Öğretimde Olumlu Söylem Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2023, , 448 - 470, 20.10.2023

Galip Genç , Cumali Öksüz

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1345464

Abstract

Bu çalışmada öğretim süreçlerinde ilkokul üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencilerinin olumlu söylemleri değerlendirebilmeleri için kullanılacak geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma için alanyazında söylem ve olumlu söylem ile ilgili çalışmalara taranarak madde havuzu oluşturulmuştur. Hazırlanan maddeler uzman değerlendirmeleri ve öğrencilere ön uygulamadan sonra hazır hale getirilmiştir. Ölçek uygulaması yapıldıktan sonra geçerlik kapsamında açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve toplam varyansın % 51’inin açıklandığı 25 maddeden oluşan dört alt boyuta sahip olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Daha sonra doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılarak ki-kare değerinin (χ 2/sd ) 1.87 olduğu, SRMR değerinin 0.05; TLI değerinin 0.88; CFI değerinin 0.9 olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ölçeğin bu yapıda uyumlu olduğu görülmüştür. Aynı zamanda ölçeğin güvenirlik hesaplamalarında Cronbach Alpha değeri ve McDonald’ın Omega katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Öğretimde Olumlu Söylem Ölçeğinin tümü için Cronbach Alpha değeri 0.91, McDonald’ın Omega katsayısı 0.91 olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ölçeğin ilkokul üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencileri için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu görülmektedir. Geliştirilen bu ölçek ilkokul öğrencileri tarafından olumlu söylemi değerlendirilmek amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Öğretim süreci düşünüldüğünde öğretmenin, öğrencilerin olumlu söylem düzeylerini belirlemek amacıyla da bir ölçek geliştirilebilir.

Keywords

Olumlu söylem, Ölçek geliştirme, İlkokul üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıf öğrencileri

Positive Discourse Scale in Teaching: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to be used for 3rd and 4th grade primary school students to evaluate positive discourse in teaching processes. For the study, an item pool was created by reviewing the literature on discourse and positive discourse. The prepared items were made ready after expert evaluations and pre-application to students. After the scale was applied, exploratory factor analysis was performed within the scope of validity and it was concluded that it had 4 sub-dimensions consisting of 25 items explaining 51% of the total variance. Then, confirmatory factor analysis was performed and it was concluded that the chi-square value (χ 2/sd ) was 1.87, SRMR value was 0.05, TLI value was 0.88 and CFI value was 0.9. It was found that the scale was compatible with this structure. At the same time, Cronbach Alpha value and McDonald's Omega coefficient were calculated in the reliability calculations of the scale. It was concluded that the Cronbach Alpha value for the whole Positive Discourse in Teaching Scale was 0.91 and McDonald's Omega coefficient was 0.91. It can be stated that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool for primary school 3rd and 4th grade students. This scale was developed to enable primary school students to evaluate positive discourse. Considering the teaching process, a scale can also be developed for teachers to determine the level of student’s positive discourse.

Keywords

Positive discourse, scale development, primary school 3rd and 4th grade students.

References

• Abu Katılı, A. (2021). Building positive classroom interaction through positive discourse, Jambura Journal of English Teaching and Literature, 2(2), 52-59. https://doi.org/10.37905/jetl.v2i2.11825.
• Aksu, G., Eser, M.T., & Güzeller, C. O. (2017). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapısal eşitlik modeli uygulamaları [Structural equation model applications with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis]. Detay.
• Al-Smadi, O., & Ab Rashid, R. (2017). A theoretical review of classroom discourse. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. 6(3), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v6i3/3169
• Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma [Research in Social Sciences]. PegemA.
• Barnes, J., Cote, J., Cudeck, R., & Malthouse, E. (2001). Factor analysis-checking assumptions of normality before conducting factor analysis, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1,2), 79-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/1480486
• Bayraktutan, Ş. (2008). The influence of the communication in class to students’ school success (The sample of Kartal, İstanbul) [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Beykent University.
• Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.02080.002223
• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
• Ben-Yehuda, M., Lavy, I., Lynchevski, L., & Sfard, A. (2002). Doing wrong with words: What bars students’ access to arithmetical discourses. To appear in The Journal for research in Mathematics Education, 36(3), 176-247. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034835
• Borgers, N., Hox, J., & Sikkel, D. (2004). Response effects in surveys on children and adolescents: The effect of number of response options, negative wording, and neutral mid-point. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 38(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUQU.0000013236.29205.a6
• Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for windows: A guide for social scientists. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548
• Büyükkıdık, S. (2020). Geçerlik ve güvenirlik [Validity and reliability]. In E. Oğuz (Ed.), Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntemleri [Research methods in education] (pp. 169-203). Eğiten.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (24. baskı) [Manual of data analysis for social sciences (24th ed.)]. PegemA.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş.& Demirel, F.(2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25. baskı) [Scientific research methods] (25th ed.) PegemA.
• Cazden, C. B., & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165-197). Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
• Chambers, D. (1995). Research into practice: Improving instruction by listening to children. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1(6), 478-80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41196287
• Chapin, S. H. O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N.C. (2009). Classroom discussions: using math talk to help students learn, grades K-6 (2nd ed). Math Solutions.
• Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
• Cirillo, M. (2013). What are some strategies for facilitating productive classroom discussions? National Council of Teachers Mathematics.
• Çelik, H., & Ekşi, H. (2008). Discourse analysis. Marmara University Faculty of Atatürk Education Journal of Education, 27(27), 99-117. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maruaebd/issue/365/2517
• Çelik, S. (2019). An examination of mathematical discourse occurred in middle school mathematics classes [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Trabzon University.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (5. baskı) [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications (5th ed.)]. PegemA.
• Çulhan, F. (2022). Discursively examination of 8th grade students' geometric thinking levels [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Pamukkale University.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development theory and applications (Second Edition). Sage.
• Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw Hill.
• Garcia, L. A. (2009). How to get students talking, generating math talk that supports math learning. Math Solutions.
• Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd edition). Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th edition). Routledge.
• Genç, G. (2016). Analyzing the effect of a positive discourse in math lessons at primary school by using discourse analysis method [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Pamukkale University.
• Gür, T. (2013). Discourse analysis as a postmodern research method. Journal of World of Turks, 5(1), 185-202. https://www.dieweltdertuerken.org/index.php/ZfWT/article/view/398/tahir_gur
• Hillen, K. (2006). Discourse and cooperative learning in the math classroom. In Summative projects for MA degree. Math in the Middle Institute Partnership. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/mathmidsummative/10
• Huggins, B., & T., Maiste (1999). Communication in mathematics. Saint Xavier University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED439016.
• Kurhila, S. (2004). Clients or language learners-being a second language speaker in institutional interaction. In: R. Gardner and J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations. John Benjamin.
• Maydeu-Olivares, A., Shi, D., & Rosseel, Y. (2017). Assessing fit in structural equation models: A Monte-Carlo evaluation of RMSEA versus SRMR confidence intervals and tests of close fit, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1389611
• Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. TERC. http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/155/TalkScience_Primer.pdf
• Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2010). Classroom dialogic discourse: An observational study, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3857-3860 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.604
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Otten, S. (2010). Discourse Analysis and Functional Grammar in the Classroom: The summary of a mini-reading course. Research paper. Michigan State University.
• Özbaşı, D., Cevahir, H., & Özdemir, M. (2018). Adaptation of online learning motivation scale into Turkish: Validity and reliability. Trakya Journal of Education, 8(2), 352 368. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.331973
• Özdamar K. (2016). Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimlerinde ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINITAB uygulamalı [Scale and test development in education, health and behavioral sciences structural equation modeling IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS and MINITAB applied]. Nisan.
• Ramli, M., & Yohana, M. P. (2015). Classroom discourse: Pattern of interaction of talk between students in primary science classrooms in Indonesia, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 115, 3rd International Conferences on Education in Muslim Society (ICEMS 2017).
• Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In D. D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163-194). Springer Publishing Company.
• Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi (2. baskı) [Practical data analysis with SPSS and LISREL (2nd ed.)]. Anı.
• Sfard, A. (2000). Steering (dis)course between metaphors and rigor: using focal analysis to investigate an emergence of mathematical objects, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 296-327. https://doi.org/10.2307/749809
• Sfard, A. (2001). There is more to discourse than meets the ears: Looking at thinking as communicating to learn more about mathematical learning, Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46(1/3), 13-57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014097416157
• Sfard, A., & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students’ mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8(1), 42-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0801_04
• Smith, M. S., Hughes, E. K., Engle, R. A., & Stein, M. K. (2009). Orchestrating discussions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(9), 548-556. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40053130
• Stein, M. K., Engle, R., Smith, M., & Hughes, E. (2007). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
• Şahin, M. G., & Boztunç Öztürk, N. (2018). Scale development process in educational field: A content analysis research. Kastamonu University Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(1), 191-199. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.375863
• Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları [Introduction to structural equation modeling: Basic principles and LISREL applications]. Ekinoks.
• Tanaka, J., & Huba, G. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation, British Journal of Mathematical And Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x
• Tobias, B. (2009). From textual problems to mathematical relationships: case studies of secondary school students and the discourses at play in interpreting word problems [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Witwatersrand University.
• Uğurel, (2010). Determining how students arrange their mathematical knowledge about the concept of proof in the frame of the main components of the secondary mathematics curriculum with the discourse analysis [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University.
• Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher's role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
• Wang, Z., Pan, X., Miller, K, F., & Cortina, K. S. (2014). Automatic classification of activities in classroom discourse, Computers & Education, 78, 115e123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.010
• Weil, M., Seidel, T., Schindler, A. K., & Gröschner, A. (2020). Opening ‘windows’ for teachers to change classroom discourse. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 26, 100425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100425
• Yiğit, N., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2010). Physics attitude scale: Development, validity and reliability. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 29-49. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3370/46517