TY  - JOUR
T1  - Validity and Reliability of Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Efficacy Scale
TT  - Öğrencilerin PowerPoint Etkililiğe Dair Algıları Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması
AU  - Kilis, Selcan
AU  - Uzun, Ahmet Murat
PY  - 2019
DA  - July
DO  - 10.33206/mjss.506400
JF  - MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi
JO  - MJSS
PB  - Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1694-7215
SP  - 2501
EP  - 2516
VL  - 8
IS  - 3
LA  - en
AB  - The aim of this study is to adapt the studentperception of PowerPoint efficacy scale into Turkish and conduct its validityand reliability tests. The scale was originally developed by Nowaczyk, Santos,and Patton (1998) to probe into student perception of multimedia in theundergraduate classroom. The scale included 19-items yielded in three factors in5-point Likert type response format. The translation of scale into Turkish wascompleted by eight experts. After back-translation was conducted by onelanguage expert, translation process of the original scale items into Turkishwere finalized. In order to administer the validity and reliability tests, theTurkish-translated version was studied with 261 university students educated inundergraduate programs at a public university. The participants were accessedwith convenience sampling method based on their accessibility, convenience, andvoluntariness. The data were collected online through Google Forms in theacademic year 2017-2018, spring term. Confirmatory factor analysis for validitytests was conducted in AMOS version 21 in addition to reliability test conductedin IBM SPSS version 24. The findings of confirmatory factor analysis indicatedthat 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 reliabilitytests indicated that the coefficient alphavalues of three factors changed in the range of .87 and .89. The validity ofthe whole scale was .94 which yields high reliability and concludes that thetranslated version was reliable. Overall, the scale was found to be valid andreliable in Turkish culture.
KW  - Confirmatory factor analysis
KW  - validity
KW  - reliability
KW  - presentation of multimedia
KW  - PowerPoint
KW  - slides
N2  - Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrencilerin PowerPointinetkililiğine dair algıları ölçeğini Türkçe diline uyarlayarak geçerlik vegüvenirlik testlerini yapmaktır. Ölçeğin orijinali Nowaczyk, Santos ve Patton(1998) tarafından üniversite lisans öğrencilerinin çoklu ortam uygulamalarınadair algılarını belirlemek amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Ölçek 5’li Likert türünde3 faktörden oluşan 19 madde içermektedir. Ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlanması 8uzman tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçek maddelerininorijinal diline geri çevirme işlemi ise bir dil uzmanı tarafından yapılmışolup, böylece ölçeğin Türkçe diline uyarlanması süreci tamamlanmıştır. Geçerlikve güvenirlik testlerini yapmak için, bir devlet üniversitesinde eğitim gören261 lisans öğrencisinden veri toplanmıştır. Katılımcılar elverişli örneklemeyöntemine göre belirlenmiş olup; çalışmaya katılım, elverişli, uygun ve gönüllükatılımcı olma hususlarına dayanmaktadır. Veriler 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılıbahar döneminde Google Form aracılığıyla çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır.Geçerlik testi AMOS 21.sürümünde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yöntemi ilegüvenirlik testi ise IBM SPSS 24.sürümünde iç tutarlılık katsayılarınıhesaplayarak yapılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonunda elde edilenbulgulara 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 olarakbulunmuş olup, istatistiksel olarak kabuledilir veya mükemmel seviyede olduğu görülmüştür. Dolayısıyla Türkçeyeuyarlanan ölçek doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucuna göre geçerli bulunmuştur.Güvenirlik testleri sonucuna göre, ölçeğin 3 faktörüne ait iç tutarlılığınıgösteren Cronbach alfa katsayıları 0,87 ve 0,89 arasında bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin tamamınaait Cronbach alfa katsayısı ise 0,94 olarak bulunmuş olup, istatistiksel olarakyüksek seviyede güvenilir olduğu görülmüştür.Özetle, uyarlaması yapılan ölçek Türkçe dilinde geçerli ve güvenilirbulunmuştur.
CR  - 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’.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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
CR  - Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
CR  - Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara, Pegem Yayıncılık.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
CR  - Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Tatham, R.L., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
CR  - 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.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Hopper, K. B., & Waugh, J. B. (2014). Powerpoint: An overused technology deserving of criticism, but indispensable. Educational Technology, 29-34.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
CR  - 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
CR  - 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.
CR  - MacCallum, R.C. & Widaman K.F. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods. 4(1), 84-99.
CR  - Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2 edition). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Nouri, H., & Shahid, A. (2005). The effect of PowerPoint presentations on student learning and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, 2, 53.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
CR  - Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York: Taylor and Francis.
CR  - Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
CR  - 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.
CR  - Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th Ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CR  - Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2), 203–215.
CR  - Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 74-79.
CR  - Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
CR  - Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260-273.
CR  - 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.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.506400
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/758201
ER  -