Sınıf Etkinliklerim Ölçeği’nin (SEÖ) Türk Kültürüne Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2017, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 169 - 182, 30.06.2017

Kaan Zülfikar Deniz , Adile Gülşah Saranlı

https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.291825

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Öğrencilerin sınıf etkinliklerine
ilgi duymaları, etkinlik konularından zevk almaları, etkinliğin konusuyla
ilgili seçim yapabilmeleri ve etkinlikler sırasında sınırlarını
zorlayabilmeleri, üst düzey öğrenmelerin altında yatan temel unsurlardandır.
Eğitsel etkinliğin ilgi çekici, zevkli, seçim yapabilmeye ve sınırları
zorlamaya olanak tanıyan özelliklerinin olması, aynı zamanda 21. Yüzyılın eğitim sistemindeki neredeyse tüm eğitsel içerik, süreç ve
üründe bulunmasını istediğimiz özelliklerdendir. Bu özelliklerin ölçülmesi de
dolayısıyla büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Gentry ve Gable
(2001) tarafından Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde geliştirilen; geliştirildiği
kültürdeki farklı öğrenci gruplarına uygulanan ve ayrıca Kore, Çin ve Arap
dillerine çevrilen ve Güney Kore kültürüne de uyarlama çalışması yapılmış olan Sınıf
Etkinliklerim Ölçeği’nin Türk kültürüne uyarlamasını gerçekleştirmektir. Bu
doğrultuda araştırma, 2015-2016 eğitim-öğretim yılında 3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8.
sınıflarda öğrenim gören toplam 214 öğrenciden elde edilen veri ile
yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin geçerlik çalışması kapsamında orijinal ölçek geliştirme
çalışmasında elde edilen faktör yapısı Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile
test edilmiştir. Ayrıca geçerlik çalışması olarak madde-toplam korelasyonları
ve boyutlar arası korelasyon analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin
güvenirlik çalışmasında Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı kestirilmiştir. Elde
edilen bulgulara göre ölçeğin faktör yapısı orijinal ölçek geliştirme
çalışmasına paralel olarak doğrulanmıştır. Ayrıca Cronbach alfa değerlerinin
0,82 ile 0,90 arasında olduğu görülmektedir. Yapılan bu çalışmalar ile ölçeğin,
Türk kültüründe kullanımı için gerekli geçerlik ve güvenirlik kanıtları
sağlanmış ve ölçek farklı çalışmalar için kullanılmak üzere alana
kazandırılmıştır.

Keywords

sınıf etkinlikleri, ölçek uyarlama, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

References

• Archambault, E. X., Westberg, K., Brown, S. B., Hallmark, B. W., Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Aryan, E., & Shahrokhi, M. (2015). Students' perceptions of class activities: An investigation into the role of gender and grade level. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 19-26.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy. New York: W. H. Freeman.
• Betts, G. T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). Autonomous learner model optimizing ability. Greeley, CO: Autonomous Learning Publications & Specialists.
• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi.
• Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PIRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus, 119, 115-140.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., & McCormack, J. (1986). The influence of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(6), 415-419.
• Clifford, M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success. Educational Leadership, 48, 22-26.
• Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
• Deniz, K. Z. (2007). Psikolojik ölçme aracı uyarlama, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 1-16.
• Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
• Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3 Goals and cognitions (pp. 13-44). New York: Academic.
• Faske, D., & Grubb, D. J. (1997). Implications of the learner-centered battery for new teacher standards and teacher education reform in Kentucky. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
• Feldhusen, J. E, & Kroll, M. D. (1991). Boredom or challenge for the academically talented in school. Gifted Education International, 7, 80-81.
• Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
• Gentry, M. & Gable, R. K. (2001). From the students' perspective - my class activities: An instrument for use in research and evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 322-343.
• Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Rizza M. K. (2002). Students’ perceptions of classrooms activities: Are there grade level and gender differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 539-544.
• Gentry, M., Gable, R. K, & Springer, P. (2000). Gifted and non-gifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, my class activities? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74-96.
• Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Gable, R. K. (2001). Gifted students’ perceptions of their class activities: Differences among rural, urban, and suburban student attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 115-129.
• Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparison between gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.
• Glasser, W. (1996). Then and now. The theory of choice. Learning, 25, 20-22.
• Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking in classrooms (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
• Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGrawHill.
• Hootstein, E. W. (1994). Motivating middle school students. Middle School Journal, 25(5), 31-35.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: MacMillan.
• Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Akademi.
• Kerka, S. (1994). Self directed learning myths and realities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365818).
• Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-230.
• Middleton, J. A. (1995). A study on intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A personal constructs approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 254-279.
• Middleton, J. A., Littlefield, J. & Lehrer, R. (1992). Gifted students’ conceptions of academic fun: An examination of a critical construct for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 38-44.
• Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 167-181.
• Maker, C. J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
• Pereira, N., Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). The my class activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal for Advanced Academics, 21(4), 568-593.
• Parke, B. (1989). Gifted students in regular classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Passow, A. H. (1982). The relationship between the regular curriculum and differentiated curricula for the gifted/talented. Selected proceedings of the First National Conference on Curricula for the Gifted/Talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendents of Schools Office.
• Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
• Reis, S. M., Westberg, K. L., Kulikowich, J., Caiilard, R., Hebert, T., Plucker, J., Purcell, J. H., Rogers, J. B., & Smist, J. M. (1993). Why not let high ability students start school in January? The curricidum compacting study. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184, 261.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298-309.
• Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A comprehensive plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
• Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
• Schiefele, U. (1991). Interests, learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 299-323.
• Schlichter, C. (1986). Talents unlimited: Applying the multiple talent approach to mainstream and gifted programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 352-390). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
• Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College.
• Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37-54.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1992). Gifted education and the middle school movement: Two voices on teaching the academically talented. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(3), 206-238.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Differentiation of curriculum: A guide. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
• Treffinger, D. (1986). Fostering effective independent learning through individualized programming. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 429-460). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
• Wang, M. C., & Lindvall, C. M. (1984). Individual differences in school learning environments: Theory, research and design. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in educational (pp. 161-225). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Ward, V. (1980). Differential education for the gifted. Ventura, CA: Ventura Superintendent of Schools Office.
• Westberg, K. L., Archambauit, E. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin T. J. (1993). An observational study of instructional and curricular practices used with gifted and talented students in regular classrooms. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The rhythm of education. In A. N. Whitehead (Ed.), The aims of education (pp. 46-59). New York: MacMillian.
• Yang, Y., & Gentry, M. (2011). Gifted and general elementary students’ perceptions in China and the United States: A cross-national study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Yang, Y., Gentry, M., & Choi, Y. O. (2012). Gifted students’ perceptions of the regular classes and pull-out programs in South Korea. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 270-287.