Examination of chemistry and science teachers' self-efficacy towards alternative assessment and evaluation tools and their use of these tools

In this study, the self-efficacy of alternative measurement and evaluation tools, the frequency of using such tools and their opinions of teachers who attend science and chemistry courses were examined. Three different samples were included in the study because the three scales were applied at different times. The first data collection tool, "Self-Efficacy Scale for Alternative Assessment and Evaluation Tools ", was applied to a total of 142 teachers, 97 female and 45 male. 32 of the teachers who answered this scale are chemistry teachers and 110 are science teachers. The second data collection tool, "The Frequency of using Alternative Assessment and Evaluation Tools", was applied to a total of 58 teachers, 44 of whom were female and 14 were male. The third data collection tool, "Alternative Assessment and Evaluation Tools Teacher Opinion Form", was applied to a total of 46 teachers, 34 female and 12 male. In the scope of the study, survey model was used and both qualitative and quantitative data were collected. At the end of the study, it was determined that the teachers' self-efficacy levels for alternative assessment and evaluation tools were high. In addition, while it was determined that the variables of gender, branch and years of service did not have a significant effect on teachers' self-efficacy, a significant difference was determined in favor of chemistry teachers in terms of the self-efficacy of preparing and using alternative measurement tools, which is the first dimension of the scale. On the other hand, it was concluded that the self-efficacy of teachers with doctoral education was significantly higher than those of undergraduate and graduate teachers. It was determined that although the teachers who took courses on alternative assessment and evaluation at the undergraduate level had higher self-efficacy than the teachers who did not, the difference between them was not significant.