MOOC ÖĞRENCİ MEŞGULİYETİ ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 1 - 20, 14.01.2022

Ela Biçer İlknur Reisoğlu

https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.910355

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Deng, Benckendorff ve Gannaway (2020) tarafından geliştirilen MOOC Meşguliyet Ölçeğini ortaokul öğrencileri için Türkçeye uyarlamak, ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik analizlerini yapmak amaçlanmıştır. Uyarlanan ölçek, 11 madde ve 4 boyuttan (bilişsel, davranışsal, duyuşsal ve sosyal meşguliyet) oluşmaktadır. Özgün formu İngilizce olan ölçeğin, iki yabancı dil uzmanı tarafından Türkçe çevirisi yapılmıştır. Türkçe çevirinin uygunluğu için alanında uzman iki Türkçe ve iki yabancı dil uzmanı ile 2 öğretim teknolojileri uzmanının görüşleri alınmıştır. Alınan görüşler doğrultusunda gerekli düzenlemeler yapıldıktan sonra ölçek, 478 ortaokul öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler üzerinden açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, yakınsak ve ayırt edici güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Keywords

MOOC, öğrenci meşguliyeti, ölçek uyarlama, ortaokul öğrencileri

THE ADAPTATION OF MOOC STUDENT ENGAGEMENT SCALE TO TURKISH: THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Abstract

References

• Anderson, T. (2013). Promise and/or peril: MOOCs and open and distance education. Commonwealth of learning, 3, 1-9.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., ve Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., ve Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of school psychology, 44(5), 427-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
• Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., ve Kim, Y. J. (2016). 8. Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Peer interaction and second language learning (pp. 209-239).
• Bezerra, L. N., ve Silva, M. T. (2017). A review of literature on the reasons that cause the high dropout rates in the MOOCS. Revista Espacios, 38(05).
• Bonafini, F., Chae, C., Park, E., ve Jablokow, K. (2017). How much does student engagement with videos and forums in a MOOC affect their achievement?. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 224-240.
• Bozkurt, A., ve Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083
• Brislin, R. W., Lonner Walter J., ve Thorndike Robert, M. (1973). Cross cultural research methods, New York: John Wiley-SonsPub.
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
• Butler, D. L. (2011). Investigating self-regulated learning using in-depth case studies. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 346-360.
• Can, E. (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de açık ve uzaktan eğitim uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 11-53.
• Daniels, L. M., Adams, C., ve McCaffrey, A. (2016). Emotional and social engagement in a Massive Open Online Course: An examination of Dino 101. In Emotions, technology, and learning (pp. 25-41). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800649-8.00004-3
• Dawson, S., Joksimović, S., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., ve Siemens, G. (2015). Recognising learner autonomy: Lessons and reflections from a joint x/c MOOC. Proceedings of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia 2015.
• Deng, R., ve Benckendorff, P. (2017). A contemporary review of research methods adopted to understand students’ and instructors’ use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(8), 601–607.
• Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., ve Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale development and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12810
• Ergüney, M. (2015). Uzaktan eğitimin geleceği: MOOC (massive open online course). Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(4), 15-22.
• Eryılmaz, A. (2014). Üniversite öğrencileri için derse katılım ölçeklerinin geliştirilmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 203-214.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd edition). London: Sage.
• Fornell, C., ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382- 388.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., ve Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Furlong, M. J., Whipple, A. D., Jean, G. S., Simental, J., Soliz, A., ve Punthuna, S. (2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving toward a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 99-113.
• Geisinger, K.F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304-312.
• Glass, C. R., Shiokawa-Baklan, M. S., ve Saltarelli, A. J. (2016). Who takes MOOCs? New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015(167), 41–55.
• Gunuc, S., ve Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610.
• Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., ve Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (2004). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Psychology Press.
• Harding, N., 2012. The Massive Open Online Course revolution hits the UK. http://thepositive.com/mooc-massive-open-online-courses-uk /
• Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., ve Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.005
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
• Hew, K. F., ve Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational research review, 12, 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
• Hone, K. S., ve El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 52–60.
• Hu, L., ve Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
• Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in higher education, 38(5), 758-773.
• Karadağ, İ. (2007). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarının sosyal destek kaynakları açısından incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi.
• Khalil, H., ve Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention - A literature review. In EdMedia (pp. 1305–1313).
• Klassen, R. M., Yerdelen, S., ve Durksen, T. L. (2013). Measuring Teacher Engagement: Development of the Engaged Teachers Scale (ETS). Frontline Learning Research, 1(2), 33-52.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
• Krause, K. L., ve Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluationin Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505.
• Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 33(3), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380109601795
• Lee, J. S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality?. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177-185.
• Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., ve Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48.
• Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Maroco, J., Maroco, A. L., Campos, J. A. D. B., ve Fredricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engagement: development of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29.
• McClenney, K. M. (2007). Research update: The community college survey of student engagement. Community College Review, 35(2), 137-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552107306583
• McDonald, R. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
• Nunes, S. A. N., Fernandes, H. M., Fisher, J. W., ve Fernandes, M. G. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the lived experience component of the Spiritual Health And Life-Orientation Measure (SHALOM). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31(1), 1-13.
• Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
• Onah, D.F.O., Sinclair, J., ve Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout Rates of Massive Open Online Courses: Behavioural Patterns. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 5825-5834.
• Oruç (2020). İngilizce Hazırlık Programında Yabancı Dil Kaygısının İngilizce Başarısına Etkisinde Öğrenci Katılımının Rolü. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Öz, Y.(2019). Yükseköğretimde öğrenci katılımı / Student engagement in higher education (Doktora Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Özcan, H. (2019). Kitlesel açık çevrimiçi ders platformlarına yönelik puanlama anahtarı geliştirilmesi (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., ve Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14562423
• Philp, J., ve Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.
• Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 105(3), 579.
• Reeve, J., ve Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in classroom motivation. Journal of educational psychology, 106(2), 527. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034934
• Reschly, A. L., ve Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Rivard, R. (2013). Measuring the MOOC dropout rate. Inside Higher Ed, 8, 2013.
• Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford Like Courses: Two Successful and Distinct Course Formats for Massive Open Online Courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning.
• Shah, D. (2020). By The Numbers: MOOCs in 2020. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2020
• Shevlin, M., ve Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90.
• Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education. In McGreal, R., Kinuthia W., & Marshall S. (Eds), Open Educational Resources: Innovation, research and practice (pp. 5–16). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University.
• Skinner, E. A., ve Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.
• Sun, J. C. Y., ve Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British journal of educational technology, 43(2), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
• Sun, Y., Guo, Y., ve Zhao, Y. (2020). Understanding the determinants of learner engagement in MOOCs: An adaptive structuration perspective. Computers & Education, 157, 103963.
• Wang, M.-T., ve Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137–143.
• Watted, A., ve Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11–20.
• Xiong, Y., Li, H., Kornhaber, M. L., Suen, H. K., Pursel, B., ve Goins, D. D. (2015). Examining the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural equation modeling approach. Global Education Review, 2(3), 23–33.
• Zepke, N., ve Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active learning in higher education, 11(3), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410379680