Erken Dönemde Bilimsel Düşünme Eğilimini Değerlendirme Ölçeği Geçerlik Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada 48-72 aylık çocukların bilimsel düşünme eğilimlerini ölçmeye yönelik bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu okul öncesi eğitim kurumuna devam eden 489 (255 kız, 234 erkek) çocuk oluşturmuştur. “Erken Dönemde Bilimsel Düşünme Eğilimini Değerlendirme Ölçeği”nin güvenirlik ve geçerliğine kanıt oluşturmak amacı ile çeşitli analizler yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğine kanıt oluşturmak amacı ile Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizleri (DFA) yapılmıştır. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, 6 alt faktörlü ve 25 maddeli bir ölçek yapısı ortaya çıkmıştır. Ölçeğin tamamına ait Cronbach Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı 0.898 olarak bulunmuştur. Alt faktörlere ilişkin içtutarlık katsayıları ise şöyledir: 1. Faktör için 0.893, ikinci faktör için 0.890, üçüncü faktör için 0.906, dördüncü faktör için 0.884, beşinci faktör için 0.869, altıncı faktör için ise 0.951’dir. Alt faktörlerin güvenirlik katsayıları 0.890 ile 0.951 arasında değişmektedir. Ölçekten elde edilen güvenirlik analizi sonuçları incelendiğinde hem genel hem de alt faktörler açısından geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilmektedir.

Keywords

• Okul öncesi
• eğilim
• bilimsel düşünme

The Validity and Reliability Study of the Scale for Evaluating the Scientific Thinking Disposition in the Early Years

Abstract

In this study, a measurement tool was developed to measure the scientific thinking dispositions of 48-72 months old children. The study group of the research consisted of 489 (255 girls, 234 boys) children attending pre-school education institutions. Various analyzes were carried out in order to provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the "Scale for Evaluating the Scientific Thinking Disposition in the Early Years". Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed to provide evidence for the construct validity of the scale. As a result of the analysis, a scale structure with 6 sub-factors and 25 items emerged. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the whole scale was found to be 0.898. The internal consistency coefficients for the sub-factors are as follows: 0.893 for the 1st factor, 0.890 for the second factor, 0.906 for the third factor, 0.884 for the fourth factor, 0.869 for the fifth factor, and 0.951 for the sixth factor. The reliability coefficients of the sub-factors ranged from 0.890 to 0.951. When the reliability analysis results obtained from the scale are examined, it can be said that it is a valid and reliable measurement tool in terms of both general and sub-factors.

Keywords

• Preschool
• disposition
• scientific thinking

References

1. Ammerman, S. & Nevin, M.E. (2017). Developing a disposition for reflective practice that sustains continuous professional learning. https://www.infanthearing.org/ebook-educating-children dhh/chapters/15%20Chapter%2015%202017.pdf)
2. Arslan, M. (2007). Eğitimde yapılandırmacı yaklaşımlar. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(1), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000150
3. Atallah, F., Bryant, S. L., & Dada, R. (2010). A research framework for studying conceptions and dispositions of mathematics: A dialogue to help students learn. Research in Higher Education Journal, 7, 1-8. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10461.pdf
4. Baron, J. (1993). Why teach thinking? - An essay. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42(3), 191-237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00731.x
5. Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571275
6. Bathgate, M., Schunn, C.D. & Correnti, R. (2013). Children’s motivation toward science across contexts, manner of interaction, and topic. Science Education, 98(2), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21095
7. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2017). Taktikler: Dilin kullanımı (E. Kalkan, Çev.). İçinde G. Haktanır, (Çeviri Ed.), Zihnin araçları: Erken çocukluk eğitiminde Vygotsky yaklaşımı (s. 109-129). 3. Baskı. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. (Tools of The Mind. The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. Second Edition. 2007, New Jersey: Pearson).
8. Boix-Mansilla, V., Cuha, F., Kehayes, J. & Patankar, A. (2016). Leading with the World in Mind. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/resources/leading-with-the-world-in-mind.

9. Boonsathirakul, J. & Kerdsomboon, C. (2021). "The investigation of critical thinking disposition among kasetsart university students," higher education studies. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 11(2), 224-224. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v11n2p224
10. Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (2001). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS release 10 for Windows. Routledge Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548
11. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810600603377
12. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
13. Carr, M. (2006). Learning dispositions and key competencies: a new curriculum continuity across the sectors?. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 2, 23-27. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0585
14. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3th Ed.). Continuum.
15. Christidou, V. (2010). Greek students’ images of scientific researchers. Journal of Science Communication, 9(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09030201
16. Crick, R. D., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an effective lifelong learning inventory: The ELLI project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000304582
17. Claxton, G., & Carr, M. (2004). A framework for teaching learning: The dynamics of disposition. Early Years, 24, 87-97. https://doi:10.1080/09575140320001790898
18. Costa, A. L. (1991). Developing Minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. Revised Edition, Volume 1. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Assn for Supervision & Curriculum.
19. Costa, A. L. (2008). The School as a home for the mind. Second Edition. Corwin Press
20. Costa, A. L. & Kallik, B. (2014). Dispositions. Corwin A Sage Company.
21. Corlu, M. S. (2012). A pathway to STEM education: Investigating pre-service mathematics and science teachers at Turkish universities in terms of their understanding of mathematics used in science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.
22. Crow, S.R. & Kastello, L. (2016). The dispositions of elementary school children of individualistic and collectivist cultures who are intrinsically motivated to seek information, School Library Research, 19. http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume19/crow-kastello
23. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3.Basım). Pegem Akademi.
24. Çubukçu, Z. (2004). Öğretmen adaylarının düşünme stillerinin belirlenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 87-105. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/trakyasobed/issue/30238/326586
25. Gür, C., Koçak, N. & Demircan, A. (2016). Okul öncesinde çok boyutlu bakış açılarıyla düşünme eğitimi [Multidimensional thinking education for preschool children]. Anı Yayıncılık.
26. De Bono, E. (1993). Teach your child how to think. Penguin Books.
27. Graven, M., (2015). Strengthening maths learning dispositions through ‘math clubs. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 5(3), Art. # 342, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v5i3.342
28. Dilekli, Y. & Tezci, E. (2015). Öğretmenlerin düşünme becerilerinin öğretimine yönelik sınıf içi uygulamalar ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. NWSA Education Sciences, 10(4), 276-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2015.10.4.1C0647.
29. Dündar-Coecke, S. (2021). Nöromodülasyon: Eğitim ve nörobilim kavşağından geleceğe bakış. TEBD, 19(1), 542-567. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.868102
30. Ennis, R. H. (2016). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018003
31. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The nature of critical thinking: An outline of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/50722770/the-nature-of-critical-thinking-an-outline-of-critical-our-faculty
32. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18(2 & 3), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v18i2.2378
33. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm/article/view/1224
34. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
35. Katai, Z. (2011). Multi-sensory method for teaching-learning recursion. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20305
36. Katai, Z., Juhasz, K. & Adorjani, A.K. (2008). On the role of senses in education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1707–1717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.002
37. Katz, J. H. (1985). The sociopolitical nature of counseling. The Counseling Psychologist, 13(4), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000085134005
38. Katz, L. (1990). What should young children be learning?. A Child Care Information Exchange Classic, 11(94), 23-25. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED290554.pdf
39. Katz, L. G. (1993). Dispositions as educational goals. ERIC Digest. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED363454
40. Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P. & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20276
41. Perkins, D. Ν., Jay, E. & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 1-21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232462299_Beyond_Abilities_A_Dispositional_Theory_of_Thinking
42. Perkins, D. & Tishman, S. (2006). Learning that matters: Toward a dispositional perspective on education and its research needs. Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Learning%20that%20Matters.pdf
43. Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K & Andrade, A. (2000). Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 269-293 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009031605464
44. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. National Academy Press.
45. Ritchhart, R. (1999). Of dispositions, attitudes, and habits: Exploring how emotions shape our thinking. Unpublished paper, Harvard Project Zero, Cambridge, Mass. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2406204_Of_Dispositions_Attitudes_And_Habits_Exploring_How_Emotions_Shape_Our_Thinking
46. Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons.
47. Ritchhart, R. & Perkins, D. N. (2002). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness, Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00150
48. Ros-Voseles, D. & Fowler-Haughey, S. (2007). Why children’s dispositions should matter to all teachers. Beyond the Journal, www.journal.naeyc.org/about/permissions.asp.
49. Siegel, H. (1999). What (good) are thinking dispositions?. Educational Theory, 49(2), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
50. Stockdale, M. E. (2007). Teachers’ Use of Sensory Activities in Primary Literacy Lessons: A Study of Teachers Trained in Accelerated Literacy Learning. [Ph.D Thesis]. University of South Florida.
51. Sümer, N. (2000) Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve ornek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3, 49-73. http://www.nebisumer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/SumerN.2000.YEM_TPY.pdf 09.11.2022
52. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th Edition, Allyn and Bacon.
53. Tekerci, H. (2019). Research and Science. Ş. Koca, G. Salı & Ç. Kan (Eds). Scientific Disposition in Preschool: Perspectives from Teachers and Prospective Teachers. (ss.37 -58). Gece Kitaplığı.
54. Thisman, S. (2018). Thinking Disposition. http://www.pz.harvard.edu/resources/thinking-dispositions
55. Trundle, K., C. (2009). Teaching Science During the Early Childhood Years. National Geographic, 1-4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10643-009-0304-5
56. Trundle, K.C. & Saçkes, M. (2015). Research in Early Childhood Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9505-0.
57. Wilford, S. (2009). Nurturing Young Children’s Disposition to Learn. Redleaf Press.