The Scale of Learning Strategies for Distance Education Students: The Study of Adaptation to Turkish

Abstract

The aim of this study is to conduct a validity and reliability study for adaptation of the scale of learning strategies to Turkish, which was developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie (1991) and adapted by Meijs et al. (2019) for distance education students. The Scale of Learning Strategies for Distance Education Students is a scale consisting of 25 items and 5 factors (management of time and effort, complex cognitive strategies use, simple cognitive strategies use, communication with others, and academic thinking). After testing equivalance of Turkish form, the validity and reliability studies of the Scale of Learning Strategies for Distance Education Students were conducted with participation of 411 students studying in different departments of Kocaeli University in the fall semester of the 2021-2022 academic year. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) method was used for the adaptation of the scale, the significance of the differences between item average scores of the groups over and below 27% were examined with Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients, corrected item-total correlations, and t-test in order to determine the relabilities. As a result of normality test and first CFA, the 2nd and 6th items in the time and effort management sub-dimension were excluded from the scale in accordance with expert opinions due to fact that their standardized regression coefficients were not significant. When the fit indices were examined as a result of the analysis, the findings were as follows χ2 /sd =2.594, RMSEA= 0.064, SRMR= 0.0616, GFI= 0.894, NFI= 0.879, TLI= 0.908, CFI= 0.921 and IFI=0,922. The corrected total correlations of the scale items ranged between 0.37 and 0.68. The results of t-test applied to the scores of the groups over and below 27% were found to be significant for all items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the reliability of the overall scale was calculated as 0.915. A significant correlation was determined between the sub-dimensions of the scale and between the sub-dimensions and the total. According to these findings, adaption of the scale to Turkish is valid and reliable.

Keywords

• Online self-regulation questionnaire
• Validity
• Reliability
• Confirmatory factor analysis.

References

1. Agricola, B. T., Blind, P., & Traas, E. (2012). Differences in regulation and efficiency of learning between traditional and non-traditional students. Social Cosmos, 3, 153–169. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/245777.
2. Altun, S. & Erden, M. (2007). Öğrenmede Motive Edici Stratejiler Ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Edu 7, 2(1), 1-16. https://toad.halileksi.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/ogrenmede-motive-edici-stratejiler-olcegi-toad.pdf
3. Auld, D. P., Blumberg, F. C., & Clayton, K. (2010). Linkages between motivation, selfefficacy, self-regulated learning and preferences for traditional learning environments or those with an online component. Digital Culture & Education, 2, 128–143.
4. Avila, E.C., Abin, G.J., Bien, G.A., Acasamoso Jr. D.M., & Arenque, D.D. (2021). Students' Perception on Online and Distance Learning and their Motivation and Learning Strategies in using Educational Technologies during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1933 Malaysia.
5. Artino, A. R., Jr., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 146–151.
6. Ayyıldız, H. & Cengiz, E. (2006). A conceptual investigation of structural equation model (SEM) on testing marketing models. Süleyman Demirel University İ.İ.B.F., 11(1), 63-84. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/194860
7. Baker, W. Ve Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning Strategies in Reading and Writing: EAP Contexts. RELC Journal December, 35, 299-328.
8. Bayındır, N. (2006). The learning strategies instruction and effects on cognitive processes, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Education Sciences.

9. Brand-Gruwel, S., Camp, G., & Timmermans, M. (2016). Zelfevaluatie Onderwijswetenschappen 2016. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University, Welten Institute.
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (Manual of data analysis for social sciences). Pegem Akademi, Ankara
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö.E., Özkahveci, Ö. and Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Scienses: Theory&Practice, 4(2), 231-239.
12. Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programmings. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
13. Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55- 86.
14. Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.03.002.
15. Coşkun R, Altunışık R, Yıldırım E., & Bayraktaroğlu S. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri SPSS Uygulamaları. Sakarya: Sakarya Yayıncılık
16. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications). Ankara: Pegema publication.
17. Duman, B. (2008). Öğrencilerin benimsedikleri eğitim felsefeleriyle kullanıldıkları öğrenme strateji ve öğrenme stillerinin karşılaştırılması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 203-224.
18. Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.
19. Efe, N., Özturan Sağırlı, M., Ünlü, İ., & Kaşkaya, A. (2009). The examination of learning strategies according to different variables. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty (EUJEF), 11(2), 227-238.
20. Erbil, D. G,. & Kocabaş, A. (2019). Öğrenmede Motive Edici Stratejiler Ölçeği (MSLQ) Motivasyon Alt Ölçeğinin Türk Dili’ne ve İlkokul 4. Sınıf Düzeyine Uyarlanması. Uluslararası Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 71-79. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ukmead/issue/51468/648286
21. Erdem, A. R. (2005). Effective ways of learning: learning strategies and teaching. Elemantary Education Online, 4(1), 1-6.
22. Erturan-İlker, G., Arslan, Y., & Demirhan, G. (2014). Öğrenmeye İlişkin Motivasyonel Stratejiler Ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(3), 821-833. 10.12738/estp.2014.3.1871
23. Eurostat (2016). Lifelong learning statistics. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Lifelong_learning_statistics.
24. Fornell, C.& Larcker, DF. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
25. Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2003). Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma (A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale: Psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison). Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi, 5, 1-25
26. Güngör, D. (2016). A Guide to scale development and adaptation in psychology. Turkish Psychological Articles, 19(38), 104-112.
27. Güven, M. (2004). Öğrenme stilleri ile öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişki. Doktora Tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Ana Bilim Dalı, Eskişehir.
28. Hambleton, R.K., Merenda, P.F. & Spielberger, C.D. (2005). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Hamurcu, H. (2002). Okulöncesi öğretmen adaylarının kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23, 127-134.
30. Holmberg, B. (2005). Distance education and languages: Evolution and change. New perspectives on language and education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
31. Jacobson, R. R., & Harris, S. M. (2008). Does the type of campus influence self-regulated learning as measured by the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. (MSLQ) Education, 128, 412–431.
32. Jesus, L. M. T., & Valente, A. R. (2016). Cross-cultural adaptation of health assessment instruments. Retrieved from http:// sweet.ua.pt/lmtj/lmtj/JesusValente2016.pdf
33. Khine, M.S. (2013). Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research and Practice. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam / Boston / Taipei.
34. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2011). A Review of Online Course Dropout Research: Implications for Practice and Future Research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593-618.
35. Levin, J. R. (1986). Four cognitive principles of learning – strategy instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(2), 3-17. Lynch, D. J. (2006). Motivational factors, learning strategies and resource management as predictors of course grades. College Student Journal, 40(2), 423-428
36. Martínez, C.A. (2012) Developing metacognition at a distance: sharing students’ learning strategies on a reflective blog. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 2, 199-212, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.636056
37. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Comprehension Models. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 44 -63.
38. McKenzie, K., & Gow, K. (2004). Exploring the first year academic achievement of school leavers and mature-age students through structural equation modelling. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2003.10.002.
39. McClendon, R. C. (1996). Motivation and cognition of preservice teachers: MSLQ. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23, 216–221.
40. Meijs, C., Neroni, J., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Leontjevas, R., Kirschner, P. A., & de Groot, R. H. M. (2019). Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire part B revisited: New subscales for an adult distance education setting. The Internet and Higher Education, 40, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.09.003.
41. Meydan C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi Amos uygulamaları. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
42. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View, Second, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ISBN 0, 534(50688), 7.
43. Neroni, J., Meijs, C., Gijselaersa, H.J.M., Kirschnera, P.A., & de Groot, R.H.M. (2019). Learning strategies and academic performance in distance education. Learning and Individual Differences, 73, 1-7.
44. Office for National Statistics (2023). Uncertainty and how we measure it for our surveys. Retriewed from https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/methodologytopicsand statisticalconcepts/uncertaintyandhowwemeasureit in 5th May, 2023
45. Özdamar K. (2016). Eğitim, Sağlık ve Davranış Bilimlerinde Ölçek ve Test Geliştirme Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINITAB Uygulamalı, Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi.
46. Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D.A.F. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-814.
47. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
48. Seçer, Ġ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile Pratik Veri Analizi (2. Baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
49. Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş, temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları (Introduction to structural equation modeling, basic principles and LISREL applications). Ankara: Ekinoks publication
50. Tabachnick, B.G., & Linda S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, Pearson, Boston.
51. Taltekin, A. (2019). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenenlerin öğrenme strateji ve ortam tercihlerinin hofstede’nin kültürel boyutlarına göre farklılıkları. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
52. Yaşlıoğlu, MM. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(74), 74-85.
53. Yeşilyurt, E. (2013). Öğretmenlerin öğrenme stratejilerine ilişkin algıladıkları farkındalık düzeyi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(1), 113-135.
54. Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. NewYork: Handbook of Research on Teaching. Macmillan Company.
55. Weinstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. L. (1985). Learning strategies: The how of learning. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.). Thinking and learning skills Volume 1: Relating instruction to research (pp. 241–258). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Wittrock M.C. (1986). Students’ Though Processes. M. Wittrock, (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillian Yayıncılık.
57. Wolters, A. C. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11(3), 281-299.