MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779348132 · doi:10.5539/jel.v7n1p258

Astronomy Teaching Self-Efficacy Belief Scale: The Validity and Reliability Study

2017· article· en· W2779348132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Filiz Demirci, Cengiz Özyürek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyScale (ratio)Construct validityExploratory factor analysisContext (archaeology)Content validityValidityItem analysisMathematics educationStructural equation modelingStatisticsMathematicsPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and safe scale for determining the self-efficacy levels of science teachers in the teaching of astronomy subjects. The study used a survey approach, which is a qualitative research method. The study was conducted with a total of 106 science teachers working in the secondary schools of Ordu city centre and the surrounding towns during the academic year 2016-2017. While forming the item pool of the scale, scale development studies within the context of teacher self-efficacy and the special field competencies of science and technology teachers determined by MOE (2008) was used. In addition, the compositions written by eight science teachers outside the study group about the teaching of astronomy were also used for item pool. For the content validity of the scale, an expert opinion form was prepared to assess the content validity rate and kappa coefficient of agreement, and this was presented to six faculty members in the science teaching department. The construct validity of the scale was investigated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results of EFA showed that the scale construct included a total of three factors and 13 questions, and explained 70.60% of the total variance. CFA results showed that the chi-squared value and the degrees-of-freedom rates (c2/sd = 1.67) were perfect, and the other fit indices showed a good fit (GFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.92, IFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.08 and RMSEA = 0.06). The results of the reliability analysis showed that the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.84 for the whole scale, 0.90 for “student outcomes through astronomy teaching” factor, and 0.83 for both “astronomy teaching strategies” factor and “difficulty in astronomy teaching” factor. In conclusion, the results obtained showed that “Astronomy Teaching Self-Efficacy Belief Scale” can be used as a valid and reliable assessment instrument.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicTeacher Professional Development and MotivationFrench-language works237,207