Okul Müdürünün Öğretimsel Denetim Davranışları Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Introduction The practice of instructional supervision in education appears to be a contentious one in contemporary education circles, and it has been characterized by shifting attitudes among researchers and educators (Tunison, 2001, 84). Wiles and Bondi (1996, 4) “viewed supervision as a general leadership function that coordinates and manages those educational activities concerned with learning.” They also defined supervisory roles as connected to administrative supervision, curriculum, and instruction. However, Gall and Acheson (2010) asserted that the major goals of supervision included providing objective feedback to teachers, solving instructional problems, helping teachers develop instructional skills, and evaluating teacher performance. Seven instructional supervision components (teamwork, customer-driven quality, peer coaching, student feedback, supervisor observation, continuous improvement, and the utilization of statistical methods) were also confirmed, based on suggestions by instructional supervision experts (Chao & Dugger, 1996). Instructional supervision aims to promote growth, professional development, interaction, fault-free problem solving, and a commitment to building capacity in teachers (Zepeda, 2012, 19). It is generally accepted that effective instructional supervision is essential for the improvement of instruction in a school (Tunison, 2001, 85). Research has shown that instructional supervision that is differentiated across the career continuum is necessary to support teacher growth and development (Glatthom, 1997; Sullivan & Glanz, 2000; Zepeda, 2012). Principals are responsible for teacher supervision, and it is expected that principals should serve as instructional supervisors with the aim of developing teachers’ instructional skills and increasing student learning. From this point of view, principals’ instructional behaviors are an important issue in the school context. Thus, a method for measuring principals’ instructional behaviors is expected to be valuable. Zepeda (2011) summarizes the intent of instructional supervision as formative and concerned with ongoing, developmental, and differentiated approaches that enable teachers to learn from analyzing and reflecting on their classroom practices with the assistance of another professional. Purpose This study aims to develop a valid and reliable principals’ instructional supervision behavior scale. Even though there is extensive literature about instructional supervision, there are no remarkably valid and reliable scales that measure principals’ instructional supervision behaviors. This research aims to contribute to closing this gap, especially as in Turkish education literature to this point, there has not been a scale titled as instructional supervision considered. Method This study used quantitative design. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to validate the construct of the Principals’ Instructional Supervision Behaviors Scale (PISBS). Researchers typically use CFA after an Introduction The practice of instructional supervision in education appears to be a contentious one in contemporary education circles, and it has been characterized by shifting attitudes among researchers and educators (Tunison, 2001, 84). Wiles and Bondi (1996, 4) “viewed supervision as a general leadership function that coordinates and manages those educational activities concerned with learning.” They also defined supervisory roles as connected to administrative supervision, curriculum, and instruction. However, Gall and Acheson (2010) asserted that the major goals of supervision included providing objective feedback to teachers, solving instructional problems, helping teachers develop instructional skills, and evaluating teacher performance. Seven instructional supervision components (teamwork, customer-driven quality, peer coaching, student feedback, supervisor observation, continuous improvement, and the utilization of statistical methods) were also confirmed, based on suggestions by instructional supervision experts (Chao & Dugger, 1996). Instructional supervision aims to promote growth, professional development, interaction, fault-free problem solving, and a commitment to building capacity in teachers (Zepeda, 2012, 19). It is generally accepted that effective instructional supervision is essential for the improvement of instruction in a school (Tunison, 2001, 85). Research has shown that instructional supervision that is differentiated across the career continuum is necessary to support teacher growth and development (Glatthom, 1997; Sullivan & Glanz, 2000; Zepeda, 2012). Principals are responsible for teacher supervision, and it is expected that principals should serve as instructional supervisors with the aim of developing teachers’ instructional skills and increasing student learning. From this point of view, principals’ instructional behaviors are an important issue in the school context. Thus, a method for measuring principals’ instructional behaviors is expected to be valuable. Zepeda (2011) summarizes the intent of instructional supervision as formative and concerned with ongoing, developmental, and differentiated approaches that enable teachers to learn from analyzing and reflecting on their classroom practices with the assistance of another professional. Purpose This study aims to develop a valid and reliable principals’ instructional supervision behavior scale. Even though there is extensive literature about instructional supervision, there are no remarkably valid and reliable scales that measure principals’ instructional supervision behaviors. This research aims to contribute to closing this gap, especially as in Turkish education literature to this point, there has not been a scale titled as instructional supervision considered. Method This study used quantitative design. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to validate the construct of the Principals’ Instructional Supervision Behaviors Scale (PISBS). Researchers typically use CFA after an Introduction The practice of instructional supervision in education appears to be a contentious one in contemporary education circles, and it has been characterized by shifting attitudes among researchers and educators (Tunison, 2001, 84). Wiles and Bondi (1996, 4) “viewed supervision as a general leadership function that coordinates and manages those educational activities concerned with learning.” They also defined supervisory roles as connected to administrative supervision, curriculum, and instruction. However, Gall and Acheson (2010) asserted that the major goals of supervision included providing objective feedback to teachers, solving instructional problems, helping teachers develop instructional skills, and evaluating teacher performance. Seven instructional supervision components (teamwork, customer-driven quality, peer coaching, student feedback, supervisor observation, continuous improvement, and the utilization of statistical methods) were also confirmed, based on suggestions by instructional supervision experts (Chao & Dugger, 1996). Instructional supervision aims to promote growth, professional development, interaction, fault-free problem solving, and a commitment to building capacity in teachers (Zepeda, 2012, 19). It is generally accepted that effective instructional supervision is essential for the improvement of instruction in a school (Tunison, 2001, 85). Research has shown that instructional supervision that is differentiated across the career continuum is necessary to support teacher growth and development (Glatthom, 1997; Sullivan & Glanz, 2000; Zepeda, 2012). Principals are responsible for teacher supervision, and it is expected that principals should serve as instructional supervisors with the aim of developing teachers’ instructional skills and increasing student learning. From this point of view, principals’ instructional behaviors are an important issue in the school context. Thus, a method for measuring principals’ instructional behaviors is expected to be valuable. Zepeda (2011) summarizes the intent of instructional supervision as formative and concerned with ongoing, developmental, and differentiated approaches that enable teachers to learn from analyzing and reflecting on their classroom practices with the assistance of another professional. Purpose This study aims to develop a valid and reliable principals’ instructional supervision behavior scale. Even though there is extensive literature about instructional supervision, there are no remarkably valid and reliable scales that measure principals’ instructional supervision behaviors. This research aims to contribute to closing this gap, especially as in Turkish education literature to this point, there has not been a scale titled as instructional supervision considered. Method This study used quantitative design. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to validate the construct of the Principals’ Instructional Supervision Behaviors Scale (PISBS). Researchers typically use CFA after an instrument has already been assessed using EFA, and they want to know if the factor structure produced by EFA fits the data from a new sample. After developing an initial set of items, researchers apply EFA to examine the underlying dimensionality of the item set (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). As a scale development study and as Worthington and Whittaker (1996) stated, EFA was followed by CFA in this research. Principal component analysis for EFA and the Varimax method were used for rotation. The item retention criterion was ≥ .40 for factor loading. Chi-square, Goodness of Fit Index, (GFI), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Not- Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Root Mean Square Residuals (RMR and RMS), Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) indices w ere used for CFA. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Sphericity Test were administrated to measure sampling adequacy. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, item-total correlations, and comparing the lower a nd u pper 2 7 p ercent o f g roups w ith a t -test were used for reliability. Findings The draft scale consisted of 23 items. The EFA revealed that KMO was .975, and Bartlett’s test was significant (.000). This result indicated that data was proper for factor analysis. The EFA revealed that PISBS could be used unidimensionally, along with two dimensions, titled as “developing teacher and teaching” and “classroom visit and giving feedback.” The EFA result with PISBS explained 64.705% of the total variance, and factor loadings ranged from .866 to .723 as a unidimensional construct. The PISBS resulted following EFA as two dimensions: the first dimension (developing teacher and teaching) explained 39.676 percent of the total variance, and factor loadings ranged from .788 to .612, whereas the second dimension (classroom visit and giving feedback) explained 39.676 percent of the total variance, and factor loadings ranged from .842 to .608. The items included in the draft PISBS worked properly. CFA resulted for PISBS with following fit indices as unidimensional: χ2 / df= 9.13; RMSEA: .091; RMR: .063; GFI: .84; AGFI: .81; NFI: .98; NNFI: .98; CFI: .98. Lambda values of the items ranged from .71 to .86 and t-test values ranged from 24.4 to 33.75; all of them were significant whereas resulted with following fit indices as two dimensions: χ2 / df= 7.8; RMSEA: .083; RMR: .053; GFI: .86; AGFI: .84; NFI: .98; NNFI: .98; CFI: .99. Lambda values of the factors ranged from .74 to .86, T-test values ranged from 26.50 to 33.74, and all of them were significant. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was .975 for the PISBS as unidimensional, and corrected item-total correlations ranged from .703 to .849. The value of t-test regarding the comparison of whole-scale points and items based for points of the lower and upper 27 percent groups ranged from 28.825 to 47.591 and were found to be statistically significant at the level of p<.001. Results and Discussions As a result of this study, it is possible to say that a valid and reliable scale to determine the frequency of principals’ instructional supervision behaviors was developed. The results of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, corrected item-total correlations, and t-test indicate that PISBS has high reliability. According to the results of EFA and CFA, the standardized factor loadings of the model were high, and t-values were significant. The results of fit indices indicate a decent model fit. PISBS is expected to be implemented as a useful instrument t o d etermine t he f requency o f p rincipals’ instructional supervision behaviors as unidimensional along with multidimensional choice.