2011-2016 Yılları Arasında ‘Eğitim ve Bilim’ Dergisinde Yayımlanan Makalelerin SPSS ve AMOS Kullanımı Kapsamında İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı veri analizinde SPSS ve AMOS programlarını kullanıp 2011-2016 yılları arasında SSCI indexli Eğitim ve Bilim dergisinde yayımlanan makaleleri incelemektir. Bu amaçla, araştırmanın evrenini oluşturan 688 makaleden bu araştırmanın örneklemini oluşturan 343 makale; kullanılan istatistiksel teknikler, yazar sayısı, örneklem büyüklüğü, araştırma deseni, örneklem grubu ve veri analizi yöntemleri perspektiflerinden incelenmiştir. Çalışmada elde edilen veriler içerik analizine göre incelenmiş ve betimsel istatistiksel metoduyla sunulmuştur. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, veri analizinde en fazla parametrik testler kullanılmış olup, çalışmalar çoğunlukla nicel araştırma desenine göre dizayn edilmiştir. Makalelerin çoğunlukla bir ya da iki araştırmacı tarafından yapıldığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca ilköğretim, ortaöğretim ve üniversite öğrencilerinin en fazla çalışılan örneklem grupları olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarının ilerideki çalışmalar için bir rehber ve yol gösterici olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• ‘Eğitim ve Bilim’ dergisi,İçerik analizi,İstatiksel teknik

Investigation of the Articles Published in the Journal of ‘Education and Science’ between 2011 & 2016 in the Context of the Use of SPSS and AMOS

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the articles, which utilized SPSS and AMOS programs in the data analysis, and were published in 2011-2016 in the journal of Science and Education that is in the scope of SSCI. For this aim, 343 articles out of 688 were examined from the perspectives of the type of statistical technique, the number of authors, sample size, research design, group of sample and the method of analysis. The data were examined through content analysis and presented by means of descriptive statistical methods. According to the results of this research, parametric tests were the most utilized statistical tests in the data analyses and the studies were mostly designed compatible with quantitative research. The studies were conducted mostly by one or two authors. Elementary and middle school students and undergraduates were the most frequently studied participants. The results of the study will be a guide and light for the future studies.

Keywords

• Content analysis,Journal of ‘Education and Science’,Statistical tecnique

References

1. Alper, A., & Gülbahar, Y. (2009). Trends and issues in educational technologies: A review of recent research in TOJET. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8 (2), 124-135.
2. Arık, R. S., & Türkmen, M. (2009). Eğitim bilimleri alanında yayımlanan bilimsel dergilerde yer alan makalelerin incelenmesi. I. Uluslararası Türkiye Eğitim Araştırmaları Kongresi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Çanakkale.
3. Aydın, A., Erdağ, C., & Sarıer, Y. (2010). A comparison of articles published in the field of educational administration in terms of topics, methodologies and results. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 37-58
4. Baki, A., Güven, B. Karataş, I., Akkan, Y., & Çakıroğlu, U. (2011). Trends in Turkish mathematics education research: from 1998-2007. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 40, 57-68.
5. Bilgin, N. (2006). Content analysis in social sciences, techniques and examples studies. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
6. Chang, Y. H., Chang, C. Y., & Tseng, Y. H. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 19, 315-331.
7. Çelen, K. & Seferoğlu, S.S. (2016). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin kullanımı ve etik olmayan davranışlar: sorunlar, araştırmalar ve değerlendirmeler. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 4 (8), 124-153.
8. Çiltaş, A., Güler, G., & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Mathematics Education Research in Turkey: A Content Analysis Study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 574-580.

9. Ece, A.S. (2007). Study of scientific periodical publications in which music and musical research was published on social sciences in Turkey (2000-2006). Journal of Human Sciences, 4 (2), 1-23.
10. Erdem, D. (2011). Türkiye’de 2005-2006 yılları arasında yayımlanan eğitim bilimleri dergilerindeki makalelerin bazı özellikler açısından incelenmesi: Betimsel bir analiz. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 2 (1), 140-147.
11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8thed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Göktaş, Y., Hasançebi, F., Varışoğlu, B., Akçay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2012a). Trends in educational research in Turkey: A content analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 455-459.
13. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yıldırım, G., & Reisoğlu, İ. (2012b). Educational technology research trends in turkey: a content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 191-199.
14. Hart, L. C., Smith, S. Z., Swars, S. L., & Smith, M. E. (2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education: 1995-2005. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (1), 26-41.
15. Hsu, T. (2005). Research methods and data analysis procedures used by educational researchers. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28 (2), 109-133.
16. Karadağ, E. (2009). A thematic analysis on doctoral dissertations made in the area of education sciences. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 10 (3), 75-87.
17. Karagöz, Y. (2010). The power and effectiveness of nonparametric techniques. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 9 (33), 18-40.
18. Kayhan, M., & Özgün Koca A. (2004). Research subjects in mathematics education: 2000-2002. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 26, 72-81.
19. Kieffer, K. M., Reese, R. J., & Thompson, B. (2001). Statistical techniques employed in AERJ and JCP articles from 1988 to 1997: A methodological review. Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (3), 280-309.
20. Kleinsasser, R. C. (2014). Teacher efficacy in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 168-179.
21. Kozikoğlu, İ., & Senemoğlu, N. (2015). The content analysis of dissertations completed in the field of curriculum and instruction (2009-2014). Education and Science, 40 (182), 29-41.
22. Kutluca, T., Mut, A. İ., & Gündüz, S. (2017). Evaluation of the Articles in a Scientific Journal Using Quantitative Data Analysis Program. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (24), 723-746.
23. Kutluca, T., & Gündüz, S. (2016). Evaluation of the articles involving SPSS, AMOS and LISREL published in the Journal of the Faculty of Education at Hacettepe University. International Engineering, Science and Education Conference, 1-3 December 2016, Dicle University, Diyarbakır.
24. Kutluca, T., Hacıömeroğlu, G., & Gündüz, S. (2016). Evaluation of basic field studies on computer assisted mathematics teaching in Turkey. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 12 (6), 1253-1272.
25. Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31 (15), 1999-2020.
26. Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter? British Educational Research Journal, 26 (1), 5-24.
27. Ozan, C., & Köse, E. (2014). Research trends in curriculum and instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4 (1), 116-136.
28. Pallant, J. (2007), SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.). Open University Press, London.
29. Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M., & Dündar, H. (2014). Tendencies of the researches published in education and science journal: content analysis. Educaton and Science, 39 (173), 430-453.
30. Sözbilir, M., & Kutu, H. (2008). Development and current status of science education research in Turkey [Special Issue]. Essays in Education, 1-22.
31. Taş, E., Şener, N., & Yalçın, M. (2013). 2005 -2012 yılları arasında teknoloji destekli fen eğitimi alanında yapılan bilimsel araştırmaların analizi. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 1 (1), 83-104.
32. Tavşancıl, E., & Aslan, E. (2001). Content analysis and application samples for verbal, written and other materials. Epsilon Yayınevi, İstanbul.
33. Tavşancıl, E., Çokluk, Ö.,Gözen Çıtak, G., Kezer, F., Yalçın Yıldırım, Ö., Bilican, S., …, & Özmen, D. T. (2010). The investigation of theses completed at the institutes of educational sciences (2000-2008). Ankara University Scientific Research Project Final Report, Ankara.
34. Telli, E., & Yurdugül, H. (2012). Sampling methods used in educational science researches between the years 2009-2011. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 2, 183-189.
35. Tsai, C. C., & Wen, L. M. C. (2005). Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 27 (1), 3–14.
36. Turan, S., Karadağ, E., Bektaş, F., & Yalçın, M. (2014). Knowledge Production in Educational Administration in Turkey: An Overview of Researches in Journal of Educational Administration: Theory and Practice -2003 to 2013-. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 20 (1), 93-119.
37. Ulutaş, F., & Ubuz, B. (2008). Research and trends in mathematics education: 2000 to 2006. Elementary Education Online, 7 (3), 614-626.
38. Varışoğlu, B., Şahin, A., & Göktaş, Y. (2013). Trends in Turkish education studies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13 (3), 1767-1781.
39. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences, (5nded.) Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
40. Yılmaz, K., & Altınkurt, Y. (2012). An examination of articles published on preschool education in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (4), 3227-3241.