Adaptation of the New Generation Science Standards Questionnaire to Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to adapt the “New Generation Science Standards Questionnaire” developed by Campbell, Lee, Longhurst, McKenna, Coster , and Lundgren (2021), into Turkish. The original scale form consists of four main factors and 35 items. Original scale factors: Understanding scientific explanations, generating scientific evidence, reflecting on scientific knowledge, participating productively in science. The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) study group of the research consists of 408 secondary school 7th and 8th grade students, and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) study group consists of 799 secondary school 7th and 8th grade students. EFA was used to examine the construct validity of the scale, and translation studies were conducted to examine the language validity. As a result of the EFA, a structure consisting of 30 items and 4 factors was obtained. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, it was observed that the values of the fit indices were within the acceptable value limits. Finally, Cronbach's Alpha values for the reliability of the scale tool in terms of internal consistency were calculated and it was seen that the Turkish version of the New Generation Science Standards Scale was a valid and reliable measurement tool with adequate psychometric properties.

Keywords

• Science Education
• New Generation Science Standards
• Scale Adaptation
• Middle Students

References

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Appendix: Engineering design in the NGSS, Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
2. Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma, Yöntem, Teknik ve İlkeler. PegemA
3. Barrow, L. H. (2006). A Brief History of Inquiry: From Dewey to Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(3), 265-278, DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9008-5.
4. Beaton D. E., Bombardier C., Guillemin F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. SPINE 2000; 25(2), 3186-3191.
5. Bilgin, H., Aykaç, N., & Kabaran, H. (2014). Türkiye’de ve bazı Avrupa Birliği ülkelerindeki öğretmen yetiştirme uygulamalarının karşılaştırılmalı olarak incelenmesi (Almanya, Finlandiya, Fransa, İngiltere ve Türkiye Örneği). Turkish Studies-International Periodical for The Languages, 9(3), 279-292.
6. Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.
7. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. In David A. Kenny (Eds.), Methodology in the Social Sciences. New York: The Guilford Press.
8. Campbell, T., & Fazio, X. (2020). Epistemic frames as an analytical framework for understanding the representation of scientific activity in a modeling-based learning unit. Research in Science Education, 50, 2283-2304.

9. Campbell, T., Lee, H., Longhurst, M., McKenna, T. J., Coster, D., & Lundgren, L. (2021). Next generation science classrooms: The development of a questionnaire for examining student experiences in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 121, 96-109.
10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LİSREL uygulamaları. (2. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem yayıncılık.
11. Dagher, Z.R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Science & Education, 25, 147-164.
12. Demirel, R., & Özcan, H. (2021). Argümantasyon destekli fen ve mühendislik uygulamalarının 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin ışık konusuna yönelik başarılarına etkisi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(1), 100-111.
13. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
14. Forman, E. A. (2018). The practice turn in learning theory and in science education. In D. Kritt (Ed.), Constructivist education in an age of accountability (pp. 97-111). Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Huff, K. L., & Yager, R. E. (2016). The four strands of science learning and the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Scope, 40(2), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/ss16_040_02_10
16. International Test Commission (ITC) (2018). Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101-134.
17. International Test Commission (ITC) (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
18. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
19. Leong, F., & Austin, J. (2006). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
20. Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174.
21. MEB. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı: İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar. Ankara.
22. Mor Dirlik, E., Altıntaş, Ö. & Kartal, S. (2021). Uluslararası Test Standartlarının ve Yönergelerinin Sistematik ve Karşılaştırmalı İncelenmesi. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(39), 804-830. DOI: 10.26466/opus.889770
23. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academy Press.
24. National Research Council (NRC). (2008). Ready, set, science: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy Press.
25. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science standards: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press.
26. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
27. Orçan, F. (2018). Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi: İlk Hangisi Kullanılmalı?. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 9(4), 414-421.
28. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. King’s College.
29. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (4th edition). McGraw Hill: Open University Press.
30. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research. Jossey-Bass.
31. Rennie, K.M. (1997). "Exploratory And Confirmatory Rotation Strategies in Exploratory Factor Analysis". Paper Presented At The Annual Meeting Of The Southwest Educational Research Association (Austin, January).
32. Rina, L., Murtini, W., & Indriayu, M. (2019). Entrepreneurship education: Is it important for middle school students? Dinamika Pendidikan, 14(1), 47-59.
33. Rönnebeck, S., Bernholt, S., & Ropohl, M. (2016). Searching for a common ground-A literature review of empirical research on scientific inquiry activities. Studies in Science Education. 52, 1-37.
34. Sedano, L., & Carvalho, A. (2017). Inquiry in science teaching: social interaction opportunities and its importance for the construction of moral autonomy. Alexandria: Revista de Educação em Ciência e Tecnologia. 10(1), 199-220.
35. Suhr, D. (2008). Step Your Way Through Path Analysis. Western Users of SAS Software Conference Proceedings. [Available online at: https://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2008/pos/pos04.pdf.] Retrieved June 10, 2022.
36. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapisal esitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar. Turk Psikoloji Yazilari, 3(6), 49-74.
37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson. Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi (3.Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
38. World Health Organization (WHO) (2018). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/t ranslation/en/.