Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 2501 - 2516, 16.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400

Öz



The aim of this study is to adapt the student
perception of PowerPoint efficacy scale into Turkish and conduct its validity
and reliability tests. The scale was originally developed by Nowaczyk, Santos,
and Patton (1998) to probe into student perception of multimedia in the
undergraduate classroom. The scale included 19-items yielded in three factors in
5-point Likert type response format. The translation of scale into Turkish was
completed by eight experts. After back-translation was conducted by one
language expert, translation process of the original scale items into Turkish
were finalized. In order to administer the validity and reliability tests, the
Turkish-translated version was studied with 261 university students educated in
undergraduate programs at a public university. The participants were accessed
with convenience sampling method based on their accessibility, convenience, and
voluntariness. The data were collected online through Google Forms in the
academic year 2017-2018, spring term. Confirmatory factor analysis for validity
tests was conducted in AMOS version 21 in addition to reliability test conducted
in IBM SPSS version 24. The findings of confirmatory factor analysis 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.
Therefore, the adapted version of the scale was found be valid. Results of reliability
tests indicated that
the coefficient alpha
values of three factors changed in the range of .87 and .89. The validity of
the whole scale was .94 which yields high reliability and concludes that the
translated version was reliable. Overall, the scale was found to be valid and
reliable in Turkish culture.

Kaynakça

  • Atkinson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Five ways to reduce PowerPoint overload. Retrieved from http://www.sociablemedia.com/PDF/atkinson_mayer_powerpoint_4_23_04.pdf#search5‘five%20ways%20to%20reduce%20powerpoint%20overload’.
  • 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.
  • 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 istatistik. 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.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Tatham, R.L., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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.
  • 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., & Kanan Sawyer, J. (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. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 4(1), 84-99.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia 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 multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 367.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate 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 multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th Ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2), 203–215.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. 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.

Öğrencilerin PowerPoint Etkililiğe Dair Algıları Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 2501 - 2516, 16.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400

Öz



Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrencilerin PowerPointin
etkililiğine dair algıları ölçeğini Türkçe diline uyarlayarak geçerlik ve
güvenirlik testlerini yapmaktır. Ölçeğin orijinali Nowaczyk, Santos ve Patton
(1998) tarafından üniversite lisans öğrencilerinin çoklu ortam uygulamalarına
dair algılarını belirlemek amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Ölçek 5’li Likert türünde
3 faktörden oluşan 19 madde içermektedir. Ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlanması 8
uzman tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçek maddelerinin
orijinal diline geri çevirme işlemi ise bir dil uzmanı tarafından yapılmış
olup, böylece ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlanması süreci tamamlanmıştır. Geçerlik
ve güvenirlik testlerini yapmak için, bir devlet üniversitesinde eğitim gören
261 lisans öğrencisinden veri toplanmıştır. Katılımcılar elverişli örnekleme
yöntemine göre belirlenmiş olup; çalışmaya katılım, elverişli, uygun ve gönüllü
katılımcı olma hususlarına dayanmaktadır. Veriler 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılı
bahar döneminde Google Form aracılığıyla çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır.
Geçerlik testi AMOS 21.sürümünde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yöntemi ile
güvenirlik testi ise IBM SPSS 24.sürümünde iç tutarlılık katsayılarını
hesaplayarak yapılmıştır. 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. Dolayısıyla Türkçeye
uyarlanan ölçek doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucuna göre geçerli bulunmuştur.
Güvenirlik testleri sonucuna göre, ölçeğin 3 faktörüne ait iç
tutarlılığını
gösteren Cronbach alfa katsayıları 0,87 ve 0,89 arasında bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin tamamına
ait Cronbach alfa katsayısı ise 0,94 olarak bulunmuş olup,
istatistiksel olarak
yüksek seviyede güvenilir olduğu görülmüştür
.
Özetle, uyarlaması yapılan ölçek Türkçe dilinde geçerli ve güvenilir
bulunmuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Atkinson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Five ways to reduce PowerPoint overload. Retrieved from http://www.sociablemedia.com/PDF/atkinson_mayer_powerpoint_4_23_04.pdf#search5‘five%20ways%20to%20reduce%20powerpoint%20overload’.
  • 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.
  • 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 istatistik. 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.
  • Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Tatham, R.L., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: 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.
  • 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., & Kanan Sawyer, J. (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. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 4(1), 84-99.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia 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 multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(4), 367.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate 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 multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th Ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2), 203–215.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. 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.
Toplam 30 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Selcan Kilis 0000-0001-5751-2363

Ahmet Murat Uzun 0000-0002-1852-8802

Yayımlanma Tarihi 16 Temmuz 2019
Gönderilme Tarihi 2 Ocak 2019
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2019 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Kilis, S., & Uzun, A. M. (2019). Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(3), 2501-2516. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400
AMA Kilis S, Uzun AM. Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale. MJSS. Temmuz 2019;8(3):2501-2516. doi:10.33206/mjss.506400
Chicago Kilis, Selcan, ve Ahmet Murat Uzun. “Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 8, sy. 3 (Temmuz 2019): 2501-16. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400.
EndNote Kilis S, Uzun AM (01 Temmuz 2019) Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 8 3 2501–2516.
IEEE S. Kilis ve A. M. Uzun, “Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale”, MJSS, c. 8, sy. 3, ss. 2501–2516, 2019, doi: 10.33206/mjss.506400.
ISNAD Kilis, Selcan - Uzun, Ahmet Murat. “Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 8/3 (Temmuz 2019), 2501-2516. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400.
JAMA Kilis S, Uzun AM. Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale. MJSS. 2019;8:2501–2516.
MLA Kilis, Selcan ve Ahmet Murat Uzun. “Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale”. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, c. 8, sy. 3, 2019, ss. 2501-16, doi:10.33206/mjss.506400.
Vancouver Kilis S, Uzun AM. Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale. MJSS. 2019;8(3):2501-16.

MANAS Journal of Social Studies (MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi)     


16155