SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14

Examining the Relationships Among Communication Skills, Cognitive Flexibility, and Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Preservice Teachers

Öğretmen Adaylarında İletişim Becerileri, Bilişsel Esneklik ve Öğretmenlik Özyeterlik İnancı Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi

Ganime Aydın(Çanakkale 18 Mart Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6112-5243
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-15
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The findings revealed a positive and low-level significant relationship between cognitive flexibility and communication skills.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among cognitive flexibility, communication skills, and teacher self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants consisted of 167 senior preservice teachers enrolled in different teacher education programs at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed a positive and low-level significant relationship between cognitive flexibility and communication skills.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilişsel esneklik · iletişim becerileri · öğretmen özyeterliği

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among cognitive flexibility, communication skills, and teacher self-efficacy beliefs of preservice teachers. The study was conducted using a quantitative research approach and a correlational survey design. The participants consisted of 167 senior preservice teachers enrolled in different teacher education programs at Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Data was collected using the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory, the Communication Skills Inventory, and the Teacher Self-Efficacy Belief Scale. Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation analysis, multiple linear regression analysis, Mann–Whitney U tests, and Kruskal–Wallis tests were employed for data analysis. The findings revealed a positive and low-level significant relationship between cognitive flexibility and communication skills. In addition, positive significant relationships were found between cognitive flexibility and teacher self-efficacy beliefs, as well as between communication skills and teacher self-efficacy beliefs. The regression analysis indicated that cognitive flexibility significantly predicted teacher self-efficacy beliefs, whereas communication skills did not emerge as a significant predictor. No significant differences were found in cognitive flexibility, communication skills, or teacher self-efficacy beliefs according to gender, department group, grade point average, or participation in social activities. Overall, the findings suggest that cognitive flexibility is an important factor associated with preservice teachers’ perceptions of professional competence and should be supported within teacher education programs.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri, iletişim becerileri ve öğretmenlik özyeterlik inançları arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektir. Araştırma nicel araştırma yaklaşımı kapsamında ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesinin farklı öğretmenlik programlarında öğrenim gören 167 son sınıf öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veriler Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri, İletişim Becerileri Envanteri ve Öğretmen Özyeterlik İnancı Ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistikler, Spearman korelasyon analizi, çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi, Mann-Whitney U testi ve Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları, bilişsel esneklik ile iletişim becerileri arasında pozitif yönlü ve düşük düzeyde anlamlı bir ilişki bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca bilişsel esneklik ile öğretmenlik özyeterlik inancı ve iletişim becerileri ile öğretmenlik özyeterlik inancı arasında da pozitif yönlü anlamlı ilişkiler belirlenmiştir. Regresyon analizi sonuçlarına göre bilişsel esneklik öğretmenlik özyeterlik inancının anlamlı bir yordayıcısı iken iletişim becerileri anlamlı bir yordayıcı değildir. Cinsiyet, bölüm grubu, genel not ortalaması ve sosyal faaliyete katılma durumuna göre değişkenlerde anlamlı farklılık bulunmamıştır. Sonuç olarak bilişsel esnekliğin öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterlik algılarıyla ilişkili önemli bir değişken olduğu ve öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında desteklenmesi gerektiği söylenebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, G. (2026). Examining the Relationships Among Communication Skills, Cognitive Flexibility, and Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Preservice Teachers. Lapseki Meslek Yüksekokulu Uygulamalı Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 14. https://ajindex.com/articles/1524465

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Akar, E., & Kurtuluş Uzlu, M. (2026). Öğretmen adaylarının otizm spektrum bozukluğuna yönelik toplumsal tutumları ile bilişsel esnekliklerinin incelenmesi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 24(1), 716–738. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1599810
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (28. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
  3. Canas, J. J., Antolí, A., Fajardo, I., & Salmerón, L. (2003). Cognitive flexibility. In J. Wixted (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 1–44). Academic Press.
  4. Çelikkaleli, Ö. (2014). The validity and reliability of the cognitive flexibility scale. Education and Science, 39(176), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3466
  5. Çolak, İ., Yorulmaz, Y. İ., & Altınkurt, Y. (2017). Öğretmen Özyeterlik İnancı Ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. MSKU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.319209
  6. Dajani, D. R., & Uddin, L. Q. (2015). Demystifying cognitive flexibility: Implications for clinical and developmental neuroscience. Trends in Neurosciences, 38(9), 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2015.07.003
  7. Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4
  8. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
  9. Ersanlı, K., & Balcı, S. (1998). İletişim Becerileri Envanterinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2(10), 7–12. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/200149
  10. Esen-Aygun, H. (2018). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ cognitive flexibility and interpersonal problem solving skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(77), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2018.77.6
  11. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE. Gordon, T. (2003). Teacher effectiveness training. Three Rivers Press.
  12. Gülüm, İ. V., & Dağ, İ. (2012). Tekrarlayıcı Düşünme Ölçeği ve Bilişsel Esneklik Envanterinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 13, 216–223.
  13. Harel, O., Hemi, A., & Levy-Gigi, E. (2023). The role of cognitive flexibility in moderating the effect of school-related stress exposure. Scientific Reports, 13, Article 5241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31743-0
  14. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (5th ed.). Routledge.
  15. Hayes, A. F., ve Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192961
  16. Hohl, K., & Dolcos, S. (2024). Measuring cognitive flexibility: A brief review of neuropsychological, self-report, and neuroscientific approaches. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 18, Article 1331960. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1331960
  17. Howlett, C. A., Wewege, M. A., Berryman, C., Oldach, A., Jennings, E., Moore, E., Karran, E. L., Szeto, K., Pronk, L., Miles, S., & Moseley, G. L. (2022). Back to the drawing board—The relationship between self-report and neuropsychological tests of cognitive flexibility in clinical cohorts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychology, 36(5), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000796
  18. Ionescu, T. (2012). Exploring the nature of cognitive flexibility. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.11.001
  19. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (24. baskı). Nobel Yayıncılık.
  20. Kazu, H., & Pullu, S. (2023). Cognitive flexibility levels and self-efficacy perceptions of preservice teachers. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 14(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2023-0004
  21. Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., ve Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140546
  22. Männikkö, I., & Husu, J. (2019). Examining teachers’ adaptive expertise through personal practical theories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.016
  23. Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies. Communication Reports, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219809367680
  24. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
  25. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
  26. Orakcı, Ş., & Khalili, T. (2025). The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers’ critical thinking disposition: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Cognitive Processing, 26(1), 59–73. doi:10.1007/s10339-024-01227-8
  27. Özer, S., & Başarır, F. (2025). Predictive power of lateral, divergent, computational and metacognitive thinking levels of pre-service teachers on their cognitive flexibility levels. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 54(1), 106–139. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1470734
  28. Riggio, R. E. (2006). Nonverbal communication. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 3–15). Sage Publications.
  29. Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 25, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785779
  30. Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(2), 165–207.
  31. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  32. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED302821.pdf
  33. Stange, J. P., Alloy, L. B., & Fresco, D. M. (2017). Inflexibility as a vulnerability to depression: A systematic qualitative review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(3), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101744
  34. Stein, K. C., Miness, A., & Kintz, T. (2018). Teachers’ cognitive flexibility on engagement and their ability to engage students: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Teachers College Record, 120(6), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812000607
  35. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  36. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and teacher education, 17(7), 783-805. doi.10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
  37. Tuncer, M., & Kamçı, F. (2024). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel kontrol ve esneklik düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Türkiye Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.54979/turkegitimdergisi.1415327
  38. Uddin, L. Q. (2021). Cognitive and behavioral flexibility: Neural mechanisms and clinical considerations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 22(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00428-w
  39. Yazgan, A. D. (2021). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel esneklik düzeyleri ile kültürel zeka düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(1), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.803469
  40. Yeniad, N., Malda, M., Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pieper, S. (2013). Shifting ability predicts math and reading performance in children: A meta-analytical study. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.004
  41. Zheng, W., Akaliyski, P., Ma, C., & Xu, Y. (2024). Cognitive flexibility and academic performance: Individual and cross-national patterns among adolescents in 57 countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, Article 112455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112455