KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 3

Entrepreneurship pedagogical content knowledge (E-PCK): A scale development study

Berna Kılıç(Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı)0009-0006-4121-4488
Mahmut Selvi(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9704-1591
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-09-04
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In addition, it is thought that the developed E-PCK scale and the E-PCK theoretical framework will pioneer PCK research in other skills.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:It is important to determine the level of pedagogical content knowledge of teachers regarding skills.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The draft scale form was applied to 148 teachers, and exploratory factor analysis was performed with the obtained data.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, it is thought that the developed E-PCK scale and the E-PCK theoretical framework will pioneer PCK research in other skills.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Pedagogical content knowledge · Scale development · Skill pedagogical content knowledge

Abstract

It is important to determine the level of pedagogical content knowledge of teachers regarding skills. The aim of this study is to establish the theoretical framework of skill-specific pedagogical content knowledge and to develop a reliable and valid scale to measure teachers' entrepreneurship pedagogical content knowledge. The draft scale form was applied to 148 teachers, and exploratory factor analysis was performed with the obtained data. As a result of the analysis, a 5-dimensional scale structure consisting of 28 items was obtained. In addition to the Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient, a 27% (lower and upper groups) comparison was made using the item discrimination index calculation. In order to verify this structure, data were collected from 147 teachers, and the 5-factor scale structure was verified according to acceptable fit values with confirmatory factor analysis. It was determined that the verified 5-factor model met the convergent and discriminant validity criteria. The measurement invariance of the scale according to branches was tested, and it was seen that the same structure was measured in different groups. Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficient and composite reliability values showed that sufficient reliability values were obtained for the scale. Therefore, it was concluded that the scale is a valid and reliable scale with sufficient conditions to measure teachers' entrepreneurial pedagogical content knowledge. In addition, it is thought that the developed E-PCK scale and the E-PCK theoretical framework will pioneer PCK research in other skills.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kılıç, B., Selvi, M. (2025). Entrepreneurship pedagogical content knowledge (E-PCK): A scale development study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 12 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1551047

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (80)

  1. Ağca V., & Kurt, M. (2007). İç girişimcilik ve temel belirleyicileri: kavramsal bir çerçeve [Intrapreneurship and its key determinants: a conceptual framework]. Journal of Erciyes University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 29, 83-112. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erciyesiibd/issue/5886/77857
  2. Alparslan, A.M., Yastıoğlu, S., & Polatcı, S. (2023). İşin anlam kaynakları ölçeği: Ölçek geliştirme, geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması [The sources of meaning in work scale: A study of scale development, validity and reliability]. Journal of Business Research, 15 (3), 2028-2047. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2023.1695
  3. Akın, N.K., & Aşçı, F.H. (2021). Beden eğitimi dersinde üçlü yeterlik algılarının değerlendirilmesi: Ölçek uyarlama çalışması [ Evaluation of triple competence perceptions in physical education lessons: A scale adaptation study]. Turkish Clinics Journal of Sports Sciences. 13(2), 302 311. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/gbesbd/issue/57046/726767
  4. Alpar, R. (2013). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler [Applied multivariate statistical methods]. Detay Publishing.
  5. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71–88.
  6. Aydın, S., & Boz, Y. (2012). Review of studies related to pedagogical content knowledge in the context of science teacher education: Turkish case. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(1), 497–505.
  7. Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L.W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421 458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203
  8. Başar, M. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin pedagojik alan bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of pedagogical content knowledge of classroom teachers]. International Journal of Social Science, 6(6),181-198, http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS1424
  9. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions.
  10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (7th ed.) [Statistics for the social sciences]. Pegem Akademi.
  11. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  13. Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64 73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
  14. Çolakoğlu, Ö., & Büyükekşi, C. (2014). Açımlayıcı faktör analiz sürecini etkileyen unsurların değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of factors effecting exploratory factor analysis process], Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 58 64. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2160889
  15. Dayanıklı, A.S., (2021, February 11). Aykırı değer (outlier) analizi nedir? Uç değerler nasıl tespit edilir? [What is outlier analysis? How to detect outliers?]. Ravenfo. https://ravenfo.com/2021/02/11/aykiri-deger-analizi/
  16. Deger, T., Inaltekin, T., & Kirman-Bilgin, A. (2023). Investigating the effectiveness of life skills training guide on pre-service science teachers’ development of professional knowledge regarding entrepreneurship skills. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 15(2), 2325-2353. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.or221
  17. Deveci, İ., & Çepni, S. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarına yönelik girişimcilik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Development of the entrepreneurship scale for teacher candidates: Validity and reliability study]. International Journal of Human Sciences, 12(2), 92-112. https://doi.org/10.14687/ijhs.v12i2.3240.
  18. Earl, B. (2004). Social research practice (10th ed.). Thomson.
  19. Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Some useful models and ımplications for teachers’ training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60. 79-100. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/14.60.79
  20. Flanagan, J.C. (1952). The effectiveness of short methods for calculating correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 49(4), 342- 348.
  21. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3–17). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  22. Gökçek, T., & Yılmaz, A. (2019). The adaptation of the pedagogical knowledge and skills survey into Turkish: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Education. 8(1), 52-70. https://dx.doi.org/10.19128/turje.459678
  23. Gören, S., Sayın, A., & Gelbal, S. (2024). An analysis of item bias in the PISA 2018 reading understanding and memorising strategies questionnaire. Kastamonu Education Journal, 32(2), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.1473662
  24. Graham, C.R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953 1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010
  25. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
  26. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W.F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275.
  27. Guneş, F., Uygun, T. (2016). Skill mismatch in teacher training. Ahi Evran University Social Sciences Institute Journal. 2(3), 1 14. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aeusbed/issue/26794/281975
  28. Güriş, S., & Astar, M. (2015). Statistics with SPSS in scientific research [Bilimsel araştırmalarda SPSS ile istatistik]. Der Publishing.
  29. Haara, F.O., Eirik S.J., Ingrid F., & Ødegård I.K.R. (2016). The ambiguity of pedagogical entrepreneurship-the state of the art and its challenges, Education Inquiry, 7(2), 29912. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.29912
  30. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
  31. Helms, J., & Stokes, L. (2013). A meeting of minds around pedagogical content knowledge: Designing an international PCK summit for professional, community, and field development. http://www.inverness research.org/reports/2013 05_Rpt PCK Summit Evalfinal_03-2013.pdf
  32. Horn, J.L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2). 179-185.
  33. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  34. Huck, S.W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Pearson.
  35. Huth, K. (2021). Using the pedagogy of thinking skills in Christian studies lessons in primary school years 4–6: The teacher’s perspective. Journal of Religious Education, 69, 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-020-00130-6
  36. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.71. Scientific Software International.
  37. Kanmaz, A. (2021). An analysis of elementary teaching undergraduate program in terms of 21st century skills. Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(2), 526-538.
  38. Karaalioğlu, Z. (2015). Tükenmişliğin iş tatmini üzerine etkisi [The effect of burnout on job satisfaction] (Publication No. 428596) [Doctoral dissertation, Istanbul Commerce University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  39. Karkar Esperat, T.M. (2022). The pedagogical content knowledge of a multiliteracies survey instrument for preservice teachers that meets the needs of diverse populations. The Teacher Educator, 58(4), 406–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2022.2147615
  40. Kersting, N.B., Smith, J.E., Vezino, B., Chen, M.-K., Wood, M.B., & Stigler, J.W. (2020). Exploring the affordances of Bayesian networks for modeling usable knowledge and knowledge use in teaching. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(2), 207 218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01135-z
  41. Kılıç, B., & Selvi, M. (2025). Öğretmenlerin Girişimcilik Pedagojik Alan Bilgi Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi [Examining Teachers' Entrepreneurship Pedagogical Field Knowledge Levels]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(1), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1445799
  42. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
  43. Kline, R.B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford.
  44. Koçak, D., Çokluk, Ö., & Kayri, M. (2016). Faktör sayısının belirlenmesinde map testi, paralel analiz, K1 ve yamaç birikinti grafiği yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of MAP test, parallel analysis, K1 and slope accumulation plot methods in determining the number of factors]. Van Yüzüncü Yıl University Faculty of Education Journal, 13(1), 330-359. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yyuefd/issue/25853/272552
  45. Koh, J.H.L., Chai, C.S., & Tsai, C.C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563 573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365 2729.2010.00372.x
  46. Köse, M. (2021). Pedagojik alan bilgisine yönelik bibliyometrik bir araştırma: 1987-2020 yılları arasında yapılan çalışmaların analizi [A bibliometric research on pedagogical content knowledge: Analysis of studies conducted between 1987-2020]. Gazi Faculty of Education Journal, 41(3), 2217-2250.
  47. Lederman, N.G., Ramey-Gassert, L.R., Kuerbis, P., Loving, C., Roychoudhuray, A., & Spector, B.S. (1997). Professional knowledge standards for science teacher educators: A position statement from the association for the education of teachers in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(4), 233-240.
  48. liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business, 3(1), 11–35.
  49. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Kluwer Academic.
  50. Mardia K.V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications, Biometrika, 57(3), 519–530, https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
  51. Mawonedzo, A., Tanga, M., Luggya, S., & Nsubuga, Y. (2021). Implementing strategies of entrepreneurship education in Zimbabwe. Education + Training, 63(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2020-0068.
  52. Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıf) [Science curriculum (primary and secondary schools 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
  53. Ministry of National Education (MNE). (2024). Fen bilgisi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıf) [Science curriculum (primary and secondary schools 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
  54. Njiku, J., Mutarutinya, V., & Maniraho, J.F. (2020). Developing technological pedagogical content knowledge survey items: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(3), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1724840
  55. Orçan, F. (2018). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi: İlk hangisi kullanılmalı [Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one should be used first?] Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4). 413 421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
  56. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Skills Strategy Projects Brochure September 2020. https://www.oecd.org/skills/centre for ills/OECD_Skills_Strategy_Projects_Brochure.pdf
  57. Ormanci, U., Kacar, S., & Cepni, S. (2022). Investigating the acquisitions in the science teaching program in terms of life skills. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 8(1), 70-92. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.2497
  58. Ramsgaard, M.B., & Blenker, P. (2022). Reinterpreting a signature pedagogy for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 29(2), 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-03-2021-0115
  59. Rollnick, M., Bennett, J., Rhemtula, N.D., & Ndlovu, T. (2008). The place of subject matter knowledge in pedagogical content knowledge: A case study of South African teachers teaching the amount of substance and chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1365- 1387.
  60. Samancı, B. (2021). Üçüncü sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının girişimcilik becerisi üzerine mesleki ve kavramsal bilgilerinin incelenmesi [Examination of professional and comprehensive information on the entrepreneurial skills of third grade science teacher candidates] (Publication No. 671041) [Master’s thesis, Kafkas University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  61. Sarı, M., & Bostancıoglu, A. (2018). Application of technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to elementary mathematics teaching: A scale adaptation study. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science. 11(2), 296 317. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.368836.
  62. Seikkula‐Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikavalko, M., Mattila, J., & Rytkola, T. (2010). Promoting entrepreneurship education: The role of the teacher? Education + Training, 52(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011027716
  63. Shrestha, N. (2021). Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 9(1), 4-11.
  64. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  65. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  66. Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.
  67. Sipon, M., Pihie, Z.A.L., Rahman, F.A., & Manaf, U.K.A. (2018). Relationship between ınstructor’s entrepreneurship pedagogical content knowledge on student’s entrepreneurial ıntention at kuala langat community college. Politeknik & Kolej Komuniti Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 163 170. https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/PMJSSH/article/view/3892
  68. Sommarström, K., Oikkonen, E., & Pihkala, T. (2020). Entrepreneurship education with companies: Teachers organizing school-company interaction. Education Sciences, 10(10), 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10100268
  69. Şen, M. (2023). Suggestions for the analysis of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge components and their interactions. Research in Science Education, 53. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10124-7.
  70. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  71. Tarhan, M. (2021). Girişimcilik becerisinin kazandırılması bağlamında girişimcilerin öz yaşam öykülerine yönelik bir değerlendirme [An evaluation of the life stories of entrepreneurs in the context of gaining entrepreneurship skills]. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Education Journal, 21(1), 74 86. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2021.21.60703-815358
  72. Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02291 170
  73. Ursavaş, N., & Karal, E. (2019). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin yasam becerileri hakkındaki düşünceleri ve fen kazanımlarıyla ilişkilendirme durumları [Science teachers' thoughts about life skills and their association with science achievements]. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 13(30), 246-269. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.218.15
  74. Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
  75. Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measuremant invarience literature: Suggestion, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
  76. Vilda Ghasya, D.A., & Kartono, K. (2022). Technical guidance 21st century learning application to improve the pedagogic and professional competence of elementary school teacher. ABDIMAS: Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat, 4(2), 753 759. https://doi.org/10.35568/abdimas.v4i2.1309
  77. Yalçın İ.E., & Uzun, N.B. (2017). Bireysel girişimcilik algı ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Validity and reliability study of the individual entrepreneurship perception scale]. Mustafa Kemal University Social Sciences Institute Journal,14(39), 471-485. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/31632/331276
  78. Yaşlıoğlu, M.M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması [Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses]. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46, 74-85, Special Issue.
  79. Yiğiter, M.S. (2023). Matematik duyuşsal özellik faktörlerinin cinsiyete göre ölçme değişmezliğinin incelenmesi: TIMSS 2019 Türkiye örneği [Investigation of measurement invariance of mathematics affective trait factors according to gender: TIMSS 2019 Turkey sample]. Anadolu University Journal of Education Faculty, 7(4), 859 88. https://doi.org/10.34056/aujef.1198134
  80. Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078