. (2007). Klasik test ve madde-tepki kuramlarına göre çoktan seçmeli testlerde farklı puanlama yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
  41. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  42. Güler, N., İlhan, M. & Teker, G. T. (2018). İkili karşılaştırmalarla ölçekleme yöntemi ile Rasch analizinden elde edilen ölçek değerlerinin karşılaştırılması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 31-48. http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/articlefile/ 433519
  43. Haiyang, S. (2010). An application of classical test theory and many facet Rasch measurement in analyzing the reliability of an English test for non-English major graduates. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(2), 87-102. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Haiyang-Sun-3/publication/266252020
  44. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H. & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory (Vol. 2). Sage Publications.
  45. Hay, A. & Hodgkinson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 144-158. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437730610646642
  46. Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). The best education in the world: Reality, repetition or cliché? International students’ reasons for choosing an English university. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 1005- 1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.562286
  47. Hoenig, J. M. & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24. https://doi. org/10.1198/000313001300339897
  48. Imenda, S. N. (2006). Knowledge production as a function of the individual institution’s idea of a university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20(2), 245-260. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ EJC37238
  49. Imron, A., Sonhadji, A., Dewi, V., Suriansyah, A. & Aslamiah, A. (2019, October 25-26). Lecturer development competency management in ımproving the quality of education and teaching [Paper presentation]. 4th International Conference on Education and Management, Indonesia.
  50. Kahramanoğlu, R. (2019). Öğretmenlerin öğretim programı okuryazarlığına yönelik yeterlik düzeyleri üzerine bir inceleme. Journal of International Social Research, 12(65), 827-840. http:// dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3495
  51. Kasapoğlu, K. (2020). Öğretmenlere yönelik algılanan eğitim programı okuryazarlığı ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme ve geçerleme çalışması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 963-977. https:// doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.709688
  52. Khambali, M., Rokhman, F., Yulianto, A. & Sudana, I. M. (2022). Influence of academic qualifications, lecturer competencies and curriculum on student learning achievement through teaching factory. Multicultural Education, 8(8), 19-24. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.6954101
  53. Kıncal, R. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (Beşinci baskı). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
  54. Kiany, G. R. & Jalali, S. (2009). Theoretical and practical comparison of Classical Test Theory and Item-Response Theory. IJAL, 12(1), 168- 197. https://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-62-en.pdf
  55. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
  56. Kobayashi, S., Dolin, J., Søborg, A. & Turner, J. (2017). Building academic staff teaching competencies: How pedagogic continuous professional development for academic staff can be organised and developed in research-intensive universities. In B. Stensaker, G. T. Bilbow, L. Breslow & R. van der Vaart (Eds.), Strengthening teaching and learning in research universities (pp. 103-128). Springer.
  57. Koçtürk, N. & Kızıldağ, S. (2018). Çocukluk dönemi cinsel istismarına ilişkin mitler ölçeği’nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30, 778-808. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.406626
  58. Laptevа, A. & Efimov, V. (2016). New generation of universities: University 4.0. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences, 11, 2681-2696. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997- 1370-2016-9-11-2681-2696.
  59. 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
  60. Lee, M., Peterson, J. J. & Dixon, A. (2010). Rasch calibration of physical activity self-efficacy and social support scale for persons with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.02.010
  61. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C. & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mansfield, B. (2004). Competence in transition. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4), 296-309. https://doi. org/10.1108/03090590410527672
  62. Maphosa, C., Mudzielwana, N. P. & Netshifhefhe, L. (2014). Curriculum development in south african higher education institutions: Key considerations. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(7), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p355
  63. Masrur, M. (2021). Digital leadership to improve the pedagogical competence of university english lecturers in Samarinda. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 12(4), 424-446. https:// www.learntechlib.org/p/220457/
  64. Menon, S., Suresh, M. & Raghu Raman, R. (2022). Curriculum agility in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(9), 1175-1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.2058355
  65. Mertler, C. A. & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd edition). Pyrczak Publishing.
  66. Morrison, K. M. & Embretson, S. (2018). Item generation. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, D. & J. Hughes (Eds.) The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (pp. 75-94). Wiley.
  67. Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS 8.0 guide to data analysis. Prentice-Hall.
  68. Ofojebe, W. N. & Chukwuma, E. T. C. (2015). Utilization of continuous professional development for academic staff effectiveness in the higher education sector in contemporary Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 6(4), 306-314. https://www.academia.edu/21641764/
  69. Osborne, J. W. (2014). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  70. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N. & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10488-013-0528-y
  71. Peña Miguel, N., Corral Lage, J. & Mata Galindez, A. (2020). Assessment of the development of professional skills in university students: Sustainability and serious games. Sustainability, 12(3), 1-18. https://doi. org/10.3390/su12031014
  72. Prasetio, A. P., Azis, E., Fadhilah, D. D. & Fauziah, A. F. (2017). Lecturers’ professional competency and students’ academic performance in indonesia higher education. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 7(1), 86-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs. v7i1.10902
  73. Revelle, W. & Garner, K. M. (2022). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In Harry T. Reis, TW and Judd, CM (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (36-44). Cambridge University Press.
  74. Ryu, M. (2015). Action research on elementary music class by preservice teachers based on curriculum literacy. International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology, 8(8), 65-76. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A254139
  75. Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C. & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: Factor stability using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–770. https:// doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
  76. Selvi, K. (2010). Teachers’ competencies. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, 7(1), 167-175. http://dx.doi. org/10.5840/cultura20107133
  77. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://people. ucsc.edu/~ktellez/shulman.pdf
  78. Sitepu, R., Eliyana, A. & Rosalina, M. (2020, March, 13-16). The readiness of educational competency in higher education in connecting the era of industrial revolution 4.0 [Paper presentation]. The 1st International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (ICSH 2019), West Sumatera, Indonesia.
  79. Slocum-Gori, S. & Zumbo, B. (2011). Assessing the unidimensionality of psychological scales: Using multiple criteria from factor analysis. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 102(3), 443-461. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9682-8
  80. Somer, O. (1998). Türkçe’de kişilik özelliği tanımlayan sıfatların yapısı ve Beş Faktör Modeli. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 13(42), 17-32. https:// dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/57153
  81. Subbaye, R. & Vithal, R. (2017). Teaching criteria that matter in university academic promotions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/026029 38.2015.1082533
  82. Sürgevil, O., Kılıç, B. & Tolay, E. (2019). Sosyal bilimler alanında çalışan akademisyenlerin yetkinliklerini belirlemeye yönelik bir araştırma. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 403-429. https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.606512
  83. Şahin, A. & Weiss, D. J. (2015). Effects of calibration sample size and item bank size on ability estimation in computerized adaptive testing. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(6), 1585- 1595. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.6.0102
  84. Şimşek, H. & Adıgüzel, T. (2012). Yükseköğretimde yeni bir üniversite paradigmasına doğru. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(166). 251-261. http:// eb.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/1541/455
  85. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edition). Pearson.
  86. Thijs, A. & van den Akker, J. (2009). Curriculum in development. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO).
  87. Van Oort, L., Schröder, C. & French, D. P. (2011). What do people think about when they answer the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire? A ‘think‐aloud’ study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X500819
  88. Wilson, F. R., Pan, W. & Schumsky, D. A. (2012). Recalculation of the critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 45(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175612440286
  89. Winoto, S. (2022). Improving curriculum and lecturers: Challenges to quality based-technology. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 13(2), 221-242. https://jsser.org/index.php/jsser/ article/view/4234
  90. Yar-Yıldırım, V. & Dursun, F. (2019). Okul yöneticileri öğretim programı okuryazarlık düzeyleri ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 705-750.
  91. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/57224/808160 Yeşilyurt, S. & Çapraz, C. (2018). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kullanılan kapsam geçerliği için bir yol haritası. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 251-264. https://doi. org/10.17556/erziefd.297741
  92. Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu (YÖKAK). (2022). Kurum İç Değerlendirme Raporu (KİDR) Hazırlama Kılavuzu. https://yokak.gov.tr/Common/ Docs/ KidrKlavuz1.4/Kidr_Surum_3.0.pdf
  93. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (YÖK). (2020, 18 Ağustos). “Yeni YÖK” üniversitelere yetki devrine devam ediyor. YÖK. https://www.yok. gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2020/egitim-fakültelerine-yetki-devri. aspx
  94. Collins, L., Maye, P., Rogers, K. & Coyne, F. (2013, October). The lecturer-as-learner: A critical analysis of a team-teaching pilot programme [Paper presentation]. 6th Annual Learning Innovation Network Conference – Sustainable Models of Student Engagement – Rhetoric or Achievable?, Dublin, Ireland.