Self-efficacy which refers to an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to fulfill an expected task successfully is an affective characteristic closely related to the individual’s success in a field. Self-efficacy, which can be improved through appropriate activities, is also accepted as an indicator of how much effort the individual will use in achieving his/her goals and his/her perseverance in the difficulties that s/he faces. Especially, it is extremely important to determine self-efficacy belief levels of teachers with regard to teaching a field, a course or a subject and to implement improving/developing activities when their self-efficacy beliefs are found to be below a certain level in order to improve learning outputs.

There are scale development studies to measure self-efficacy beliefs related to general teacher self-efficacy in previous studies, but no scale was found that is used to determine the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers about the IHYD course. The lack of a scale which can measure the self-efficacy beliefs of the class teachers about the IHYD course constitutes the problem of this study.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale in order to determine the class teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching IHYD course.

Before producing the items of the scale, the concept of self-efficacy belief was defined comprehensively and other scale development studies which were carried out with regard to this notion were examined. 47 observable/measurable items (statements) were produced which were considered relevant to the scale planned to be developed. The items were sent to three class teachers who have a master’s degree in their field and teach (or previously taught) IHYD course, a Turkish teacher and two curriculum and instruction experts having a PhD degree in the field in order to ensure face validity and content validity of the items and to correct grammar mistakes. The experts were asked to examine the items in terms of their explicitness, comprehensibility and suitability to the characteristic to be measured. 11 items were completely removed from the scale and 5 items were restated in line with the given feedback. 36 items were left on the scale. The first form of the scale was developed with 36 items. The items were scaled from 1-“I definitely don’t believe I can do it” and to 10-“I definitely believe I can do it”. The first form of the 36-item scale which is scaled from 1 to 10 was sent to the participants. The analyses were carried out based on 200 forms that were returned.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Test was used to determine the adequacy of sampling for factor analysis and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was used to determine the suitability of the data obtained from the participants’ responses to the items for factor analysis. The KMO value was found to be 0.96; the result of Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was found to be at a “sufficient” level (p<0.05). The suitability of each item for factor analysis was determined through the Anti-Image Correlation Matrix. The suitability of each individual item ranges from 0.945 and 0.982; the suitability of each item consisting of the test was also found to be “perfect”.

As a result of the explanatory factor analysis conducted to determine the construct validity of the scale, the total initial eigenvalues of the scale were found to consist of a four-factor structure. Four factors are able to explain 73.793% of the variance that is attempted to be explained with the scale both in the beginning and after rotation. In the beginning, it was determined that the first factor was able to explain 60.384% of the total variance alone, the remaining three factors were able to explain 4.752%, 4.441%, 3.245% of the variance respectively, and there was an aggregation in the explained variance in favor of the first factor. After the varimax rotation, homogeneity was observed in the percentages of explanation of variance by the factors; 24.573%, 20.326%, 17.648%, 10.246% respectively. The number of factors was also confirmed by the scree plot. Considering the content of the items forming the factors, the factors were named as follows; First Factor: Planning and Preparation; Second Factor: Content and Process; Third Factor: Evaluation and Stakeholder Cooperation; Fourth Factor: Value-added.

The reliability of the scale was determined through internal consistency (Cronbach Alpha; α) coefficient. It was found that the item-total correlation of each item demonstrated a strong relationship by ranging from 0.664 to 0.832 and Cronbach Alpha for the whole scale was found 0.980. In addition, the internal consistency reliability values of four factors are respectively as follows; 0.945, 0.971, 0.940 and 0.906. The relationship among the factors in the scale and their relationship with the whole scale were found to be positive and significant at p˂0.01.

As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, the factors were confirmed with the explanatory factor analysis. Some of the good fit values are as follows; χ2/sd: 2,102; RMSEA: 0.072; CFI: 0.936; IFI: 0.937; GFI: 0.884; TLI: 0.926. Good fit values were found to be as expected and the factor structure of the scale was confirmed.

In conclusion, all the analyses showed that the scale has psychometric properties that could reveal the self-efficacy beliefs of class teachers regarding Human Rights Citizenship and Democracy (IHYD) course.

Keywords: Explanatory Factor Analysis, Human Rights Citizenship and Democracy Course, Self_efficacy Scale, Scale Development

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *