Advertisement

Statistical and Structural Equation Modelling the Relationship Between Creativity and Material Design Self-efficacy Beliefs of Preschool Woman Preservice Teachers

  • Konul MemmedovaEmail author
  • Dervise Amca Toklu
  • Saide Sadikoglu
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 896)

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyse the relationship between creativity and the self-efficacy beliefs of preservice woman teachers in material design. The study group involves 219 women preservice teachers who obtain education in preschool teaching through the 2017–2018 school year. The creativity scale aiming to find out “How creative are you” and developed by Çoban [1] was used. The “Material design self-efficacy beliefs scale” developed by Bakaç and Özen [2] was used to determine material design oriented self-efficacy. The collected data were processed by using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS 24.0) and structural equation modelling software AMOS 24.0. Normality of distribution of preservice teachers’ data created from the questionnaires of “How creative are you” and “Material design self-efficacy beliefs scales” were processed and examined through Kolmogorov-Smirnov’s, Shapiro-Wilks tests, QQ plot and coefficient of Skewness-Kurtosis. Correlations between creativity and material design self-efficacy beliefs scales were examined with Pearson correlation analysis.

The AMOS allows to determine the creativity effect towards material design self-efficacy beliefs scale by using the structural equation modelling. The positive relationship between the creativity of preschool teaching preservice teachers and their self-efficacy belief level was determined.

Keywords

Preschool teaching Preservice teachers Creativity Material design Self-efficacy belief 

References

  1. 1.
    Çoban, S.: The relation between creativity levels of directors and leadership styles. Unpublished postgraduate thesis, İstanbul: İstanbul University, Institute of social sciences, Turkey (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bakaç, E., Özan, R.: Material design self-efficacy belief scale: validity and reliability study1. Int. J. Hum. Sci. (JHS) (2015). ISSN 2458-9489Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yalın, H.İ.: Instructional Technologies and Material Development. Nobel Dağıtım, Ankara (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yanpar, T.: Instructional Technologies and Material Design. PegemA Yayıncılık, Ankara (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Szabo, M., Kanuka, H.: Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rate. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia 8(1), 23–42 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seferoğlu, S.: Instructional Technologies and Material Design. Pegem Akademi Yayınları, Ankara (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yelken, Y.T.: Instructional Technologies and Material Design. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara (2007, 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kopcha, T.J., Sullivan, H.: Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56(3), 265–286 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Özerkan, E.: The relation between self-efficacy sense of teachers and social studies self-conception sense of students. Postgraduate thesis. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Turkey (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakaç, E., Özen, R.: Examining preservice teachers’ material design self-efficacy beliefs based on their technological pedagogical content knowledge competent. Ahi Evran Univ. Kırşehir Faculty Educ. J. 18(2), 613–632 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demirel, Ö., Bandura, A.: Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In: Bandura, A. (ed.) Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, pp. 1–45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    New orientations in education. Pegem A Yayıncılık, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Senemoğlu, N.: Creativity and teacher qualifications. Creativity and Education Panel. Kara Harp Okulu, Ankara (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raudsepp, E.: 12 Vital characteristics of the creative supervisor. Supervision 45, 14–15 (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konul Memmedova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dervise Amca Toklu
    • 2
  • Saide Sadikoglu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological Counselling and GuidanceNear East UniversityTRNCTurkey
  2. 2.Tourism and Hotel Management Vocational SchoolNear East UniversityTRNCTurkey

Personalised recommendations