C i l t / V o l u me : 4 S a y ı / I s s u e : 2 A r a l ı k / De c e mb e r 2 0 1 5
B ÜE F A D
B A R T I NÜNİ V E R S İ T E S İ
E Ğİ T İ MF A K Ü L T E S İ D E R G İ S İ Ul u s l a r a r a s ı Ha k e ml i De r g i
I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e f e r e e dJ o u r n a l
2 0 1 5 4 I S S N1 3 0 8 7 1 7 7
2
BARTIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ BARTIN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF FACULTY OF EDUCATION ISSN:1308-7177
ULUSLARARASI HAKEMLİ DERGİ / INTERNATIONAL REFEREED JOURNAL
Cilt/Volume: 4, Sayı/Issue: 2, Aralık/December 2015 Sahibi Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Adına Prof. Dr. Firdevs GÜNEŞ (Dekan)
Owner On Behalf of Bartin University Faculty of Education Prof. Firdevs GUNES (Dean)
Editör Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sedat BALYEMEZ
Editor Asst. Prof. Sedat BALYEMEZ
Alan Editörleri Prof. Dr. Çetin SEMERCİ Doç. Dr. Necati HIRÇA Doç. Dr. Nuriye SEMERCİ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ayşe Derya IŞIK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ayla ÇETİN DİNDAR Yrd. Doç. Dr. F. Gizem KARAOĞLAN YILMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gülsün ŞAHAN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Harun ER Yrd. Doç. Dr. Neslihan USTA Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sinem TARHAN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman Erkam SULAK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süreyya GENÇ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yılmaz KARA
Field Editors Prof. Cetin SEMERCI Assoc. Prof. Necati HIRCA Assoc. Prof. Nuriye SEMERCI Asst. Prof. Ayse Derya ISIK Asst. Prof. Ayla CETIN DINDAR Asst. Prof. F. Gizem KARAOGLAN YILMAZ Asst. Prof. Gulsun SAHAN Asst. Prof. Harun ER Asst. Prof. Neslihan USTA Asst. Prof. Sinem TARHAN Asst. Prof. Suleyman Erkam SULAK Asst. Prof. Sureyya GENC Asst. Prof. Yilmaz KARA
Yabancı Dil Sorumlusu Yrd. Doç. Dr. Özge GÜN
Foreign Language Specialist Asst. Prof. Ozge GUN
Yayıma Hazırlık Arş. Gör. Arzu ÇEVİK Arş. Gör. Ömer KEMİKSİZ
Preparing for Publication RA. Arzu CEVIK RA. Omer KEMIKSIZ
Sekretarya Arş. Gör. Hasan Basri KANSIZOĞLU
Secretary RA. Hasan Basri KANSIZOGLU
Teknik Sorumlular Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ramazan YILMAZ Arş. Gör. Barış ÇUKURBAŞI
Technical Assistants Asst. Prof. Ramazan YILMAZ RA. Baris CUKURBASI
İletişim Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi 74100 BARTIN – TÜRKİYE e-posta:
[email protected] Tel: +90 378 223 54 59 Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (BÜEFAD), yılda iki kez yayımlanan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir. Yazıların sorumluluğu, yazarlarına aittir.
Contact Bartin University Faculty of Education 74100 BARTIN – TURKEY e-mail:
[email protected] Tel: +90 378 223 54 59 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education (BUJFED) is a international refereed journal that is published two times a year. The responsibility lies with the authors of papers.
Kapak: Arş. Gör. Barış ÇUKURBAŞI – Öğr. Gör. Hüseyin UYSAL Dizin / İndeks ULAKBİM Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Veri Tabanı, EBSCOHOST, Index Copernicus, Proquest Education Journals Database, Modern Language Association, Citefactor, The Directory of Research Journal Indexing, Open Academic Journal Index, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY YAYIN DANIŞMA KURULU / EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Prof. Dr. Hayati AKYOL Prof. Dr. Hüseyin ALKAN Prof. Dr. Sebahattin ARIBAŞ Prof. Dr. Ahmet ARIKAN Prof. Dr. Safure BULUT Prof. Dr. Recai DOĞAN Prof. Dr. Firdevs GÜNEŞ Prof. Dr. Ahmet GÜNŞEN Prof. Dr. Bilgin Ünal İBRET Prof. Dr. Ramazan KAPLAN Prof. Dr. Firdevs KARAHAN Prof. Dr. Aziz KILINÇ Prof. Dr. Ahmet KIRKKILIÇ Prof. Dr. Murat ÖZBAY Prof. Dr. Ahmet SABAN Prof. Dr. Çetin SEMERCİ Prof. Dr. M. Fatih TAŞAR Prof. Dr. Yavuz TAŞKESENLİGİL Prof. Dr. Cemal TOSUN Prof. Dr. Selahattin TURAN Prof. Dr. Mimar TÜRKKAHRAMAN Prof. Dr. Selma YEL Doç. Dr. Bahri ATA Doç. Dr. Eyyup COŞKUN Doç. Dr. Erol DURAN Doç. Dr. Tolga GÜYER Doç. Dr. Emine KOLAÇ Doç. Dr. Nuriye SEMERCİ Doç. Dr. Sabri SİDEKLİ Doç. Dr. Çavuş ŞAHİN Doç. Dr. Neşe TERTEMİZ Doç. Dr. Kubilay YAZICI
Gazi Üniversitesi Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Adıyaman Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Ankara Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Trakya Üniversitesi Kastamonu Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Sakarya Üniversitesi Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Atatürk Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Konya Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Atatürk Üniversitesi Ankara Üniversitesi Osmangazi Üniversitesi Akdeniz Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Uşak Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Anadolu Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Niğde Üniversitesi
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY BU SAYININ HAKEMLERİ / REFEREES OF THIS ISSUE Prof. Dr. Firdevs GÜNEŞ Prof. Dr. Çetin SEMERCİ Prof. Dr. İbrahim BİLGİN Prof. Dr. Nergüz BULUT SERİN Doç. Dr. Adnan KARADÜZ Doç. Dr. Ali Osman ALAKUŞ Doç. Dr. Ayşe OKVURAN Doç. Dr. Başaran GENÇDOĞAN Doç. Dr. Berna CANTÜRK GÜNHAN Doç. Dr. Cemal TOSUN Doç. Dr. Cihan ÖZDEMİR Doç. Dr. Çiğdem KILIÇ Doç. Dr. Deniz Beste ÇEVİK KILIÇ Doç. Dr. Duygu PİJİ KÜÇÜK Doç. Dr. Erdal TATAR Doç. Dr. Fatma ŞAŞMAZ ÖREN Doç. Dr. Fatime BALKAN KIYICI Doç. Dr. Gizem SAYGILI Doç. Dr. Gökhan DEMİRCİOĞLU Doç. Dr. Gülsen ÜNVER Doç. Dr. H. Elif DAĞLIOĞLU Doç. Dr. Hünkâr KORKMAZ Doç. Dr. Kasım YILDIRIM Doç. Dr. Mehmet Altan KURNAZ Doç. Dr. Mehmet Barış HORZUM Doç. Dr. Mustafa BAŞARAN Doç. Dr. Mustafa KURT Doç. Dr. Oğuzhan KILDAN Doç. Dr. Ömer ADIGÜZEL Doç. Dr. Salih Zeki GENÇ Doç. Dr. Sevgi KINGIR Doç. Dr. Soner Mehmet ÖZDEMİR Doç. Dr. Şebnem Kandil İNGEÇ Doç. Dr. Tazegül DEMİR ATALAY Doç. Dr. Tolga ERDOĞAN Doç. Dr. Tolga KABACA Doç. Dr. Türkay Nuri TOK Doç. Dr. Yavuz ERİŞEN Doç. Dr. Yusuf CERİT Doç. Dr. Yücel ÖKSÜZ Doç. Dr. Zarife SEÇER Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ahmet YIKMIŞ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Aslıhan OSMANOĞLU Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ayla ÇETİN DİNDAR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Aynur PALA Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ayşe Derya IŞIK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ayşe ELİÜŞÜK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Bekir Necati ALTIN
Bartın Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Lefke Avrupa Üniversitesi Erciyes Üniversitesi Dicle Üniversitesi Ankara Üniversitesi Atatürk Üniversitesi Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Yunus Emre Enstitüsü Mersin Üniversitesi Balıkesir Üniversitesi Marmara Üniversitesi Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sakarya Üniversitesi Isparta Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Ege Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Hacettepe Üniversitesi Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Kastamonu Üniversitesi Sakarya Üniversitesi Bozok Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Kastamonu Üniversitesi Ankara Üniversitesi Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Hacettepe Üniversitesi Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Kafkas Üniversitesi Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Pamukkale Üniversitesi Pamukkale Üniversitesi Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Konya Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Trakya Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Niğde Üniversitesi
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY Yrd. Doç. Dr. Emrullah YILMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Erol BARIN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Esen ERSOY Yrd. Doç. Dr. Esin ERGÜN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Cansel KADIOĞLU Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gülce COŞKUN ŞENTÜRK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gürcan UZAL Yrd. Doç. Dr. Gürsoy MERİÇ Yrd. Doç. Dr. F. Gizem KARAOĞLAN YILMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hülya KUTU Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hüseyin EŞ Yrd. Doç. Dr. İlker CIRIK Yrd. Doç. Dr. İlknur GÜVEN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Kemal Zeki ZORBAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Kemalettin PARLAK Yrd. Doç. Dr. M. Hülya ÜNAL KARAGÜVEN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mehmet BİLGİN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mustafa KALE Yrd. Doç. Dr. Mustafa Onur CESUR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Neslihan BAY Yrd. Doç. Dr. Neslihan USTA Yrd. Doç. Dr. Nurhan ÖZTÜRK GEREN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Özge GÜN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ramazan YILMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Ramazan YİRCİ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sadet MALTEPE Yrd. Doç. Dr. Safiye ASLAN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sedef CANBAZOĞLU BİLİCİ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Seçil Eda KARTAL Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sefa DÜNDAR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sema SOYDAN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sema SULAK Yrd. Doç. Dr. Serpil ÖZDEMİR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sevan NART Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sibel SADİ YILMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Sinem TARHAN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Songül GİREN Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman GÖKSOY Yrd. Doç. Dr. Şenay YAPICI Yrd. Doç. Dr. Tuncay Yavuz ÖZDEMİR Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yasemin KIYMAZ Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yılmaz KARA Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yılmaz TONBUL Öğr. Gör. Dr. Özge ELİÇİN Dr. Hayriye Tuğba ÖZTÜRK
Bartın Üniversitesi Hacettepe Üniversitesi Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Karabük Üniversitesi Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Kilis 7 Aralık Üniversitesi Sinop Üniversitesi Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Marmara Üniversitesi Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi İstanbul Sabahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Marmara Üniversitesi Çukurova Üniversitesi Gazi Üniversitesi Maltepe Üniversitesi Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Sinop Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Balıkesir Üniversitesi Aksaray Üniversitesi Aksaray Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Mevlana Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Kafkas Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Aksaray Üniversitesi Düzce Üniversitesi Amasya Üniversitesi Fırat Üniversitesi Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Bartın Üniversitesi Ege Üniversitesi Uludağ Üniversitesi Ankara Üniversitesi
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY İÇİNDEKİLER / CONTENTS Firdevs GÜNEŞ Başlık ve Zihni Yönlendirme
Title and Guiding Mind Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000131232
290-305
Belgin BAL İNCEBACAK Müzede Drama: Heykel ve İmgelem Kavramı
Drama at the Museum: The Concept of Sculpture and Imagination Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000222
306-318
Özgür EROĞLU Eğitim Fakültesi Mezunu Müzik Öğretmenlerinin Armoni Bilgi ve Becerilerine İlişkin Görüşleri
Faculty of Education Graduate Music Teachers’ Opinions on their Harmony Knowledge and Skills Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000143436
319-330
Yeliz ÇELEN İlköğretim Öğretmenlerinin Matematiğe Yönelik Tutumlarının Öğretmen Özellikleri Açısından İncelenmesi
Review of Primary School Teachers’ Attitude towards Mathematics in the Framework of their Teaching Features
331-343
Doi: 10.14686/buefad.01263
Melike YAVUZ TOPALOĞLU - Fatime BALKAN KIYICI Fen Bilimleri Programlarının Karşılaştırılması: Türkiye ve Avustralya
Comparison of Science Curriculum: Turkey and Australia Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000266
344-363
Cafer ÇARKIT – Adnan KARADÜZ Ortaokul Yazarlık ve Yazma Becerileri Dersi Bağlamında Yazma Becerisi Öğretimi Üzerine Öğretmen Görüşleri
Teachers' Perceptions in Teaching Writing Skills in the Context of Middle School Authorship and Writing Skills Course
364-381
Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000137223
Oğuz DİLMAÇ – Cihan İNANÇ Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Görsel Sanatlar Dersine Yönelik Öz Yeterlik Düzeyleri
The Self-Sufficiency Levels of Classroom Teachers about Visual Arts Course Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000254
382-400
Ayşe Belgin AKSOY – Hurşide Kübra ÖZKAN Çocukların Bilişsel Tempoları İle Sosyal Problem Çözme Becerilerinin Bazı Demografik Özellikler Açısından İncelenmesi (Kırklareli İl Merkezi Örneklemi)
Examination of Children’s Cognitive Tempo and Social Problem-Solving Skills Regarding Some Demographic Characteristics (A Sample Study of Kirklareli City Centre)
401-417
Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000136006
Feyza GÜN – Hilal BÜYÜKGÖZE Araştırma Görevlilerinin Bireysel Gelişim İnisiyatifinde Özyeterliğin Rolü
The Role of Self-Efficacy on Personal Growth Initiative among Research Assistants Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000139086 . .
418-432
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY İÇİNDEKİLER / CONTENTS Ali KIRKSEKİZ - Mehmet UYSAL – Onur İŞBULAN - Özcan Erkan AKGÜN Mübin KIYICI – Mehmet Barış HORZUM Okul Deneyimi ve Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Derslerine Eleştirel Bir Bakış: Problemler, Beklentiler ve Çözüm Önerileri
A Critical View to School Experience and Application of Teaching Courses: Problems, Expectations and Solution Suggestions
433-451
Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000250
F. Ceyda ÇINARDAL - Levent ÇINARDAL – Binali ÇATAK Mesleki Müzik Eğitimi Veren Yükseköğretim Kurumlarındaki Öğrencilerin Eleştirel Düşünme Eğilimleri Critical Thinking Tendency of Students at Higher Education Institutions Providing Professional Music Education Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000240
452-465
Güngör KESKİNKILIÇ YUMUŞAK Öğretmen Adaylarının Yansıtıcı Düşünme Eğilimleri Ve Mesleğe Yönelik Tutumları Reflective Thinking Tendencies of Preservice Teachers and their Attitudes towards the Teaching Profession Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000206
466-481
Ensar AYDIN - Süleyman Erkam SULAK Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının “Değer” Kavramına Yönelik Metafor Algıları Metaphor Perception of Prospective Primary School Teachers for “Value” Concept Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000148420
482-500
Abdullah Çağrı BİBER – Ziya ARGÜN Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Tek ve İki Değişkenli Fonksiyonlarda Limit Konusunda Sahip Oldukları Kavram Bilgileri Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi The Relations Between Concept Knowledge Related to the Limits Concepts in One and Two Variables Functions of Mathematics Teachers Candidates Doi: 10.14686/buefad.26967
501-515
Arzu ÖZYÜREK – Fatih AKÇA Zihinsel Yetersizliği Olan Çocukların Oyuncak Profillerinin İncelenmesi An Examination of the Toy Profiles of the Children with Mental Deficiency Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000142122
516-529
Aysun DOĞUTAŞ Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Küreselleşen Dünyada Türk Öğretmen Adaylarının Kültürel Zekâ Seviyeleri Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000131990
530-547
Ali SICAK – Mehmet BAŞÖREN Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Akademik Motivasyonlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi (Bartın Örneği) An Investigation of High School Students Academic Motivation in Related to Various Variables (Bartın Samples) Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000239
548-560
Songül GİREN – Emre DURAK Okul Öncesi Öğretmenlerinin Oyuncak Kavramına İlişkin Metaforik Algıları Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Metaphors about Toy Concept Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000143590
561-575
Erdal TATAR Bir Kimyasal Problem Çözme Tekniği: Stokiyometrik Haritalama A Chemical Problem Solving Technique: Stoichiometric Mapping Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000138529
576-585
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY İÇİNDEKİLER / CONTENTS Yavuz ERİŞEN - Fazilet YAVUZ BİRBEN - Hatun SEVGİ YALIN - Pınar OCAK Üstün Yetenekli Çocukları Fark Edebilme ve Destekleme Eğitiminin Öğretmenler Üzerindeki Etkisi The Awareness and Support Training for Gifted Children: The Impact on Teachers Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000137872
586-602
Ahmet AKIN – Mehmet BAŞÖREN Algılanan Empatik Öz-Yeterlik ve Sosyal Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği The Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of the Perceived Empathic and Social Self-Efficacy Scale Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000235
603-610
Ercan ATASOY – Neslihan UZUN – Berna AYGÜN Dinamik Matematik Yazılımları ile Desteklenmiş Öğrenme Ortamında Öğretmen Adaylarının Teknolojik Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin İncelenmesi Investigating Pre-service Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content knowledge in Learning Environment Supported by Dynamic Mathematics Software Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000143622
611-633
A. Oğuzhan KILDAN – Berat AHİ Okul Öncesi Öğretmenlerinin Bilimsel Çalışmalara Yönelik Okuma Alışkanlıkları Reading Habits of Scientific Studies For Pre-School Teachers Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.1082000251
634-650
Tuncay CANBULAT - Hadiye KÜÇÜKKARAGÖZ - Fatma ERDOĞAN – Ayşe YEŞİLOĞLU Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarında Empatik Eğilim Düzeyi ve Geleceğe Dönük Beklenti The Level of Hopelessness and Empathic Tendency of a Group of Class Teacher Candidates Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000145067
651-665
Nail İLHAN - Yakup DOĞAN – Özge ÇİÇEK Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının “Özel Öğretim Yöntemleri” Dersindeki Yaşam Temelli Öğretim Uygulamaları Preservice Science Teachers' Context Based Teaching Practices in “Special Teaching Methods” Course Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000143534
666-681
Rıza SALAR – Ümit TURGUT Implementing Differentiated Instruction on Pre-Service Physics Teachers: Agendas Fizik Öğretmen Adaylarına Farklılaştırılmış Öğretimin Uygulanması: Ajandalar Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000136908
682-695
Fadime KOÇ DAMGACI - Yeliz KAYA - Rafet GÜNAY David Fetterman’ın Değerlendirme Modeli: Yetkilendirme Değerlendirmesi David Fetterman’s Evaluation Model: Empowerment Evaluation Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000139306
696-710
Sinem ATIŞ – Mustafa ARSLAN Yabancılara Türkçe Öğretiminde Dilsel Becerilerin Gelişimine Etkisi Bakımından Ders Materyallerinin Önem Derecelerinin Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) İle Belirlenmesi Determining the İmportance Level of Teaching Materials by Using Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) in Terms of Their Influence Over the Development of Language Skills in Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000136908
711-726
Gökmen ARSLAN Psikolojik İstismar Ölçeği (PİÖ) Geliştirme Çalışması: Ergenlerde Psikometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi Development Psychological Maltreatment Questionnaire (PMQ): Investigating Psychometric Properties in Adolescents Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000146983 . . .
727-738
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, Aralık 2015, BARTIN-TÜRKİYE
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2015, BARTIN-TURKEY İÇİNDEKİLER / CONTENTS Fatma SUSAR KIRMIZI – Ceren SAYGI Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Yaratıcı Drama Yöntemini Kullanmaya Yönelik Özyeterlik Algıları Elementary Teacher Candidates' Self-Efficacy Perceptions towards Using the Creative Drama Method Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000144840
739-750
Burçin GÖKKURT – Tuğba ÖRNEK - Fatih HAYAT – Yasin SOYLU Öğrencilerin Problem Çözme ve Problem Kurma Becerilerinin Değerlendirilmesi Assessing Students’ Problem-Solving and Problem-Posing Skills Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000145637
751-774
Soner DOĞAN – Celal Teyyar UĞURLU - Orhan KAYA Okul Yöneticilerinin Etik Liderlik Davranışlarının Öğretmenlerin Algı ve Görüşlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi Evaluation of School Administrators' Ethical Leadership Behaviors According Teachers’ Perceptions and Opinions Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000145818
775-789
Cemil KIRIM – Necati HIRÇA Lise Öğrencilerinin Kişisel Hijyen ve Temizlik Alışkanlıklarının Fen Okur-Yazarlığına Göre Değerlendirilmesi The Evaluation of High School Students’ Personal Hygiene Habits Based on Science Literacy Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000138700
790-802
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 4, Sayı 2, s.530-547, Aralık 2015 BARTIN – TÜRKİYE
ISSN: 1308-7177
Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education Volume 4, Issue 2, p.530-547, December 2015 BARTIN – TURKEY
Doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000131990
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ, Yrd. Doç. Dr., Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi,
[email protected] Abstract: This study aims to examine and explore the cultural intellengence level of teacher candidates in a descriptive manner. It also tries to show whether the cultural intelligence level is associated with the socio-demographics of the participants such as parent’s education, gender, the department they enrolled, and the hometown region. Participants of the study were 450 teacher candidates enrolled in the teacher education program at a university in Turkey on 2014-2015 academic years. Data were gathered through Cultural Intelligence Scale developed by Ang et al. in 2007 adapted to Turkish and assessed its psychometrics properties by Ilhan and Cetin in 2014. The gathered data are examined through a couple of steps including univariate information about the computed and recoded variables by showing tabulation and simple data presentation. It then presents the mean comparison of the cultural intelligence level variables based on the socio-demographics of participants and the bivariate analyses of cultural intelligence level and socio-demographic variables using correlation coefficient method (Pearson’s r). Regarding the mean comparison of the participants’ cultural intellinge scores, this study determined some differences among teacher candidates based on their gender and department they study. Also, looking at the results of the Pearson correlation coefficients, this study identified some significant relationships between some socio-demographics and cultural intelligence scores of the candidates. Key Words: Cultural intelligence, culture, teacher candidates, globalization, education
Küreselleşen Dünyada Türk Öğretmen Adaylarının Kültürel Zekâ Seviyeleri Öz: Bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının kültürel zeka seviyelerini betimsel olarak araştırma ve incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ayrıca, katılımcıların kültürel zeka seviyesi ile anne-babalarının eğitimi, cinsiyet, üniversitede devam ettikleri bölüm ve memleketleri gibi sosyo-demografik geçmişleri arasında ilişki olup olmadığını göstermeye çalışacaktır. Katılımcılar, 2014-2015 akademik yılında Türkiye’deki bir üniversitenin eğitim fakültesine kayıtlı 450 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Veriler, 2007’de Ang ve arkadaşları tarafından geliştirilen ve 2014’te Ilhan ve Cetin tarafından Türkçe’ye uyarlanan ve psikometrik testleri yapılan Kültürel Zeka Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Toplanan veriler, öncelikle basit veri sunumu ve çizelge sunumu yapılarak değişkenlerin kodlaması ve analize hazır hale getirilmesi aşamalarının da dahil olduğu birkaç adımda incelenmiştir. Daha sonra katılımcıların kültürel zeka puanlarının ortalamaları sosyo-demografik geçmişlerine göre karşılaştırılmış ve korelasyon katsayısı metodu (Pearson’s r) kullanılarak sosyo-demografik ve kültürel zeka seviye değişkenlerinin iki yönlü analizleri sunulmuştur. Katılımcıların kültürel zeka puanlarının ortalamaları karşılaştırıldığında, bu çalışma öğretmen adaylarının cinsiyet ve okudukları bölüme göre aralarında bazı farklılıklar gösterdiklerini belirlemiştir. Ayrıca bu çalışma, Pearson korelasyon katsayılarına bakıldığında, öğretmen adaylarının kültürel zeka seviyeleri ile bazı sosyo-demografik geçmişleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki tespit etmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kültürel zekâ, kültür, öğretmen adayları, küreselleşme, eğitim
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4(2), s.530–547, Aralık 2015 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 4(2) p.530–547, December 2015
1. INTRODUCTION Today, it is not wrong to say that borders among countries are removed due to developments on science and technology. For the last two decades we as world citizens have been living in a village due to globalization. What is globalization? Globalization sometimes refers to process of arising only one culture since societies are alike each other; sometimes refers to process of expressing differences and identities of individuals and socities (Cafoglu & Somuncuoglu, 2000). At this period, various cultures’ getting together and improving dialogue among cultures is an essantiality for all countries (Cirik, 2008, p. 37). Culture is the basic element that bring socities together. It is important to protect one’s own culture. Culture is defined as a whole of organized behaviors, thoughts and perceptions and constituting roles detemining expected behaviors from a group by Duverger (2004). Since we as world citizens are living in a globalized world. Nowadays, individuals, companies and cultures from different parts of the world are interacting with each other very often. Thus, individuals should be aware of different cultures, languagaes, and people to be able to live in this multicultural world. Turkey is located between Asia and Europe and getting many immigrants and tourists from different countries. Also, Turkey has different ethnic, language, and cultural differences within its own borders. Since Turkey gets many immigrants and tourists from different cultures and has various cultural differences within its borders, determining cultural intelligence of Turkish people, especially the teacher candidates expected to shape our future, will be significant. Although globalization has made the world seem smaller and ‘flat’ in many ways (Friedman, 2005), increasing cultural diversity creates challenges for individuals and organizations, making the world ‘not so flat’ after all ( Ang et. al., 2007). For example, a quite large body of research demonstrates the challenges of indvidulas functioning in new cultural settings. Relatively little research, however, focuses on factors that could improve intercultural encounters (Gelfand et al., 2007). Responding to this need, Earley and Ang (2003) developed the construct of cultural intelligence (CQ) based on contemporary theories of intelligence (Sternberg, 1986). Thus, it is important to identify cultural intelligence level of teacher candidates because in 2006 State Planning Organization emhasized the necessity of supporting multicultural education and improving teachers’ sensitivity to cultural differences by the way of improving teacher training (Demir, 2012). However, there is still nothing to determine where we are on this subject. Therefore, it would be a good start with the identification of cultural intellengence level of teacher candidates to fill in the gap between the goal of the State and the reality of the situation. 1.1. What is Cultural Intelligence? Although early research tended to view intelligence narrowly as the ability to grasp concepts and solve problems in academic settings, there is now increasing consensus that “intelligence may be displayed in places other than classroom” (Stenberg & Detterman, 1986). The growing interest in “real-world” intelligence has identified new types of intelligence that focus on specific content domains. These new types of intelligence are social intelligence, emotional intelligence and cultural intelligence. Since we are living in a globalized world, it is important to see the level of cultural intelligence level of people. Eventhough every society has its own culture; according to joint history, living environment, vernacular, economig field occupation and socio-economic level people groups
531
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ
living in the same society develop various sub-cultures (Cirik, 2008). In this context, cultural intelligence can be seen as an intelligence type propounded to describe the differences seen among people in the persepective of capability of getting interaction with diverse cultures both within his/her own society or with other societies (Ilhan & Cetin, 2014, p. 95). Since the point is differences, teachers cultural level of intelligence should be high to interact with students from different settings. “Cultural Intelligence, defined as an individual’s capability of function and manage effectively in culturally diverse settings” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p.3). Cultural intelligence is a multidimensional concept and have four subdimensions according to Early and Ang (2003). These are metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioral dimensions. The following section will present these four dimensions of cultural intelligence. The first one is metacognitive cultural intelligence. It “refers to an individual’s level of concious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interactions” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5). People whose metacognitive cultural intelligence is high mostly question their own cultural assumptions, reflect during interactions, and adjust their cultural knowledge when interacting with those form other cultures (And & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5). The second dimension of cultural intelligence is cognitive cultural intelligence. Cognitive cultural intelligence represents knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences, while metacognitive cultural intelligence focuses on higher-order cognitive processes (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Cultural intelligence reflects an individual’s level of cultural knowledge or knowledge of the cultural environment.
532
Another dimension of cultural intelligence is motivational cultural intelligence which “reflects the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situaitons characterized by cultural differences” (Ang & Van Dyne, p. 6). People who have high motivaitonal cultural intelligence direct attention and energy toward cross-cultural situations based on intrinsic interest ( Deci & Rayn, 1985) and confidence in cross-cultural effectiveness (Bandura, 2002). Last dimension of cultural intelligence is behavioral cultural intelligence. It represents “the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 7). As Early and Ang (2003) stated individuals with high behavioral cultural intelligence are flexible and can adjust their behaviors to the specifics of each cultural interaction. 1.2. Evaluating Cultural Intelligence To evaluate cultural intelligence Ang et. al. (2007) improved Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). It can be said that individuals getting high scores from the CQS have developed capability on performing appropriate behaviors during interactions with people from diverse cultures, enjoying having multicultural interactions, having self confidence on interacting with diverse cultures, having knowledge about diverse cultures and arranging obtained knowledge according to the culture’s necessities that he/she interacting (Ang et al. 2007; Brislin, Worthley & MacNab, 2006). On the other hand, it can be said that individuals getting low score from CQS are unwilling to have knowledge about diverse cultures, adaptation to differences among diverse cultures and interact with diverse cultures (Brislin, Worthley & MacNab, 2006, p. 97). 1.3. Previous Studies Emprical studies on cultural intelligence are quite new around the world. Although empirical research on cultural intelligence is relatively new, the initial results are strong and
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4(2), s.530–547, Aralık 2015 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 4(2) p.530–547, December 2015
promising. Results in three substantive studies across different cultural, educational and work settings of Ang et al. (2007) demonstrate a systematic pattern of relationships between dimensions of CQ and specific intercultural effectiveness outcomes (n= 794). These findings show the value of using contemporary conceptualizations of intelligence as a framework for conceptualizing a set of intercultural competencies: metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ and behavioral CQ. Results of Ang et al. (2007) have demonstrated that Cultural Intelligence predicts cultural judgment and decision making (CJDM) and task performance. In another empirical study that focused specifically on motivational CQ and expatriate adjustment, Ang et al. showed that motivational Cultural Intelligence predicts all three types of adjustment, even after controlling for time in the host country and experience in international assignments. More recently, cultural bias in surveys has been examined by Culpepper & Zimmerman (2006). These authors found evidence of extreme response bias among Hispanic respondents and also the tendency to avoid using the mid-point of the scale. Studies done outside Turkey mostly focused on one dimension of intelligence level, however, this study will try to explain the general intelligence level of Turkish teacher candidates and its’ relations with some socio-demographic items. Since the studies on cultural intelligence are somewhat new and Cultural Intelligence Scale was adapted to Turkish in 2014, there hasn’t been any study done in Turkey on cultural intelligence level using the CQS. This study will be the first study done on cultural intelligence level of Turkish people. 1.4. Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study was to examine and explore the cultural intellengence level of teacher candidates in a descriptive manner. It also tries to show whether the cultural intelligence level is associated with the socio-demographics of the participants such as parent’s education, gender, the department they enrolled, and the hometown region. With this aim, the primary hypothesis of the study was that cultural intelligence level of teacher candidates is associated with socio-demographics of themselves. Secondary hypotheses were; 1- Cultural intelligence level of teacher candidates whose parents’ have higher education is higher. 2- Cultural intelligence level of female teacher candidates is higher than male candidates. 3- Cultural intelligence level of teacher candidates who enrolled in social sciences department is higher than those in other departments. 2. METHOD This section explains and justifies the method used for determining cultural intelligence level of teacher candidates studying at a university in Turkey. The sequence of sub-titles are rationale for the study, participants, sources of data and survey instrument and data collection used in this study. It also presents the detailed information about the statistical analysis and techniques utilized for data analysis. 2.1. Methodology of Data Collection During the fall semester of 2014-2015 academic years between September and November, the data were collected at the university. Participants completed questionnaire before their classes begin at the classroom setting. All participated voluntarily and ethical guidelines for protection of participants were observed. The researcher informed them that their names will
533
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ
not be asked and included in this study to ensure their participation. To encourage survey response, the researcher added a brief statement at the top of survey material in order to let them know about the aim, scope, and the possible outcomes of the study. 2.2. Participants Participants are selected from freshmans and graduated students. Universities are multicultural settings and there are individuals from different settings. In sophomore and senior years university students are adapted to these differences. However, freshmans are new at the university and come from their homecity recently. Maybe in an academic environment it is the first time they face with individuals from different ethnicity, culture, or language. Thus, it will be meaningful to get freshmans and graduated students’ cultural intelligence level and compare them. Participants of the study were 450 teacher candidates enrolled in the teacher education program at the university on 2014-2015 academic years. 281 (%64,4) are girl and 155 (% 35,6) boy of the study group. 263 of participants ( % 58,4) are freshmans and 187 ( % 41,6) of them are graduated and enrolled pedagogical formation classes. Freshmans are from different departments of the teacher education program. The participant freshmans are from Turkish Education, CEIT (Computer Education and Instructional Technology), PCG (Psychological Counselling and Guidance), Fine Arts, Social Sciences, Science Education, and Music departments. 2.3. Sources of Data and Survey Instruments
534
To determine cultural intelligence level of individulas, the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS) consisting of 20 items and 4 dimensions was developed by Ang et al. (2007). CQS has gone through an extensive validation process, and research demonstrates that it is generalizable across a) multiple student and executive samples b) time intervals ranging from four weeks to four months c) countries such as Singapore, the U.S., and Ireland, and d) both global and domestic culturally diverse samples (Ang et al., 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2008; Shokef & Erez, 2008; Shannon & Begley, 2008; Kim, Kirkman, & Chen, 2008). Ang et al., (2007) used three cross-validation samples and substantive studies to support emprically for the realibility and validity of the scale. Results of three cross-validation samples and three substantive studies provide strong empirical support for the reliability, stability and validity of the CQS and demonstrate that specific dimensions of CQ have differential relationships with cognitive, affective and behavioral intercultural effectiveness outcomes. Corrected item-to-total correlations for each subscale (0.46–0.66) demonstrated strong relationships between items and their scales, supporting internal consistency. Reliabilities exceeded 0.70 (metacognitive CQ = 0.77, cognitive CQ = 0.84, motivational CQ = 0.77, and behavioral CQ = 0.84). CQS developed by Ang et al. in 2007 was adapted to Turkish and assessed its psychometrics properties by Ilhan and Cetin in 2014. Ilhan and Cetin (2014) also assessed scale’s validity and realibility. They conducted a research on 5 different study groups, who consisted of 1104 students at Dicle University Ziya Gokalp Education Faculty during 2012 Spring Semester. In Turkish adaptation process of CQS, its language equivalence was assessed and strong positive and significant correlations were obtained between Turkish and English versions. Explanatory and Confirmatory factor analysis showed four factors for Turkish version of CQS similar to its original version. Concurrent validity results showed that correlation between Turkish version of CQS and Intercultural Sensitivity Scale was .61 and correlation between Turkish version of CQS and Tromso Social Intelligence Scale was .44. Reliability analyses showed .85 internal
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4(2), s.530–547, Aralık 2015 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 4(2) p.530–547, December 2015
consistency coefficient and .81 test-retest reliability. Item analyses showed corrected itemtotal correlations were between .33 and .64. Based on these results, it can be concluded that Turkish version of CQS is a valid and reliable measurement in assessing university students’ cultural intelligence. During the application of survey, the participants were asked to read each positive statement and select the response that best describes their capabilities. Each item contained one idea, was relatively short in length, and used simple and direct language. Since negatively worded items can create artifacts, positively worded items were used. Participants were told to “Select the answer that BEST describes you AS YOU REALLY ARE (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).” First dimension is metacognitive level and consists of four questions such as “I am conscious of the cultural knowledge I use when interacting with people withdifferent cultural backgrounds.” Second dimension is cognitive level and consists of six questions like “I know the legal and economic systems of other cultures.” Third dimension is motivational level and consists of five questions. For example, “I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures.” Last level is behavioral level and consists of five questions such as “I change my verbal behavior (e.g., accent, tone) when a cross-cultural interaction requires it.” While asking questions about cultural intelligence, it would be meaningful to look at the gender, parents education, the department they chose and study, and the region their hometown is located since socio-demographic backgrounds of people could have an impact on them in a various way. Thus, gender, mother education, father education, the department, and the region they live are also asked to the participants. 2.4. Dependent and Independent Variables To test and analyze the hypotheses, dependent variables such as metacognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, motivational CQ, behavioral CQ, and total CQ were identified. This study handled the socio-demographics like parent’s education, gender, the department they enrolled, and the hometown region as independent variables. To be able to get the variables representing those dimensions of CQS, researcher computed the data gathered by 20 questions based on the dimensions criteria and received four new ordinal variable such as “Metacognition_CQ” (mean=21,09, min=8 and max=28), “Cognition_CQ” (mean=23,57, min=6 and max=39), “Motivation_CQ” (mean=25,36, min=6 and max=35), and “Behavior_CQ” (mean=24,52, min=9 and max=35). Then, to see the total number of Cultural Intelligence Level, researcher computed the answers given for all 20 questions and received a new variable called CQ_Total (mean=94,92, min=45 and max=137). All these five dependent variables are normally distributed (See Table 1). Table 1: Statistics of dependent variables Metacognition
Cognition
Motivation
Behavior
CQ_Total
437
434
441
441
408
Mean
21,09
23,57
25,36
24,52
94,92
Std. Deviation
3,569
5,766
5,579
4,930
14,552
N
Minimum
8
6
6
9
45
Maximum
28
39
35
35
137
535
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ
Independent variables such as parent’s education, gender, the department they enrolled, and the hometown region are socio-demographics of the participants and are assumed as having an impact on dependent variables. Looking at gender, 281 (%64,4) were girl and 155 ( % 35,6) boy of the study group (See Table 2). Participants (n=450) were from different departments of the teacher education program. 263 of them (% 58,4) are freshmans and 187 of them (% 41,6) are graduated and enrolled pedagogical formation classes. The participant freshmans are from Turkish Education (n=64, %14,2), CEIT (Computer Education and Instructional Technology) (n=48, % 10,7), PCG (Psychological Counselling and Guidance) (n=41, % 9,1), Fine Arts (n= 33, %7,3), Social Sciences (n=22, % 4,9), Science Education (n=33, %7,3) and Music departments (n=22, % 4,9) (See Table 2). Mother of participants’ education are classified as illeterate (n=18, %4,2), primary education (n=299, % 69,9), high school education (n=75, % 17,5) and higher education (n=36, % 8,4). Fathers’ education level was also classified as illeterate (n= 3 % 0,7), primary education (n=240, % 55,8), high school education (n=101, %23,5) and higher education (n=86, %20) (See Table 2). Regions that they live classified as Mediterranean (n=68, % 16), Aegean (n=252, % 59,5), Central Anatolia (n=32, % 7,5), Black Sea (n=7, % 1,6), Marmara (n=35, % 8,2), East Anatolia (n=12, % 2,8), and Southeast Anatolia (n=18, % 4,2) (See Table 2).
536
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4(2), s.530–547, Aralık 2015 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 4(2) p.530–547, December 2015
Table 2: Sociodemographics of Participants as Independent Variables Sociodemographics Gender
Department
Frequency
Percent
Girl
281
64,4
Boy
155
35,6
Turkish
64
14,2
CEIT
48
10,7
PCG
41
9,1
Art
33
7,3
Social
22
4,9
Science
33
7,3
Music
22
4,9
187
41,6
Mothers’
18
4,2
Fathers’
3
,7
Mothers’
299
69,9
Fathers’
240
55,8
Mothers’
75
17,5
Fathers’
101
23,5
Mothers’ Higher Education Fathers’
36
8,4
86
20,0
Mediterranean
68
16,0
253
59,5
32
7,5
Black Sea
7
1,6
Marmara
35
8,2
Southeast Anatolia
18
4,2
East Anatolia
12
2,8
Pedagogical Formation
Illeterate
Primary School Educational Level High School
Aegean Central Anatolia Regions of Homecities
537
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ
2.5. Data Analysis This study aims to examine and explore the cultural intellengence level of teacher candidates in a descriptive manner. It also tries to show whether the cultural intelligence level is associated with the socio-demographics of the participants such as parent’s education, gender, the department they enrolled, and the hometown region. Univariate and bivariate level analysis were conducted through out the study. Since the identification and the explanation of the factors associated with the level of cultural intelligence is not in the scope of the study, multilevel analysis were not conducted. This study examines data through a couple of steps. First, it begins providing univariate information about the computed and recoded variables by showing tabulation and simple data presentation in a descriptive manner. Univariate statistics mentioned helped to know more about the data through the descriptive statistics like the mean values, standard deviations, and the frequencies of the variables. Second, bivariate analysis such as mean comparison and Pearson’s correlation coefficient showed the associations, in general, between sociodemographics (independent variables) and cultural levels of participants (dependent variables). 3. FINDINGS
538
It would be interesting to see cultural inteligence score if it differs to boy or girl. Therefore, this study compared means for cultural intelligence scores at the categories of metacognition, cognition, motivation, behavior, and total as a whole. Table 7 shows that boys have slightly higher scores on all categories of cultural intelligence except behavior than girls. For example, the mean is higher for boys (21,31) than girls (21,06) regarding metacognitional cultural inteligence. For cognitional cultural intelligence it is (24,36) for boys and (23,28) for girls. Regarding motivational cultural intelligence the mean value is (25,64) for boys and (25,31) for girls. However, the mean value for girls (24,76) is higher than for boys (24,36) regarding the behavioral cultural intelligence. Finally, the mean value for boys (96,00) is higher than for girls (94,80) regarding the total scores of cultural intelligence items (See Table 3).
Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4(2), s.530–547, Aralık 2015 Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 4(2) p.530–547, December 2015
Table 3: Mean Comparison for Gender Gender Girl
Metacognition
Cognition
Motivation
Behavior
CQ_Total
21,06
23,28
25,31
24,76
94,80
274
270
274
276
254
Std. Deviation
3,588
5,706
5,705
5,036
14,913
Mean
21,31
24,36
25,64
24,36
96,00
150
151
153
151
142
3,618
5,806
5,401
4,728
14,048
Mean N
Boy
N Std. Deviation
Also, it would be useful to see cultural inteligence scores regarding the department of teacher candidates that they study. Therefore, this study compared means for cultural intelligence scores based on the departments. Table 8 shows that the teacher candidates in the department of social sciences have the highest mean value (22,00) for metacognitional cultural intelligence score, the candidates in Turkish department have the highest mean value (24,03) for cognitional cultural intelligence, the candidates in sciences department have the highest mean values (27,36) for motivational cultural intelligence and (26,03) for behavioral cultural intelligence score. As a total, the teacher candidates in the sciences department have the highest mean value (99,45) for the cultural intelligence score. Table 4: Mean Comparison for Department Department Turkish
Metacognition
Cognition
Motivation
Behavior
CQ_Total
20,80
24,03
24,53
24,11
93,27
61
63
62
62
56
Std. Deviation
3,949
5,016
5,203
5,061
14,591
Mean
20,17
23,54
25,33
25,04
94,25
46
46
46
46
40
Std. Deviation
3,761
5,443
5,379
4,320
13,341
Mean
20,93
23,05
25,93
25,63
95,21
Mean N
CEIT
N
PCG
N
Art
40
40
41
41
39
Std. Deviation
3,214
5,134
5,951
4,989
14,909
Mean
21,09
23,18
26,18
23,85
93,94
32
33
33
33
32
Std. Deviation
2,955
5,903
5,138
4,374
12,099
Mean
22,00
23,57
24,90
24,43
97,05
19
21
21
21
19
Std. Deviation
4,509
5,075
5,718
6,161
14,081
Mean
21,70
22,83
27,36
26,03
99,45
33
30
33
32
29
N
Social
N
Science
N
539
Cultural Intelligence Level of Turkish Teacher Candidates in Globalized World Aysun DOĞUTAŞ
Music
Std. Deviation
3,771
5,608
4,917
4,776
14,108
Mean
20,82
23,10
24,75
24,68
93,68
N
Pedagogical Formation
22
21
20
22
19
Std. Deviation
3,404
4,036
5,848
3,896
14,083
Mean
21,28
23,77
25,12
24,13
94,88
184
180
185
184
174
3,438
6,494
5,790
5,073
15,381
N Std. Deviation
Following the comparison of means based on gender and deparment, this study used the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix to see the relationships between dependent and sociodemographic variables such as educational levels of parents. The correlation is one of the most common and most useful statistics. A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two variables. It is very functional to show the strength and the direction of the relationship (Trochim, 2001). The following table is the correlation coefficient matrix that demonstrates whether or not independent variables are associated with the level of Cultural Intelligence. Therefore, this study attempted to represent the strong relationships, which are justifiable both theoretically and statistically concerning theoretical considerations and looking at the results of bivariate analyses mentioned.
540
Table 9 shows that motheredu and fatheredu are associated with one or two dependent variables. For example, there is statistically significant correlation between motheredu and motivational cultural intelligence at .05 level (r value=,09). Also fatheredu is significantly correlated with metacognitional cultural intelligence (r value=,092 and p
