Matematik Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği’nin (MÖYÖ) Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2013, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 113 - 145, 10.12.2013

Mustafa İlhan , Bayram Çetin , Mehmet Ali Kılıç

Abstract

Bu araştırmadamatematik odaklı öğrenme yaklaşımlarını geçerli ve güvenilir olarak ölçmeyeolanak tanıyacak bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Araştırma,2012-2013 Eğitim Öğretim Yılı Bahar Dönemi’nde Batman il merkezinde toplam 416lise öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada ölçeğin kapsam ve görünüşgeçerliği için uzman görüşüne başvurulmuş, yapı geçerliği için AçımlayıcıFaktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) uygulanmıştır. AFAsonucunda toplam varyansın %32.99’unu açıklayan 21 madde ve iki faktördenoluşan bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Ortaya çıkan faktörler Derin Öğrenme Yaklaşımıve Yüzeysel Öğrenme Yaklaşımı olarak adlandırılmıştır. DFA’dan elde edilenbulgular, MOÖYÖ’ye ilişkin 21 madde ve iki faktörlü yapının yeterli uyumindekslerine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Derin ve yüzeysel öğrenme yaklaşımıalt ölçeklerinin güvenirliği iç tutarlılık ve test yarılama yöntemleri ileincelenmiş ve hesaplanan güvenirlik katsayılarının kabul edilebilir sınırlariçerisinde yer aldığı saptanmıştır. Ölçekteki maddelerin ayırt ediciliğinibelirlemek amacıyla düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyonu ile %27’lik alt-üstgrup karşılaştırmalarına yer verilmiştir. Madde analizinden elde edilenbulgular, ölçekte yer alan maddelerin tamamının ayırt edici olduğunugöstermiştir. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, ölçeğin ortaöğretim öğrencilerininmatematik odaklı öğrenme yaklaşımlarını ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabilecekgeçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Keywords

öğrenme yaklaşımları, matematik odaklı öğrenme yaklaşımları, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Development of Mathematics Learning Approaches Scale (MLAS): Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The present study aims to develop a valid and reliable instrument for measuring students'
mathematics learning approaches. The participants were 416 high school students studying in Batman in
2012-2013 Education Year Spring Semester. Expert opinion was consulted with regard to the scale's content
and face validity. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed in
order to measure the scale's construct validity. As a result of EFA, a 21-item and a two-factor structure, which
explains 32.99% of the total variance was obtained. The emerging factors were named Deep Learning
Approach and Surface Learning Approach. The findings obtained CFA indicated that the 21 items and twofactor structure related to mathematics learning approaches scale have satisfactory goodness of fit indices.
The scale's reliability coefficients were calculated by means of internal consistency, split half and composite
reliability methods. As a result of reliability analysis, it was determined that reliability coefficients were within
acceptable limits. The findings of the item analyses showed that all of the items in the scale were
discriminatory. In light of these findings it could be argued that the scale is reliable and valid and can be used
in order to test students' mathematics learning approaches.

Keywords

learning approaches, mathematics learning approaches, mathematics learning approaches scale, validity, reliability

References

• Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS Uygulamaları. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür.
• Ali, M.F.A.A, & Ammar, A.M.İ. (2005). An Investigation of the Relationships between EFL Pre- service Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs and Their Learning Strategies Teaching Practices and Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety. Journal of Scientific Research in Education and Psychology, 18(3), 1-33.
• Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological Testing. New York: Mac Millan Publishing Co. Inc.
• Aydoğdu, B., & Ergin, Ö. (2010, Kasım). Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde Kullanılan Farklı Deney Tekniklerinin Öğrencilerin Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarına Etkileri. Uluslararası Eğitimde Yeni Yönelimler ve Uygulamaları Sempozyumu. Antalya.
• Batı, A.H., Tetik, C., & Gürpınar, E. (2010). Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği Yeni Şeklini Türkçeye Uyarlama ve Geçerlilik Güvenirlilik Çalışması. Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, 30(5), 1639-1646.
• Beattie, V., Collins, W., & McInnes, W. (1997). Deep and Surface Learning: Simple or Simplistic Dichotomy? Accounting Education, 6 (1), 1-12.
• Belge Can, H., & Boz, Y. (2012, Haziran). Yaş ve Cinsiyetin İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Fen Dersini Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarına Etkisi. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi. Niğde.
• Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate Analysis With Latent Variables: Causal Modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
• Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
• Bernardo. A.B.I. (2003). Approaches to Learning and Academic Achievement of Filipino Students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-114.
• Biggs, J.B. (1979). Individual differences in study Processes and the Quality of Learning Outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381-394.
• Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. (1993). What Do Inventories of Students' Learning Processes Really Measure? A Theoretical Review and Clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3-19.
• Biggs, J.B. (2001) Enhancing Learning: A Matter of Style or Approach? In: R.J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Biggs, J.B., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001) The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
• Bordens, K.S. & Abbott, B.B. (2011). Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Bråten, I., & Stromso, H.I. (2006). Predicting Achievement Goals in Two Different Academic Contexts: A Longitudinal Study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 127-48.
• Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In: K. Bollen & J. Long, (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). London: Sage Publications.
• Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem.
• Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
• Byrne, B., & Campbell, T.L. (1999). Cross-Cultural Comparisons and the Presumption of Equivalent Measurement and Theoretical Structure: A Look Beneath the Surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574.
• Case, J., & Marshall, D. (2004). Between Deep and Surface: Procedural Approaches to Learning in Engineering Education Contexts, Studies in Higher Education, 29(5), 605-615.
• Cattell, R.B. (1978). The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences. New York: Plenum.
• Chai, C.S., Khine, M.S., & Teo, T. (2006): Epistemological Beliefs on Teaching and Learning: A Survey Among Pre‐service Teachers in Singapore. Educational Media International, 43(4), 285-298.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109.138.
• Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively Different Experiences of Learning Mathematics at University. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455-468.
• Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced Quantitative Data Analysis. Philadelphia: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Croceker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
• Cronbach, L.J. (1984). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper Row.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal Bilimler için Çok Değişkenli İstatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem.
• Çolak, E., & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Envanterinin Dilsel Eşdeğerlik, Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 197- 212.
• Dart, B.C., Burnett, P.C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000). Students' Conceptions of Learning, the Classroom Environment, and Approaches to Learning, The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262-270.
• Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of Study Approach and Exam Performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20 (1), 29-44.
• Deniz, S. (2013). Analysis of Study Habits and Learnıng Styles in University Students. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 21(1), 287-302.
• DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
• Diseth, Å. (2001). Validation of a Norwegian Version of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST): Application of Structural Equation Modelling. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(4), 381-394.
• Diseth, Å. (2002). The Relationship between Intelligence, Approaches to Learning and Academic Achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219-230.
• Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to Learning, Cognitive Style, and Motives as Predictors of Academic Achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
• Doğan, C.D., Atmaca, S., & Aslan Yolcu, F. (2012). Sekizinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Değerlendirme Tercihleri Arasındaki İlişki. İlköğretim Online, 11(1), 264- 272.
• Domino, G., & Domino, M.L. (2006). Psychological Testing: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Drew, P.Y., & Watkins, D. (1998). Affective Variables, Learning Approaches and Academic Achievement: A Causal Modelling Investigation with Hong Kong Tertiary Students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,173-188.
• Duff, A. (1999). Access Policy and Approaches to Learning. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 8(2), 99-110.
• Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K.., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between Personality, Approach to Learning And Academic Performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920.
• Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Öğrenme Yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 74- 88.
• Entwistle, N. (1991). Approaches to Learning and Perceptions of the Learning Environment. Higher Education, 22, 201-204.
• Entwistle, N.J. (1997). Reconstituting Approaches to Learning: A Response to Webb. Higher Education, 33, 213-218.
• Entwistle, N.J (1998). Approaches to Learning and Forms of Understanding. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 72-101). Camberwell, Vic.: ACER.
• Entwistle, N.J, Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying Distinctive Approaches to Studying. Higher Education, 8, 365-380.
• Entwistle, N.J, & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm.
• Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of Response to Approaches to Studying Inventory across Contrasting Groups and Contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
• Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide Ölçme ve Ölçek Geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem.
• Everitt, B., & Hothorn, T. (2011). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. Springer.
• Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1993). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A users’ Guide. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 84–94.
• Foster, J. (2002). Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows (v8-10). London: Sage Publications.
• Fraenkel, J.R., Wallend, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Geta, M. (2012). An Investigation on the Relationship between Achievement Goal Orientation, Approaches to Learning and Academic Achievement of College Students: The Case of Bonga College of Teacher Education. Unpublieshed Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
• Gijbels, D., Van De Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The Relationship Between Students' Approaches to Learning and the Assessment of Learning Outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341.
• Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing Deep Learning Approaches and Personal Teaching Efficacy within a Preservice Teacher Education Context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 483-511.
• Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Grablowsky, B.J. (1979). Multivariate Data Analysis. Tulsa, OK: Pipe Books.
• Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.
• Hamm, S., & Robertson, I. (2010). Preferences for Deep-Surface Learning: A Vocational Education Case Study Using a Multimedia Assessment Activity. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 951-965.
• Harlen, W., & James, M., (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and Relationships between Formative and Summative Assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 4(3), 365-380.
• Ho, R. (2006). Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
• Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structural Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
• Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The Multivariate Social Scientist. London: Sage.
• Jonsson, A.C., Beach, D., Korp, H., & Erlandson, P. (2012). Teachers’ Implicit Theories of Intelligence: Influences from Different Disciplines and Scientific Theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 387-400.
• Kahn, J.H. (2006). Factor Analysis in Counseling Psychology Research, Training, and Practice: Principles, Advances, and Applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684-718.
• Kalaycı, Ş. (2010). Faktör Analizi. Ş. Kalaycı, (Ed.), SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri (234-255). Ankara: Asil.
• Kember, D. (2000). Misconceptions about the Learning Approaches, Motivation and Study Practices of Asian Students. Higher Education, 40, 99-121.
• Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The Dimensionality of Approaches to Learning: an Investigation with Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the Structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395-407.
• Kızılgüneş, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the Relations among Students' Epistemological Beliefs, Motivation, Learning Approach, and Achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243-256.
• Kirby, J.R., Knapper, C.K.., Evans, C.J., Carty, A.E., & Gadula, C. (2003). Approaches to Learning at Work and Workplace Climate. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(1), 31-52.
• Kline, R.B. (1994). An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. New York: Routledge.
• Leech, N.L. Barlett, K.C., & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics; Use and Interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lietz, P. (2011). The Impact of Values and Learning Approaches on Student Achievement: Gender and Academic Discipline Influences. Issues in Educational Research, 21(2), 201- 231.
• Lonka, K., & Lindholm-Ylanne, S. (1996). Epistemologies, Conceptions of Learning, and Study Practices in Medicine and Psychology. Higher Education, 31(1), 5-24.
• Lucas, U. (2001): Deep and Surface Approaches to Learning within Introductory Accounting: A Phenomenographic Study. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 10(2), 161- 184.
• Makinen, J. (2003) University Students' General Study Orientations: Theoretical Background, Measurements and Practical Implications. University of Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, ser B262.
• Martin, C.R., & Newell, R.J. (2004). Factor Structure of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in Individuals with Facial Disfigurement. Psychology Health and Medicine, 3, 327- 336.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-Outcome and Process. British Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 4-11.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On Qualitative differences in learning: II-Outcome as A Function of the Learners Conception of the Task. British Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 115-127.
• McCune, V., & Entwistle, N. (2000, August-September). The Deep Approach to Learning: Analytic Abstraction and Idiosyncratic Development. Paper Presented at the Innovations in Higher Education Conference, Helsinki.
• Meyers, L.S, Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
• Myers, M.D., Nichols, J.D., & White, J. (2003). Teacher and student Incremental and Entity Views of Intelligence: The Effects of Self-Regulation and Persistence Activities. International Journal of Educational Reform, 12(2), 97-117.
• Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and Deep Learning Processes in Distance Education: Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Systems. Computers & Education, 51, 1172–1183.
• Önder, İ., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2010). Düzenlenmiş İki Faktörlü Çalışma süreci Ölçeği’nin (R-SPQ-2F) Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 55-67.
• Özgür, H., & Tosun, N. (2013). Öğretmen Adaylarının Derin ve Yüzeysel Öğrenme Yaklaşımlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 113-125.
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
• Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Ramsden, P. (1988). Improving learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
• Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Routledge.
• Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of Academic Departments on Students’ Approaches to Studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383.
• Reid, W. A., Duvall, E., & Evans, P. (2007). Relationship between Assessment Results and Approaches to Learning and Studying in Year Two Medical Students. Medical Education, 41(8), 754-762.
• Richardson, J.T.E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999) Approaches to studying in Distance Education, Higher Education, 37, 23-55.
• Rodríguez, L., & Cano, F. (2006). The Epistemological Beliefs, learning Approaches and Study Orchestrations of University Students. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 617-636.
• Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Approaches to Studying: Age, Gender and Academic Performance. Educational Studies, 22(3), 367-379.
• Sadler-Smith, E., & Tsang, F. (1998). A Comparative study of Approaches to Studying in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 81-93.
• Schmeck, R.R., Ribich, F.D., & Ramanaiah, N. (1977). Development of a Self-Report Inventory for Assessing Individual Differences in Learning Processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 413-431.
• Schriesheim, C.A., & Eisenbach, R.J. (1995). An Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analytic Investigation of item Wording Effects on Obtained Factor Structures of Survey Questionnaire Measures. Journal of Management, 6, 1177-1193.
• Scouller, K. (1998). The Influence of Assessment Method on Students’ Learning Approaches: Multiple Choice Question Examination Versus Assignment Essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472.
• Selçuk, G.S., Çalışkan, S., & Erol, M. (2007). Evaluation of Learning Approaches for Prospective Physics Teachers. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 2, 25-41.
• Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
• Şeker, H., & Gençdoğan, B. (2006). Psikolojide ve Eğitimde Ölçme Aracı Geliştirme. Ankara: Nobel.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, S., & Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Smith, S., & Miller, R. (2005). Learning Approaches: Examination Type, Discipline of Study, and Gender. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 43-53.
• Stangor, C. (2010). Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Wadsworth.
• Steiner, L.A. (2007). The Effect Of Personal And Epistemological Beliefs On Performance In A College Developmental Mathematıcs Class. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas.
• Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the Dynamics of Students’ Approaches to Learning: The Effects of the Teaching/Learning Environment. Learning and Instruction, 16, 279-294.
• Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, Pearson Education, Inc.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2009). Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert Tipi Ölçek Hazırlama Kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
• Topkaya, N., Yaka, B., & Öğretmen, T. (2011). Öğrenme ve Ders Çalışma Yaklaşımları Envanterinin Uyarlanması ve İlgili Yapılarla İlişkisinin İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 192-204.
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991) Improving the Quality of Student Learning: The Influence of Learning Context and Student Approaches to Learning Outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251-66.
• Urbina, S. (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
• Ünal Çoban, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Feni Öğrenme Yaklaşımları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 271-293.
• Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The Relationship between Learning Conception, Study Strategy and Outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.
• Watkins, D. (2001). Correlates of Approaches to Learning: A Cross-Cultural Meta-Analysis. In R.J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles (165-196). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Yang, Y., & Green, S.B. (2011). Coefficient Alpha: A Reliability Coefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4) 377-392.
• Yılmaz, H. (2010, Mayıs). Öğretmen Adaylarının Sahip Oldukları Öğrenme Stilleri ve Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Arasındaki İlişki. I. Ulusal Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Kongresi. Sivas
• Yılmaz, M.B., & Orhan, F. (2011). Ders Çalışma Yaklaşımı Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Formu’nun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 69-83.
• Zeegers, P. (2001). Student Learning in Science: A Longitudinal Study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.
• Zhang, L.F. (2000). University Students' Learning Approaches in Three Cultures: An Investigation of Biggs's 3P Model. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134(1), 37-55.