Üstbilişsel Etkinlik Envanteri: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 618 - 625, 01.06.2018

Sinem Dinçol Özgür Senar Temel Ayhan Yılmaz

Öz

Bu çalışmada öğrencilerin kimya problemlerini çözerken kullandıkları üstbiliş becerilerini değerlendirmek amacı ile geliştirilmiş olan Üstbilişsel Etkinlik Envanteri’nin Metacognitive Activities Inventory- Cooper ve Sandi-Urena 2009, Sandi-Urena 2008 Türkçe’ye uyarlanarak, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarının yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Özgün envanterin dili İngilizcedir ve envanter 27 maddeden oluşan 5’li Likert tipi bir ölçektir. Uyarlama çalışması için envanterin Türkçe’ye çevirisi yapılarak, dilsel eşdeğerlik sağlanmıştır. Envanterin kapsam geçerliği için alan uzmanlarının görüşleri alınmış ve envanter üç farklı devlet üniversitesinin eğitim fakültelerine devam eden 725 öğretmen adayına uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliğinin sağlanması amacıyla yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda [χ2 295, n=725 = 834.35, p

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Üstbiliş, Ölçek uyarlama, Üstbilişsel etkinlik envanteri

The Metacognitive Activities Inventory: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

The aim of this study was to adapt the Metacognitive Activities Inventory to Turkish Cooper and Sandi-Urena 2009, Sandi-Urena 2008 which was developed in order to assess students’ metacognitive skillfulness when solving chemistry problems and to conduct validity and reliability studies. The original inventory is in English and composed of a total of 27 items with 5-point Likert-type scale. For the adaptation study, the inventory was translated into Turkish and linguistic equivalence was provided. Opinions of experts were obtained for content validity and the study was conducted with 725 prospective teachers from faculty of education of three public universities. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to provide the construct validity and it was determined that the most satisfactory goodness of fit indices was obtained by the “correlated two-dimensional model” [χ2 295, n=725 = 834.35, p

Anahtar Kelimeler

geçerlik, güvenirlik, üstbiliş, ölçek uyarlama, üstbilişsel etkinlik envanteri

Kaynakça

• Azevedo R., Grene JA., Moos DC. 2007. The effect of a human agent’s external regulation upon college students’ hypermedia learning. Metacog. Learn., 2(2-3):67–87.
• Bannert M., Mengelkamp C. 2008. Assessment of metacognitive skills by means of instruction to think aloud and reflect when prompted. Does the verbalisation method affect learning? Metacog. Learn., 3(1): 39–58.
• Cooper, MM., Sandi-Urena, S. 2009. Design and validation of an ınstrument to assess metacognitive skillfulness in chemistry problem solving. J. Chem. Educ., 86 (2): 240-245.
• Cooper, MM., Sandi-Urena, S., Stevens, R. 2008. Reliable multi method assessment of metacognition use in chemistry problem solving. Chem. Educ.Res.Pract., 9: 18–24.
• Çakıroğlu, A. 2007. Üstbiliş. Türkiye Sos. Araş. Der., 11(2): 21–27.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2010. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS Ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi, Ankara.
• Demir-Gülşen, M. 2000. A model to investigate probability and mathematics achievement in terms of cognitive, metacognitive and affective variables.M. Sc.thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
• Desoete A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: how you test is what you get. Metacog. Learn., 3 (3):189– 206.
• Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS : (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll). Sage Publications, London.
• Flavell, JH. 2000. Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. Int. J. Behav. Dev., 24(1): 15–23.
• Flavell, JH. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psych., 34 (10): 906-911.
• Flavell, JH., Miller, PH., Miller, SA. 1993. Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
• Gama, CA. 2000. The role of metacognition in ınteractive learning environments. International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems − Young Researchers’ Track Proceedings, pp: 25−28.
• Hartman, HJ. 1998. Metacognition in Teaching and Learning: an Introduction. Instr. Sci., 26: 1−3.
• Hofstein, A., Lunetta, VN. 2004. The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Sci. Educ., 88(1): 28-54.
• Howard, BC., McGee, S., Shia, R., Hong, N. 2000. Metacognitive self-regulation and problem-solving: expanding the theory base through factor analysis. American Educational Research Association, Roundtable, New Orleans. http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470973.pdf (26.09.2017).
• Wallace, CS., Prain, V., Hand, B. 2004. Does writing promote learning in science? In Wallace, CS., Hand, B., Prain, V. [eds.], Writing and learning in the science classroom. Kluiwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Boston, pp.1-10.
• Woolfolk, EA. 1998. Educational psychology. Allyn Bacon, USA.
• Yürük, N., Selvi, M., Yakışan, M. 2011. Üstkavramsal öğretim etkinliklerinin biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının tohumlu bitkilerle ilgili kavramsal anlamaları üzerindeki etkisi. Kur. Uyg. Eğt. Bil., 11 (1): 447- 464.
• Zion, M., Michalsky, T., Mevarech, ZR. 2005. The effects of metacognitive instruction embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills. Int. J. Sci. Educ., 27 (8): 959–983.
• Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science Literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the‘‘ThirdSpace’’. Sci. Educ., 88, 901–914.