Export Mendeley
＜departmental bulletin paper＞
Reliability and Validity of Teachersʼ Class Checklists and Studentsʼ Class Evaluation Questionnaires (1) : Analysis of Elementary School Teachersʼ and Studentsʼ Data
| Creator | |
|---|---|
| Language | |
| Publisher | |
| Date | |
| Source Title | |
| Vol | |
| First Page | |
| Last Page | |
| Publication Type | |
| Access Rights | |
| JaLC DOI | |
| Abstract | Although there are many Teachers’ Class Checklist and Student’s Class Evaluation questionnaires prepared by prefectural boards of education and published on their websites, there are not many cases in... which they have been verified in accordance with the psychometric methodology. The authors participated in the “Project to Promote the Development of Stable Academic Achievement through Classroom Building and Individualized Optimal Learning” (2022 to 2024) by the Compulsory Education Division of the A Prefectural Education Agency, and in analyzing data from the A Prefecture’s original academic achievement survey using item response theory (IRT) and the Q-U survey, we added the following as variables to explore the determinants of academic progress. In order to explore the determinants of academic progress, we planned to add students’ and teachers’ views on teaching as variables and analyze them. The subjects of the survey were 7 school district areas and 39 cooperating schools (26 elementary schools and 13 junior high schools) participating in the “Project for Promotion of Stable Academic Achievement through Classroom Development and Individualized Optimal Learning”. Data were obtained from 3,666 students (2,730 elementary school students and 946 junior high school students) and teachers (117 elementary school teachers and 32 junior high school teachers), excluding those who were absent on the day of the survey. The valid response rate for students was 88.2%. In this paper, 2,730 elementary school students and 117 elementary school teachers were included in the analysis. First, the results of factor analysis showed that the two scales for “consciously doing” and “perceiving difficulties in teaching,” which were created from the Teachers’ Class Checklist for elementary school teachers, had a one-factor structure, and based on the contents of each item, they were identified as “factor for devising classes” and “factor for recognizing difficulties in teaching”. Based on the content of each item, they were identified as “factor for devising classes” and “factor for recognizing difficulties in teaching”. In order to examine the relationship between the attributes of the teachers and the “factor for devising classes” and “factor for recognizing difficulties in teaching”, we conducted an analysis of variance with the number of years of teaching experience and the number of years at the school where the teachers had worked. The results suggest that the “factor for devising classes” may be higher when the number of years of teaching experience is low and the number of years of employment at the school is also high. The data also suggested that teachers with “less than 11 years of teaching experience” and “more than 4 years of teaching experience” may be able to devise their classes in accordance with the local conditions of the school where they work, even if their teaching experience is short. The correlation between Teacher’s “factor for devising classes” and the “actor for recognizing difficulties in teaching” and the A-prefecture version of the class evaluation questionnaire for students showed a correlation with the “factor for devising classes”, suggesting that children may recognize the devising classes of teachers, and that the A-prefecture version of the Class Checklist for teachers and the A-prefecture Class Evaluation questionnaire for students may have a certain validity. This suggests that there may be some validity in the A-prefecture version of the Teachers’ Class Checklist and the A-prefecture version of the Students’ Class Evaluation Questionnaire.show more |
| Table of Contents | １． 問題の所在と目的― 各教育委員会で作成される授業チェックリスト，授業評価アンケートの検証の必要性 ２．概念の整理―授業チェックリストと授業評価アンケートとの関係 ３．調査方法 ４．分析の結果 ５． 結論―授業チェックリストと授業評価アンケートに対する心理測定論的妥当性・信頼性の評価 |
Hide fulltext details.
| File | FileType | Size | Views | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
26_p035
|
1.86 MB | 49 |
Details
| PISSN | |
|---|---|
| NCID | |
| Record ID | |
| Funding Information | |
| Created Date | 2024.04.17 |
| Modified Date | 2024.04.17 |