ÖĞRENCİLERİN POWERPOİNT ETKİLİLİĞE DAİR ALGILARI ÖLÇEĞİNİN GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIİMASI

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrencilerin PowerPoint’in etkililiğine dair algıları ölçeğini Türkçe diline uyarlayarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik testlerini yapmaktır. Ölçek, üniversite lisans öğrencilerinin çoklu ortam uygulamalarına dair algılarını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Ölçek 5’li Likert türünde 3 faktörden oluşan 19 madde içermektedir. Ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlanması 8 uzman tarafından, orijinal diline geri çevirme işlemi ise bir dil uzmanı tarafından yapılmıştır. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik testlerini yapmak için, elverişli örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 261 lisans öğrencisinden veri toplanmıştır. Veriler 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılında Google Form aracılığıyla çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonunda elde edilen bulgulara göre, ölçeğin uyum iyilik endeksleri χ2/df = 2.04, RMSEA = .06, RMR =.03, SRMR • .04, TLI = .94, CFI = .94, GFI = .89, AGFI = .86 ve NFI = .90 olarak bulunmuş olup, istatistiksel olarak kabul edilir veya mükemmel seviyede olduğu görülmüştür. Güvenirlik testleri sonucuna göre, ölçeğin 3 faktörüne ait iç tutarlılığını gösteren Cronbach alfa katsayıları ilk faktör için 0,87, ikinci faktör için 0,89 ve üçüncü faktör için 0,88; ölçeğin tamamı için ise 0,94 olarak bulunmuş olup, istatistiksel olarak yüksek seviyede güvenilir olduğu görülmüştür. Özetle, uyarlaması yapılan ölçek Türkçe dilinde geçerli ve güvenilir bulunmuştur.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF POWERPOINT EFFICACY SCALE

This study aimed to adapt the student perception of PowerPoint efficacy scale into Turkish and conduct its validity and relŞAbility tests. The scale aims to probe into student perception of multimedŞA in undergraduate classroom. The scale included 19-items yielded in three factors in 5-point Likert type response format. The translation was completed by eight experts and back-translation by one language expert. For testing the Turkish-translated version, 261 undergraduate students educated in undergraduate programs selected with convenience sampling were studied. The data were collected online through Google Forms in the academic year 2017-2018. Confirmatory factor analysis for validity test indicated that the model fit the data well, having acceptable or perfect fit indices, χ2/df = 2.04, RMSEA = .06, RMR =.03, SRMR = .04, TLI = .94, CFI = .94, GFI = .89, AGFI = .86, and NFI = .90. RelŞAbility tests indicated that coefficient alpha values of three factors were found to be .87 for the first factor, .89 for the second factor, .88 for the last factor, and .94 for the whole scale which yielded high relŞAbility. Overall, the scale was found to be valid and relŞAble in Turkish culture.

PDF

___

Atkinson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Five Ways To Reduce PowerPoint Overload. Retrieved from Https://Www.İndezine.Com/Stuff/Atkinsonmaye.Pdf.
Baker, J. P., Goodboy, A. K., Bowman, N. D., & Wright, A. A. (2018). Does Teaching With PowerPoint Increase Students' Learning? A Meta-Analysis. Computers & Education, 126, 376-387.
Burke, L. A., & James, K. E. (2008). PowerPoint-Based Lectures in Business Education: An Empirical Investigation of Student-Perceived Novelty and Effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3), 277-296.
Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint Presentation Technology And The Dynamics Of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 147–160. Https://Doi.Org/10.1007/S10755-006-9017-5
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative And Qualitative Research (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik [MultivarŞAte Statistics for SocŞAl Sciences]. Ankara, Pegem Yayıncılık.
Fritschi, J. (2008). Examining Pre-Service Instructors’ Use of PowerPoint Based on Pre-Service Students’ Perceptions: A Mixed Methods Study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Alabama at Birmingham.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step By Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 18.0 Update. Prentice Hall Press Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric Methods (2th Ed). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Tatham, R. L., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). MultivarŞAte Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition (7th Ed.). NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Hartnett, N., Römcke, J., & Yap, C. (2003). Recognizing the Importance of Instruction Style to Students' Performance: Some Observations from Laboratory Research–A Research Note. Accounting Education, 12(3), 313-331.
Hertz, B., Van Woerkum, C., & Kerkhof, P. (2015). Why Do Scholars Use PowerPoint The Way They Do?. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 273-291.
Hill, A., Arford, T., Lubitow, A., & Smollin, L. M. (2012). “I’m Ambivalent about It”: The Dilemmas Of PowerPoint. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 242-256.
Hopper, K. B., & Waugh, J. B. (2014). PowerPoint: An Overused Technology Deserving Of Criticism, But Indispensable. Educational Technology, 29-34.
Jordan, L. A., & Papp, R. (2014). PowerPoint®: It’s Not Yes Or No – It’s When and How. Research in Higher Education Journal, 22, 1–11.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Kievit, R. A., Russell, A. G., & Shephard, J. M. (2012). PowerPoint® Presentation Flaws And Failures: A Psychological Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. Https://Doi.Org/10.3389/Fpsyg.2012.00230
Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, K. (2006). Pedagogy Meets PowerPoint: A Research Review of the Effects of Computer-Generated Slides in the Classroom. The Review of Communication, 6(1-2), 101-123.
Maccallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample Size in Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. Https://Doi.Org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Mayer, R. E. (2009). MultimedŞA Learning (2 Edition). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Moulton, S. T., Türkay, S., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2017). Does A Presentation’s Medium Affect Its Message? Powerpoint, Prezi, and Oral Presentations. Plos One, 12(7), E0178774.
Nouri, H., & Shahid, A. (2005). The Effect of PowerPoint Presentations on Student Learning and Attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53.
Nowaczyk, R. H., Santos, L. T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student Perception of MultimedŞA in the Undergraduate Classroom. International Journal of Instructional MedŞA, 25(4), 367.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An Introduction to Applied MultivarŞAte Analysis. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Shwom, B. L., & Keller, K. P. (2003). The Great Man Has Spoken. Now What Do I Do? A Response to Edward R. Tufte’s. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Communication Insight, 1(1), 2–16.
Stevens, J. (2009). Applied MultivarŞAte Statistics for the SocŞAl Sciences (5th Ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssocŞAtes.
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s Power in the Classroom: Enhancing Students’ Self-Efficacy and Attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203–215.
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve Örnek Uygulamalar [Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 74-79.
Tufte, E. R. (2003). The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Wecker, C. (2012). Slide Presentations as Speech Suppressors: When and Why Learners Miss Oral Information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260-273.
Yilmazel-Sahin, Y. (2009). A Comparison of Graduate and Undergraduate Teacher Education Students' Perceptions of Their Instructors' Use Of Microsoft PowerPoint. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 361-380.