Development of teachers' career ladder expectation scale and its investigation in terms of various variables

Purpose: In this study, it was aimed to develop the Teaching Profession Career Ladder Expectation Scale which will make valid and reliable measurements in determining the expectations of teachers regarding career ladder. Method: In the study, descriptive survey model was used and 96 participants for the trial application of the scale, 433 participants for exploratory factor analysis, 434 participants for confirmatory factor analysis and 495 participants for demographic variable analyses were included in the sample. Demographic Information Form and Teaching Career Ladder Expectation Scale developed by the researchers were used as data collection tools. Factor analyses, descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA test, Welch test, Scheffe and Games-Howell tests were used to analyse the data. Results: The KMO coefficient showing the adequacy of the sample for EFA was .953; Bartlett's test results x2(861)=15138.949; p<.05. The five-factor structure obtained after EFA explains 66.60% of the total variance. The factor loadings of the items ranged between .45 and .87. Prior to confirmatory factor analysis, KMO value was .888; Bartlett's test results X2(630)= 9153.472; p<.05. When the goodness of fit values of the second level factor analysis for the 17 items for which the model fit was confirmed by CFA were analysed, it was found that Chi-square / Degree of Freedom=2.430, NFI= .94, TLI=.96, IFI=.97, CFI=.96, RMSEA= .06, GFI=.93, AGFI=.90, RMR=.09, SRMR= .07. The standardised factor loadings of the items in the model are between .70 and .96. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for the whole scale was found to be α=.862. The overall mean X ̅=3.34 for the career ladder expectations of the teachers participating in the study. Among the sub-dimensions, the highest mean is in the Career Ladder Rights sub-dimension (X ̅=3.92), while the lowest mean is in the Career Ladder Obligations sub-dimension. The career ladder expectations of male teachers (X ̅=3.45) are higher than those of female teachers (X ̅=3.23); the career ladder expectations of postgraduate teachers (X ̅=3.60) are higher than those of undergraduate teachers (X ̅=3.27); the career ladder expectations of teachers working as principals (X ̅=4.17) are higher than those of teachers working as assistant principals (X ̅=3.48) and above. Conclusion and Suggestions: Within the scope of the research, it was revealed that the five-factor 17-item scale developed to determine the career ladder expectations of teachers consistently represents the same latent structure, provides convergent and divergent validities, and thus provides reliable and valid measurements. When the expectation levels of teachers towards career steps were analysed, it was seen that teachers had a medium level expectation. While a significant difference was found in the variables of gender, postgraduate education, school type, management position and career titles, no significant difference was found between teachers' seniority and career ladder expectations. In order to implement the career ladder application effectively, teachers' voices should be listened to and the application should be transformed into a dynamic structure. Researches can be conducted to determine the effectiveness of career steps in the Turkish education system.