Toward making the invisible visible using a scale: prospective teachers' thoughts and affective reactions to feedback

References

• Akkuzu, N. 2012. “Kimya öğretmen adaylarının mesleki yeterlilik düzeylerinin belirlenmesi [Determination of Professional Competence Levels of Chemistry Pre-service Teachers].” PhD diss., Dokuz Eylul University.
   Google Scholar
• Backhaus, K., B. Erichson, W. Plinke, and R. Weiber. 1994. Multivariate analysemethoden-eine anwendungsorientierte einführung [Multivariate Analysis Methods – an Application-oriented Introduction]. Berlin: Springer-Lechrbuch, 124–135.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Baştürk, S. 2009. “Öğretmenlik uygulaması dersinin öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerine göre incelenmesi [Investigating Teaching Practice Course According to Student Teachers' Opinions].” İlköğretim Online 2: 439–456.
   Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer, and K. D. Vohs. 2001. “Bad Is Stronger Than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5: 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.
   Google Scholar
• Bezzina, C. 2006. “Views from the Trenches: Beginning Teachers' Perceptions about Their Professional Development.” Journal of In-Service Education 32: 411–430. doi:10.1080/13674580601024515.
   Google Scholar
• Boz, N., and Y. Boz. 2006. “Do Prospective Teachers Get Enough Experience in School Placements?” Journal of Education for Teaching 32: 353–368. doi:10.1080/02607470600981912.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, C. 2008. “Integrating Feedback and Reflection in Teacher Preparation.” ELT Journal 62: 37–46. doi:10.1093/elt/ccm076.
   Google Scholar
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2007. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. İstatistik, araştrıma deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve yorum [Data Analysis Handbook for Social Sciences. Statistics, Research Pattern, SPSS Applications and Commentary]. Ankara: Pegem.
   Google Scholar
• Calvo, R. A., and R. A. Ellis. 2010. “Students' Conceptions of Tutor and Automated Feedback in Professional Writing.” Journal of Engineering Education 99: 427–438. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01072.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, L. B. 2004. Experimental Methodology. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, R. K., and D. C. Dibbon. 2008. Teacher Education in Canada. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education (SAEE).
   Google Scholar
• Çabakçor, B. Ö., E. Akşan, T. Öztürk, and S. O. Çimer. 2011. “İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematik derslerinden aldığı ve tercih ettikleri geri bildirim türleri [Types of Feedback That Were Received and Preferred by Prospective Primary Mathematics Teachers].” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 2: 46–68.
   Google Scholar
• Çokluk, Ö., G. Şekercioğlu, and Ş. Büyüköztürk. 2010. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, SPSS and LISREL Applications]. Ankara: Pegem.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, A. C., and J. E. Daniels. 2004. Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness. 4th ed. Atlanta, GA: Aubrey Daniels International.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Dedrick, R. F., K. Marfo, and D. M. Harris. 2007. “Experimental Analysis of Question Wording in an Instrument Measuring Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 67: 116–131. doi:10.1177/0013164406292034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edge, J. 1984. “Feedback with Face.” ELT Journal 38: 204–206. doi:10.1093/elt/38.3.204.
   Google Scholar
• Ekiz, D. 2006. “Self-observation and Peer Observation: Reflective Diaries of Primary Student-Teachers.” Elementary Education Online 5: 45–57.
   Google Scholar
• Ekşi, G. 2012. “Implementing an Observation and Feedback Form for More Effective Feedback in Microteaching.” Education and Science 37: 267–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot, B., and P. Sinlarat. 1999. “Social Dilemmas as a Source of Ongoing Teacher Development.” Paper presented at the ECER Conference, Lahti, Finland, September 22–25.
   Google Scholar
• Eraslan, A. 2009. “İlköğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarının ‘öğretmenlik uygulaması’ üzerine görüşleri [Prospective Mathematics Teachers' Opinions on ‘Teaching Practice’].” Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 1: 207–221.
   Google Scholar
• Everitt, B. S. 2002. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L. R., D. T. Wegener, R. C. MacCallum, and E. J. Strahan. 1999. “Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research.” Psychological Methods 4: 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, A. M., and J. M. Rudd. 2009. “Factor Analysis and Discriminant Validity: A Brief Review of Some Practical Issues.” Paper presented at the Australia-New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), Melbourne, Australia, November 30–December 2.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, F. J., and K. F. Widaman. 1995. “Factor Analysis in the Development and Refinement of Clinical Assessment Instruments.” Psychological Assessment 7: 286–299. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganesh, B., and S. M. Matteson. 2010. “The Benefits of Reteaching Lessons in Preservice Methods Classes.” Action in Teacher Education 32: 52–60. doi:10.1080/01626620.2010.549718.
   Google Scholar
• Gilles, C., M. M. Cramer, and S. K. Hwang. 2001. “Beginning Teacher Perceptions of Concerns: A Longitudinal Look at Teacher Development.” Action in Teacher Education 23: 89–98. doi:10.1080/01626620.2001.10463079.
   Google Scholar
• Gunning, A. M. 2010. “Exploring the Development of Science Self-efficacy in Pre-service Elementary School Teachers Participating in a Science Education Methods Course.” PhD diss., Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback”. Review of Educational Research 77: 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heneman, H. G. III, and A. T. Milanowski. 2003. “Continuing Assessment of Teacher Reactions to a Standards-based Teacher Evaluation System.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 17: 171–195.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, D., J. Coughlan, and M. R. Mullen. 2008. “Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit.” Journal of Business Research Methods 6: 53–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6: 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutton, P. R. 2013. “The Effect of Feedback on Self-efficacy and Musical Aptitude Scores.” PhD diss., University of Oklahoma.
   Google Scholar
• Keeping, L. M., and P. E. Levy. 2000. “Performance Appraisal Reactions: Measurement, Modeling, and Method Bias.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85: 708–723. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M. 2005. “The Effects of the Assessor and Assessee's Roles on Preservice Teachers' Metacognitive Awareness, Performance, and Attitude in a Technology-related Design Task.” PhD diss., Florida State University.
   Google Scholar
• Kinicki, A. J., G. E. Prussia, B. Wu, and F. M. McKee-Ryan. 2004. “A Covariance Structure Analysis of Employees' Responses to Performance Feedback.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 1057–1069. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kouritzin, S. G., and C. Vizard. 1999. “Feedback on Feedback: Preservice ESL Teachers Respond to Evaluation Practices.” TESL Canada Journal 17: 16–39.
   Google Scholar
• Köklü, N. 2002. Açıklamalı istatistik terimleri sözlügü [Dictionary of Annotated Statistical Terms]. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel.
   Google Scholar
• Kukanauza de Mazeika, J. M. 2001. “Effect of Different Types of Feedback During Microteaching Sessions on Preservice Teachers.” PhD diss., New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Kulhavy, R. W., and W. Wager. 1993. “Feedback in Programmed Instruction: Historical Context and Implications for Practice.” In Interactive Instruction and Feedback, edited by J. Dempsey and G. Ales, 3–20. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, G. C., and C.-C. Wu. 2006. “Enhancing the Teaching eEperience of Pre-service Teachers through the Use of Videos in Web-based Computer-mediated Communication (CMC).” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 43: 369–380. doi:10.1080/14703290600973836.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leech, N. L., K. C. Barrett, and G. A. Morgan. 2005. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, R. 2004. “Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-based Multimedia.” Instructional Science 32: 99–113. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orland-Barak, L. 2002. “The Impact of the Assessment of Practice Teaching: Learning to Ask Different Questions.” Teacher Education Quarterly 29: 99–122.
   Google Scholar
• Özmen, H. 2008. “Okul deneyimi-I ve okul deneyimi-II derslerine ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri [Student Teachers' Views on School Experience I and II Courses].” Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 25: 25–37.
   Google Scholar
• Paccapaniccia, D. 2002. “Making the Most of Assessment Feedback.” Health Executive 17: 60–61.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pauli, C. 2010. “Fostering Understanding and Thinking in Discursive Cultures of Learning.” Paper presented at the meeting of EARLI SIG 10 and 21, Utrecht, The Netherlands, September 2–3.
   Google Scholar
• Peker, R. 1992. “Geribildirimin üniversite öğrencilerinin ölçme ve değerlendirme dersindeki başarıya etkisi [The Effect of Feedback on the Academic Success of Measurement and Evaluation Lesson of College Students].” Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 7: 31–39.
   Google Scholar
• Petrarca, D. M. 2010. “Associate Teacher Learning Tool: An Exploration of Associate Teachers' Use and Responses.” PhD diss., University of Calgary.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 2004. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modelling. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. 2008. “Attributions as Motivators of Self-regulated Learning.” In Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications, edited by D. H. Schunk and B. J. Zimmerman, 245–266. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sevim, S. 2002. “Eğitim fakültesi-uygulama okulu işbirliği kapsamında yürütülen öğretmenlik uygulaması ve uygulamada karşılaşılan güçlükler [The Implementation of Faculty-school Partnership Program and the Difficulties Encountered in Practice].” MA diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Shevlin, M. E., and J. N. V. Miles. 1998. “Effects of Sample Size, Model Specification and Factor Loadings on the GFI in Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Personality and Individual Differences 25: 85–90. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J. 2008. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78: 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şimşek, Ö. F. 2007. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş (Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları) [Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Principles and LISREL Applications]. Ankara, Turkey: Ekinoks.
   Google Scholar
• Sönmez, V. 2005. “Bilimsel araştırmalarda yapılan yanlışlıklar [Mistakes Made in Scientific Tesearches].” Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 18: 150–170.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2001. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, S. Y. F. 2004. “The Dynamics of School-based Learning in Initial Teacher Education.” Research Papers in Education 19: 185–204. doi:10.1080/02671520410001695425.
   Google Scholar
• Tavşancıl, E. 2005. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring Attitudes and Data Analysis Using SPSS]. 2nd ed. Ankara, Turkey: Nobel.
   Google Scholar
• Tezbaşaran A. A. 2004. “Likert tipi ölçeklere madde seçmede geleneksel madde analizi tekniklerinin karşılaştırılması [A Comparison of Conventional Item Analysis Techniques to Construct Likert Type Scales].” Turkish Journal of Psychology 19: 77–90.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, B. 2004. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J., E. F. Smith, I. Swanson, and A. Elliot. 2000. “Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing between Postgraduate Students.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25: 149–169. doi:10.1080/713611428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M., and A. W. Hoy. 2007. “The Differential Antecedents of Self-efficacy Beliefs of Novice and Experienced Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23: 944–956. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voerman, L., P. C. Meijer, F. A. J. Korthagen, and R. J. Simons. 2012. “Types and Frequencies of Feedback Interventions in Classroom Interaction in Secondary Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 1107–1115. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. 1991. Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H. L. 2005. “Early Childhood Educators' Perceptions of Professional Competence in Preschool Settings.” PhD diss., Pennsylvania State University.
   Google Scholar