Construction and standardization of the Perceived Wisdom Scale for teacher training for interdisciplinary teaching

The evolution of teacher training for third millennium universities depends on interdisciplinary teacher training. Teaching in interdisciplinary disciplines requires qualified instructors for this purpose. That is, they have the ability to understand the teaching of such disciplines. As for teaching in interdisciplinary disciplines, instructors who are normally selected for pure disciplines do not have the capabilities of interdisciplinary instructors. Understanding interdisciplinary teaching is a phenomenon that has been referred to in this research as wisdom. Therefore, the present study has been constructed and standardized with the aim of obtaining a scale to evaluate teachers in relation to the level of familiarity with the wisdom of interdisciplinary teaching. The aim of the present study is to construct and validate the Perceived Wisdom Scale for teacher training for interdisciplinary teaching. This research has been applied in terms of purpose and in terms of exploratory approach and in terms of method of collecting descriptive information of survey and cross-sectional type. The statistical population of this study included all professors of educational sciences in Isfahan province (112 people (including professors of Islamic Azad, non-profit universities and public universities) in the years 2020-2021. Due to the limited statistical population, sampling was done by census method. Finally, 78 people (29 from Islamic Azad universities, 12 from non-profit universities and 37 from public universities) responded to the distributed questionnaire. Female and 62% of them were male, 38% of the respondents had 1 to 10 years of service, 34% of the respondents had 11 to 20 years of service and 28% of them had more than 20 years of service. The study of articles and research background was prepared by analyzing the content of the items obtained in relation to the perceived wisdom of teacher training for multidisciplinary teaching and then to ensure the validity of the items provided to 3 faculty members of the Department of Educational Sciences. The city of Isfahan was located. After eliminating similar and duplicate cases, 52 items were provided at first. After reviewing and finalizing them by expert professors, 35 items were agreed upon. Cronbach's retest) and concurrent validity were used to analyze the data b Using SPSS software version 12 was used. The questionnaire items were arranged on a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, almost agree, disagree, disagree). The minimum score of this questionnaire was 35 and the maximum score was 175. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to analyze the data. Exploratory factor analysis test was used to identify the number of common factors that affect a set of variables, determine the intensity of the relationship between each factor and each observed variable, and the large number of variables observed to a smaller number than Agents are summarized. Also determine the divergent validity and convergent validity of the reflective items classified in each factor. Then, confirmation factor analysis test was used to achieve the validity of the structures. In this regard, a factor matrix was formed to determine the factor load of each component or item with each factor. Factor load can be considered as correlation coefficients between factor and variable. Factor loads less than 0.3 can be ignored., the results showed that in the initial factor analysis, four factors with eigenvalues higher than one were obtained and the subsequent factor analysis was limited to these four factors. Based on the content of the relevant articles, four factors were named as follows. "Simple understanding of concepts", "Mastery of fundamental research methods", "Understanding the expansion of the fields of scientific disciplines", "Elimination of reductionist thinking".The highest correlation coefficient was related to factor 4 "reduction of reductionist thinking" (r = 0.88), and the lowest correlation coefficient was related to factor 1 "simple understanding of concepts" (r = 0.74). The correlation coefficient of factor 2 was equal to "mastery of basic research methods" (r = 0.87) and the correlation coefficient of factor 3 was "understanding the expansion of the fields of scientific disciplines" (r = 0.81). Finally, the fourth factor in the Teacher Training Wisdom Scale for interdisciplinary teaching has been the "elimination of reductionist thinking." These correlation coefficients were significant at the level of P <0.01 The scale also had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha was 0.94 and retest reliability at two weeks was 0.91). The results also showed that the scale of dimensions of perceived wisdom of teacher training for interdisciplinary teaching has a suitable structure, validity and reliability for Iranian society. Therefore, it seems that this tool is a suitable scale for the purpose of research, which is to train teachers for multidisciplinary teaching. According to (Hatami & Roshan cheshm, 2012) Habermas believes that in the age of modernity, part of the capabilities of the human mind has been subjected to natural sciences, and this prevents the real knowledge of the world and the contrast between quantitative and qualitative methods in the humanities. Has been. Criticizing the positivist method in the humanities and in the next stage by presenting the theory of communicative rationality and communicative action, he emphasizes the multidimensionality of human problems and human knowledge and seeks to solve complex human problems through convergence and consensus from the ideal situation. The scale tested in this research, which has a relatively proportionate validity, can be provided as a tool to identify the wisdom of teacher training for interdisciplinary teaching. Therefore, it is suggested that this scale be used to select and hire teachers to teach in universities and higher education centers. The limitations of this research include Not using close interviews due to coronary restrictions, lack of necessary cooperation of respondents to distributed questionnaires.