Matematik Eğitiminde Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme ve Programlama Araçları Ölçeği'nin (CTEMS) Türkçe Uyarlama: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Turgut, Kohanová ve Gjøvik (2024) tarafından geliştirilen Matematik Eğitiminde Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme ve Programlama Araçları Ölçeği’ni (CTEMS) Türkçeye uyarlamak ve geçerlik ile güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma, 168 matematik öğretmen adayı ile yürütülen bir ölçek uyarlama deseni kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapı geçerliği ilk olarak açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) ile incelenmiş ve faktör yapılarının toplam varyansın %55 ile %65’ini açıkladığı belirlenmiştir (KMO = .884, p < .001). Elde edilen yapı daha sonra kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik modellemesine (PLS-SEM) dayalı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile test edilmiştir. DFA sonuçları, önerilen beş boyutlu ölçme modelini desteklemiş; faktör yüklerinin .57 ile .86 arasında değiştiği ve tüm boyutlar için AVE değerlerinin .50’nin üzerinde olduğu görülmüştür. Bu bulgular, model uyumunun ve yapı geçerliğinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Güvenirlik analizleri, tüm boyutların yeterli iç tutarlılığa sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur (Cronbach’s α = .70–.88; Bileşik Güvenirlik [CR] = .83–.91). Test–tekrar test güvenirlik katsayıları ise .72 ile .83 arasında değişmektedir. Ayrıca yakınsak ve ayırt edici geçerlik ölçütlerinin de sağlandığı belirlenmiştir. Bunun yanında, hesaplamalı düşünme eğitimi almış öğretmen adaylarının puanlarının, bu eğitimi almamış olanlara kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur (p < .001, büyük etki büyüklüğü). Genel olarak bulgular, CTEMS’in Türkçe formunun, matematik eğitiminde hesaplamalı düşünme ve programlama araçlarının pedagojik entegrasyonunu değerlendirmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• bilgi işlemsel düşünme
• matematik eğitimi
• ölçek uyarlama
• öğretmen adayları

The Turkish Adaptation of the Computational Thinking and Programming Tools in Mathematics Education Scale (CTEMS): A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to adapt the Computational Thinking and Programming Tools in Mathematics Education Scale (CTEMS), originally developed by Turgut, Kohanová, and Gjøvik (2024), into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. The study employed a scale adaptation design with a sample of 168 pre-service mathematics teachers. Construct validity was first explored through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which showed that the factor structures explained between 55% and 65% of the total variance (KMO = .884, p < .001), and the resulting structure was subsequently tested using confirmatory factor analysis based on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results supported the proposed five-dimensional measurement model, with factor loadings ranging from .57 to .86 and AVE values exceeding .50 for all dimensions, indicating acceptable model adequacy and construct validity. Reliability analyses showed that all dimensions demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .70–.88; CR = .83–.91), and test–retest reliability coefficients ranged from .72 to .83, while convergent and discriminant validity criteria were met. In addition, pre-service teachers who had received training in computational thinking scored significantly higher than those without such training (p < .001, large effect size). Overall, the findings indicate that the Turkish version of the CTEMS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the pedagogical integration of computational thinking and programming tools in mathematics education.

Keywords

• Computational thinking
• mathematics education
• scale adaptation
• pre-service teachers

References

1. Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in human behavior, 105, 106185.
2. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International journal of computers for mathematical learning, 7(3), 245-274.
3. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
4. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. Joint Research Centre Report EUR 28558 EN. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.2760/38842
7. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best praBİDices in exploratory faBİDor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. PraBİDical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
8. Çetin, İ., Otu, T., & Oktaç, A. (2020). Adaption of the Computational Thinking Test into Turkish. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 11(2), 343-360.

9. Dagienė, V., Pelikis, E., & Stupurienė, G. (2015). Introducing computational thinking through a contest on informatics: Problem-solving and gender issues. Information Sciences/Informacijos Mokslai, 73.
10. Dagienė, V., Futschek, G., & Stupurienė, G. (2019). Creativity in solving short tasks for learning computational thinking. Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 382–396.
11. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British journal of management, 17(4), 263-282.
12. Dolmacı, A., & Akhan, N. E. (2020). Bilişimsel Düşünme Becerileri Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches 9(3).
13. Ertugrul-Akyol, B. (2019). Development of computational thinking scale: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(3), 421-432. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.3.421
14. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory faBİDor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
16. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). Computational thinking framework. In IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 assessment framework (pp. 25-31). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
17. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (10th ed.). Pearson.
18. Gök, A., & Karamete, A. (2023). A validity and reliability study of the Turkish computational thinking scale. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(2), 421-437.
19. Gülbahar, Y., Kert, S. B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2019). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine yönelik öz yeterlik algısı ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 10(1), 1-29.
20. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.
22. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
23. Hair, J. F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392.
24. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment, 1, 3-38.
25. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & 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.
26. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2021). Mapping a way forward for computing and mathematics: Reflections on the UCL ScratchMaths project. In Proceedings of the 2020 online seminar series on programming in mathematics education (pp. 6-10).
27. Kallia, M., van Borkulo, S. P., Drijvers, P., Barendsen, E., & Tolboom, J. (2021). Characterising computational thinking in mathematics education: a literature-informed Delphi study. Research in mathematics education, 23(2), 159-187.
28. Karalar, H., & Alpaslan, M. M. (2021). Assessment of Eighth Grade Students' Domain-General Computational Thinking Skills. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 5(1), 35-47.
29. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior, 72, 558-569.
30. Kukul, V., & Karatas, S. (2019). Computational thinking self-efficacy scale: Development, validity and reliability. Informatics in Education, 18(1), 151-164.
31. Lemke, C. (2003). Standards for a modern world: Preparing students for their future. Learning and Leading with Technology, 31(1), 6–9.
32. Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Analyze your Scratch projects with Dr. Scratch and assess your computational thinking skills. In Scratch conference (pp. 12-15).
33. Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An investigation of digital propensity and information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 531–555.
34. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.942836.
35. Pörn, R., Hemmi, K., & Kallio-Kujala, P. (2021).Inspiring or confusing? Finnish primary teachers’ perceptions of teaching programming.LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(1), 366–396.
36. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in human behavior, 72, 678-691.
37. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the Computational Thinking Test. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 47-58.
38. Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K-12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines: Foundations and research highlights (pp. 151-164). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
39. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational research review, 22, 142-158.
40. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, No. 7). Boston, MA: pearson.
41. Thomas, M. O., & Hong, Y. Y. (2013). Teacher Integration of Technology into Mathematics Learning. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(2).
42. Thomas, M. O., & Palmer, J. M. (2013). Teaching with digital technology: Obstacles and opportunities. In The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective on technology focused professional development (pp. 71-89). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
43. Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., & Hsu, C. Y. (2021). The computational thinking scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 579-602.
44. Turgut, M., Kohanová, I., & Gjøvik, Ø. (2024). Developing survey-based measures of mathematics teachers’ pedagogical technology knowledge: a focus on computational thinking and programming tools. Research in Mathematics Education, 1-24.
45. Üzümcü, Ö. (2023). Computational thinking scale: the predictive role of metacognition in the context of higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 11(3), 423-437. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1355722
46. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and information technologies, 20(4), 715-728.
47. Yağcı, M. (2019). A valid and reliable tool for examining computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 929-951.
48. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science education and technology, 25(1), 127-147.
49. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
50. Wing, J. M. (2011). Research Notebook: Computational Thinking–What and Why?.