KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 2

Project guidance self-efficacy scale: Validity and reliability study

Perihan Güneş(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4551-9327
Esra Çakırlar Altuntaş(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3566-8655
Miraç Yılmaz(HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-01
🏛️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)

The results of the study show that the developed project guidance self-efficacy scale has good psychometric properties and reliability to measure teachers' self-efficacy for project guidance.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Self-Efficacy scale for teachers.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In the first stage, the scale, which contains 40 items, was applied to a total of 578 teachers working in different branches in 7 geographical regions of Türkiye.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The results of the study show that the developed project guidance self-efficacy scale has good psychometric properties and reliability to measure teachers' self-efficacy for project guidance.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Project-based learning · Self-efficacy · Scale development

Özet

Self-Efficacy scale for teachers. The items of the scale were prepared as a result of examining the literature on self-efficacy and project-making. In the first stage, the scale, which contains 40 items, was applied to a total of 578 teachers working in different branches in 7 geographical regions of Türkiye. The collected data were used to perform exploratory factor analysis (N=199) and confirmatory factor analysis (N=379). As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the scale, which was reduced to 19 items, had a 3-factor structure (project topic selection guidance, project implementation guidance, and project reporting guidance). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit of the 19-item three-factor structure. The results revealed Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (α=.96) and McDonald's Omega (ω=.96) in the exploratory factor analysis data set, indicating a good internal consistency for the overall scale; and Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (α=.95.) and McDonald's Omega (ω=.95) in the confirmatory factor analysis data set, reflecting an excellent internal consistency. The results of the study show that the developed project guidance self-efficacy scale has good psychometric properties and reliability to measure teachers' self-efficacy for project guidance.

Abstract

Self-Efficacy scale for teachers. The items of the scale were prepared as a result of examining the literature on self-efficacy and project-making. In the first stage, the scale, which contains 40 items, was applied to a total of 578 teachers working in different branches in 7 geographical regions of Türkiye. The collected data were used to perform exploratory factor analysis (N=199) and confirmatory factor analysis (N=379). As a result of the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the scale, which was reduced to 19 items, had a 3-factor structure (project topic selection guidance, project implementation guidance, and project reporting guidance). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit of the 19-item three-factor structure. The results revealed Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (α=.96) and McDonald's Omega (ω=.96) in the exploratory factor analysis data set, indicating a good internal consistency for the overall scale; and Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (α=.95.) and McDonald's Omega (ω=.95) in the confirmatory factor analysis data set, reflecting an excellent internal consistency. The results of the study show that the developed project guidance self-efficacy scale has good psychometric properties and reliability to measure teachers' self-efficacy for project guidance.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Güneş, P., Altuntaş, E. Ç., Yılmaz, M. (2025). Project guidance self-efficacy scale: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 12 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1457123

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (41)

  1. Açıksöz, A., Dökme, İ., & Önen, E. (2024). Development and validation of STEM motivation scale for middle school students. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 11(4), 699-720. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1401339
  2. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  3. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). Academic Press
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
  5. Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44.
  6. Bernhardt, P.E. (2015). 21st century learning: Professional development in practice. The Qualitative Report, 20(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.1419
  7. Can, A. (2022). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (10. Baskı) [Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process with SPSS (10th ed.)]. Pegem Akademi.
  8. Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133 153. https://doi.org/10.2190/JGJR-0KVL-HRF7-GCNV
  9. Chen, C.H., & Yang, Y.C. (2019). Revisiting the effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis investigating moderators. Educational Research Review, 26(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.11.001
  10. Chiang, C.L., & Lee, H. (2016). The effect of project-based learning on learning motivation and problem-solving ability of vocational high school students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(9), 709 712. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.779
  11. Choi, J., Lee, J.-H., & Kim, B. (2019). How does learner-centered education affect teachers’ self-efficacy? The case of project-based learning in South Korea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.005
  12. Chu, S.K.W., Reynolds, R.B., Tavares, N.J., Notari, M., & Lee, C.W.Y. (2017). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning. Springer.
  13. Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M., Bangser, M.R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., & Nelson, E. (2017). Project based learning: A literature review. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578933.pdf
  14. Çoban, Ö.K., Çelik, A.Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2021). Kimya öğretmenlerinin öğretim stratejileri ve bu stratejilere etki eden faktörler [Chemistry teachers’ instructional strategies and the factors that affect these strategies]. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.51725/etad.1030346
  15. Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. Harper & Row.
  16. Demir, E. (2022). Ölçek geliştirme sürecinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi [Confirmatory factor analysis in the scale development process]. M. Acar-Güvendir, & Y. Özer-Özkan (Ed.), Tüm yönleriyle ölçek geliştirme süreci [Scale development process in all aspects]. Pegem Akademi.
  17. Duchovicova, J., Sabo, A., Petrova, G., & Hosova, D. (2018). Stimulation of creativity as a prerequisite of permanent sustainability form personality development of gifted learners. Ad Alta Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 8(2), 54 60. https://www.magnanimitas.cz/ADALTA/0802/papers/A_duchovicova.pdf
  18. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill
  19. Gelbal, S., & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Öğretmenlerin ölçme ve değerlendirme yöntemleri hakkındaki yeterlik algıları ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar [Teachers' perceived competence in measurement and evaluation methods and the challenges they face]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(33), 135 145. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87640
  20. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  21. International Commission on the Futures of Education (2021). Progress update of the international commission on the futures of education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375746/
  22. Iwamoto, D.H., Hargis, J., & Vuong, K. (2016). The effect of project-based learning on student performance: An action research study. International Journal for the Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 24 42. https://cdn.fs.teachablecdn.com/CcQpxRwPSs6yJyK7D6pP
  23. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267 277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
  24. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-Based learning. In the Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317 333). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020
  25. Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. (2015). Gold standard PBL: Project based teaching practices. Buck Institute for Education.
  26. Mahasneh, A.M., & Alwan, A.F. (2018). The effect of project-based learning on student teacher self-efficacy and achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 511–524.
  27. Maros, M., Korenkova, M., Fila, M., Levicky, M., & Schoberova, M. (2023). Project-based learning and its effectiveness: evidence from Slovakia. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4147-4155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1954036
  28. Mutlu, F., & Yıldız Fidan, N. (2018). Fen bilimleri ve sınıf öğretmenlerinin proje tabanlı öğretim yapabilme özyeterlilikleri üzerine bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması [A study on developing a scale for science and primary teacher's self efficacy regarding providing project-based teaching]. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.387109
  29. Önel, F., Dalkılınç, F., Özel, N., Deniz, Ş., Balkaya, T., & Birel, G. (2020). Ortaokul matematik öğretmenleri ölçme-değerlendirmeyi nasıl yapıyor? Bir durum çalışması [How middle school mathematics teachers do measurement and assessment? A case study]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(3), 1448-1459. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.4113
  30. Özdamar K. (2002). Paket Programlarla İstatistiksel Veri Analizi-1 (4. Baskı) [Statistical Data Analysis with Software Packages-1(4th ed.)]. Kaan Kitabevi.
  31. Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10(149), 1 49. https://www.dynaread.com/current directions in self efficacy-research
  32. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23 74. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
  33. Schmitz, G.S., & Schwarzer, R. (2000) Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern: Längsschnitt-befunde mit einem neuen Instrument [Perceived self-efficacy of teachers: Longitudinal findings with a new instrument]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 14(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1024//1010-0652.14.1.12
  34. Schumacker, E.R., & Lomax, G.R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Erlbaum.
  35. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000
  36. Skaalvik, E.M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059 1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
  37. Şahin, Y., & Ulucan, P. (2023). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin çeşitli öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerini kullanma durumları. [Using conditions of various teaching methods and techniques of primary school teachers] Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 995-1030. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1099218
  38. Türkben, T. (2022). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin sınıf içi öğrenme becerilerini ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterlikleri [Turkish language teachers' competencies in assessing and evaluating classroom learning skills]. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 13(25), 45-72. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eibd/issue/70603/1088012
  39. Wang, Y.-S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75–86.
  40. Yaylak, E. (2020). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin öğretim yöntem ve uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of teaching methods and practices of social studies teachers]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(1), 187 205. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.621664.
  41. Yaşar, E., & Oral, B. (2024). Öğretmenlerin proje danışmanlık yeterlik düzeyleri: Ölçek geliştirme çalışması [Competency levels of teachers in project consultancy: Scale development study]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 22(1), 464 486. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1363368