Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Öğrenci Bağlılık Ölçeği'nin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Bu araştırmanın amacı Sun ve Rueda (2012) tarafından geliştirilen "Öğrenci Bağlılık Ölçeği"ni (Student's Engagement Scale) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve geçerlik güvenirlik çalışma sonuçlarını ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma Öğrenci Bağlılık Ölçeği'ni yanıtlayan 398 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin yapı geçerlik çalışmaları için birinci ve ikinci düzey doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri yapılmış, güvenirlik çalışmaları için iç tutarlılık katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Davranışsal, bilişsel ve duyuşsal bağlılık olmak üzere üç faktörden oluşan 19 maddelik ölçeğe ilişkin modelin doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda iyi uyum gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Ölçekteki faktörlerin güvenirlik katsayıları ,62 ile ,90 arasındadır. Ölçekteki maddelerin madde toplam korelasyonları ,265 ile ,658 arasında hesaplanmıştır. Analizler ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

THE TURKISH ADAPTATION OF STUDENT'S ENGAGEMENTS SCALE INONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: A STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

The aim of this study is to adapt the Student's Engagement Scale into Turkish by examining the results of reliability and validity analyses of the Turkish version. The sample of this study consists of 398 under graduate students. After translation of the items, the first and the second order confirmatory factor analysis were conducted for construct validity, the internal consistency coefficient was calculated. The scale consists of 19 items assigned to three factor: behavioral, cognitive and affective. The results of confirmatory factor analysis were showed good fit. The scale of internal consistency coefficient vary between .61 and .79 and item--total correlation co--efficiencies vary between .265 and .658. Findings indicate that the scale is reliable and valid for use in Turkish.

PDF

___

Badge, J., L., Saundersb, F., W. ve Canna, A., J. (2012). Beyond marks: new tools to visualise student engagement via social networks. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1).
Bouta, H., Retails, S. ve Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilising a collaborative macro-script to enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a 3D virtual environment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 501-517.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. ve Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47 (1), 1-32.
Chen, P. D., Kuh, G. D. ve Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not?. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 4 (3).
Finn, J.D. (1993). Student engagement and student at risk. Washington,DC: National Center For Education Statistics.
Finn, J.D. ve Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-261.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C. ve Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 - 109.
Halttunen, K. ve Jarvelin, K. (2005). Assessing learning outcomes in two information retrieval learning environments. Information Processing and Management, 41, 949-972.
Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G. ve Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, New York: The Guilford Press.
Klassen, R., M., Yerdelen, S. & Durksen, T. (2013). Measuring Teacher Engagement: Development of the Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 2, 33-52.
Krause, K. ve Coates, H. (2008). Students' engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
Kuh G. D. (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 683-706.
Mazer, J., P. (2013). Validity of the Student Interest and Engagement Scales: Associations with Student Learning Outcomes. Communication Studies, 64(2), 125-140.
Miyazoe, T. ve Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students' perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, andwiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38, 185-199.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
Stipek, D. (2002). Good instruction is motivating. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and Online Learning. UIS Community of Practice for E-Learning. 03.04.2014 tarihinde http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning.ppt adresinden erişilmiştir.
Sun, J. C.-Y. ve Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidel, L. S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thompson, S. (2005). Engaging students with school life. Youth Studies Australia, 24(1).
Willms, J.D. (2003). Student Engagement at School: a sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 09.10.2014 tarihinde http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33689437.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.