BibTex RIS Cite

Examination of Motivation Level of Students Towards Science and Mathematics by Some Variables

Year 2007, Volume: 52 Issue: 52, 615 - 638, 01.03.2007

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman Yaman Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel Dede

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine differences in student motivation towards science and mathematics by gender, grade level and courses liked by students. The study group were 740 6th, 7th and 8th grade students who were volunteered to participate in the study. Data were collected by using a Likert-type motivation scale developed by Dede and Yaman. Data were analyzed by using discriminant analysis, MANOVA and oneway ANOVA for testing the hypothesis of the research. Results indicated that there were significant differences in motivation levels of students towards mathematics and science by grade levels, gender and, the most preferred lessons. Discriminant analysis also revealed that the predicted groups for levels of motivation matched the groups of the levels of motivation found in this study.

Keywords

Student motivation teaching science teaching mathematics

References

  • Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1986). Summary of the Survey of Fundamental Concerns Confronting the LD Field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 391- 393.
  • Akyıldız, H. & Atabeyoğlu, Ö. (2001). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği I. ve IV. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Yeni Bin Yılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Maltepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, İstanbul.
  • Anderman, E.M. & Anderman, C. (1999). Social Predictors of Changes in Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 25-37.
  • Anderman, E.M., Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining Motivation after the Transition to Middle School: Schools Can Make A Difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(3), 131-147.
  • Arlı, M. & Nazik, M. H. (2001). Bilimsel Araştırmaya Giriş. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara.
  • Arseven, A.D. (1994). Alan Araştırma Yöntemi, İlkeler Teknikler Örnekler. Gül Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Bacanlı, H. (2002). Gelişim ve Öğrenme. Nobel Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Bahar, M. (2002). A Diagnostic Study of Biology Students’ Motivational Styles. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 23-34.
  • Bednar, J., Coughlin, J., Evans, E. & Sievers, T. (2002). Improving Student Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics through Teaching to the Multiple Intelligences. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466408.
  • Britner, S.L. & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy Beliefs, Motivation, Race, and Gender in Middle School Science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271-285.
  • Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating Students to Learn. Educational Leadership, October, 40-48.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. 5. Baskı, Pegem A Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  • Cavallo, A.M.L. (2002). Motivation and Affect toward Learning Science among Preservice Elementary School Teachers: Implications for Classroom Teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 25-38.
  • Cluck, M. & Hess, D. (2003). Improving Student Motivation Through the Use of the Multiple Intelligences. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479864.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition, Routledge/Falmer, Taylor&Francis Group, London.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2003). Fen ve Matematik Eğitiminde Proje Çalışmalarının Yeri, Önemi ve Değerlendirilmesi. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 117-132.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2006). Fen Öğrenmeye Yönelik Motivasyon Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi (Kabul Edildi).
  • Dünya Bankası Dokümanı.(2002).Temel Eğitim Programının İkinci Fazını Destekleyen Temel Eğitim Projesi için Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Önerilen 300 Milyon ABD Doları Bedelli Uyarlanabilir Program İkrazı ile İlgili Proje Ön Değerlendirme Dokümanı. Rapor No: 21831-Tu. İnsani Kalkınma Sektör Birimi Türkiye Ülke Birimi Avrupa ve Orta Asya Bölgesi Bürosu.
  • Ertürk, S. (1974). Eğitime Giriş. Gül Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Field, A. (2002). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications Ltd., London.
  • Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among Laboratory Instruction, Attitude Toward Science, and Achievement in Science Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
  • Gelman, R. & Greeno, J. (1989). On the Nature of Competence. (Ed; Lauren B..R.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Chapter 5, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
  • Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children's Arithmetic: How They Learn It and How You Teach It. 2nd Edition, Pro-Ed., Austin, Texas.
  • Glynn, S.M., Aultman, L.P. & Owens, A.M. (2005). Motivation to Learn in General Education Programs. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 150- 170.
  • Gonzalez-DeHass, A.R., Willems, P.P. & Holbein, M.F.D. (2005). Examining the Relationship between Parental Involvement and Student Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.
  • Gramm, W.L. (1973). The Labor Force Decision of Married Female Teachers: A Discriminant Analysis Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(3), 341-348.
  • Green, S., Salkind, N. & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPPS For Windows, Analyzing and Understanding Data. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
  • Johnson, S. & Murphy, P. (1984). The Underachievement of Girls in Physics: Toward Explanations. European Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 399-409.
  • Kauffman, D.F. & Humsan, J. (2004). Effects of Time Perspective on Student Motivation: Introduction to a Special Issue. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 1-7.
  • Lightbody, P., Sienn, G., Stocks, R. & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and Attribution at Secondary School: The Role of Gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13-25.
  • Linn, M. & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender Mathematics and Science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-27.
  • Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370200.
  • Main, R. G. (1993). Integrating Motivation into the Instructional Design Process. Educational Technology. 33(12), 37-41.
  • Margolis, H. & McCabe, P.P. (2004). Self-Efficacy a Key to Improving The Motivation Of Struggling Learners. The Clearing House, 77(6), 241-249.
  • Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A Tool for Measuring and Enhancing Motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 11, 1- 20.
  • Martin, A.J. (2004). School Motivation of Boys and Girls: Differences of Degree, Differences of Kind, or Both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 133- 146.
  • Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self handicapping and Defensive Pessimism: A Model of Selfprotection from a Longitudinal Perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.
  • Martin, B.L. & Briggs, L.J. (1986). The Affective and Cognitive Domains: Integration for Theory and Research. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  • Middleton, J. (1995). A Study of Motivation in the Mathematics Classroom: A Personal Constructs Approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 254-279.
  • Miller, M . (2005). Learning and teaching in the affective domain. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/affective.htm, September 14, 2006.
  • Muir, M. (2001). What Engages Underachieving Middle School Students in Learning? Middle School Journal, 33(2) 37-43.
  • Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78
  • Pressley, M. et al. (1992). Good Strategy Instruction is Motivating and Interesting. (Ed; Krapp, A., Hidi, S. and Renninger, K.A.), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development. Chapter 14, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
  • Schunk, D.H. (1990). Introduction to the Special Section on Motivation and Efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3-6.
  • Seah, W.T. & Bishop, A.J. (2000, April). Values in Mathematics Textbooks: A Wiew Throught the Australasian Regions. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,
  • Smith, L., Sinclair, K.E. & Chapman, E.S. (2002). Students’ goals, Self-Efficacy, Self-Handicapping, and Negative Affective Responses: An Australian Senior School Student Study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 471-485.
  • Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender Releated Differences in Science Activities. Science Education, 71, 91-103.
  • Tuan, H.L, Chin, C.C. & Shieh, S.H. (2005). The Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Students’ Motivation towards Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
  • Wiegers, I.M. & Friere, I.H. (1999). Gender, Female Traditionality, Achievement Level, and Cognition Success and Failure. Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 2, 125-137.
  • Wilson, J. (2001). Increasing Student Motivation through the Use of Instructional Strategy. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455962.

Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi

Year 2007, Volume: 52 Issue: 52, 615 - 638, 01.03.2007

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman Yaman Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel Dede

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, ilköğretim II. kademe öğrencilerinin matematik ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik motivasyonlarının cinsiyet, sınıf düzeyi ve sevilen ders değişkenlerine göre farklılığının incelenmesidir. Bunun için Dede ve Yaman tarafından geliştirilen Likert-tipi bir ölçekten yararlanılmıştır. Ölçek, 2005-2006 eğitim-öğretim yılında Sivas il merkezinde ilköğretim 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflarda öğrenim gören ve gönüllülük esasına seçilen 740 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın hipotezlerini test etmek için ayırma analizi, MANOVA ve tek yönlü ANOVA testleri kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizi sonucunda, ilköğretim II. kademe öğrencilerinin motivasyon düzeylerinin, cinsiyete, sınıf düzeyine ve sevilen derslere göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılık gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, ayrıma analizi sonuçları ile motivasyon gruplarının öngörülen değişkenler bakımından orta düzeyde doğru bir şekilde ayrıştırıldığı da belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Öğrenci motivasyonu fen öğretimi matematik öğretimi

References

  • Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1986). Summary of the Survey of Fundamental Concerns Confronting the LD Field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 391- 393.
  • Akyıldız, H. & Atabeyoğlu, Ö. (2001). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği I. ve IV. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Yeni Bin Yılın Başında Türkiye’de Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Maltepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, İstanbul.
  • Anderman, E.M. & Anderman, C. (1999). Social Predictors of Changes in Students’ Achievement Goal Orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 25-37.
  • Anderman, E.M., Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining Motivation after the Transition to Middle School: Schools Can Make A Difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(3), 131-147.
  • Arlı, M. & Nazik, M. H. (2001). Bilimsel Araştırmaya Giriş. Gazi Kitapevi, Ankara.
  • Arseven, A.D. (1994). Alan Araştırma Yöntemi, İlkeler Teknikler Örnekler. Gül Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Bacanlı, H. (2002). Gelişim ve Öğrenme. Nobel Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Bahar, M. (2002). A Diagnostic Study of Biology Students’ Motivational Styles. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 23-34.
  • Bednar, J., Coughlin, J., Evans, E. & Sievers, T. (2002). Improving Student Motivation and Achievement in Mathematics through Teaching to the Multiple Intelligences. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466408.
  • Britner, S.L. & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy Beliefs, Motivation, Race, and Gender in Middle School Science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 271-285.
  • Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating Students to Learn. Educational Leadership, October, 40-48.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. 5. Baskı, Pegem A Yayıncılık, Ankara.
  • Cavallo, A.M.L. (2002). Motivation and Affect toward Learning Science among Preservice Elementary School Teachers: Implications for Classroom Teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 25-38.
  • Cluck, M. & Hess, D. (2003). Improving Student Motivation Through the Use of the Multiple Intelligences. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479864.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition, Routledge/Falmer, Taylor&Francis Group, London.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2003). Fen ve Matematik Eğitiminde Proje Çalışmalarının Yeri, Önemi ve Değerlendirilmesi. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 117-132.
  • Dede, Y. & Yaman, S. (2006). Fen Öğrenmeye Yönelik Motivasyon Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi (Kabul Edildi).
  • Dünya Bankası Dokümanı.(2002).Temel Eğitim Programının İkinci Fazını Destekleyen Temel Eğitim Projesi için Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’ne Önerilen 300 Milyon ABD Doları Bedelli Uyarlanabilir Program İkrazı ile İlgili Proje Ön Değerlendirme Dokümanı. Rapor No: 21831-Tu. İnsani Kalkınma Sektör Birimi Türkiye Ülke Birimi Avrupa ve Orta Asya Bölgesi Bürosu.
  • Ertürk, S. (1974). Eğitime Giriş. Gül Yayınevi, Ankara.
  • Field, A. (2002). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications Ltd., London.
  • Freedman, M.P. (1997). Relationship among Laboratory Instruction, Attitude Toward Science, and Achievement in Science Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
  • Gelman, R. & Greeno, J. (1989). On the Nature of Competence. (Ed; Lauren B..R.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Chapter 5, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
  • Ginsburg, H. (1977). Children's Arithmetic: How They Learn It and How You Teach It. 2nd Edition, Pro-Ed., Austin, Texas.
  • Glynn, S.M., Aultman, L.P. & Owens, A.M. (2005). Motivation to Learn in General Education Programs. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 150- 170.
  • Gonzalez-DeHass, A.R., Willems, P.P. & Holbein, M.F.D. (2005). Examining the Relationship between Parental Involvement and Student Motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.
  • Gramm, W.L. (1973). The Labor Force Decision of Married Female Teachers: A Discriminant Analysis Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(3), 341-348.
  • Green, S., Salkind, N. & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPPS For Windows, Analyzing and Understanding Data. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
  • Johnson, S. & Murphy, P. (1984). The Underachievement of Girls in Physics: Toward Explanations. European Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 399-409.
  • Kauffman, D.F. & Humsan, J. (2004). Effects of Time Perspective on Student Motivation: Introduction to a Special Issue. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 1-7.
  • Lightbody, P., Sienn, G., Stocks, R. & Walsh, D. (1996). Motivation and Attribution at Secondary School: The Role of Gender. Educational Studies, 22, 13-25.
  • Linn, M. & Hyde, J. (1989). Gender Mathematics and Science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-27.
  • Lumsden, L.S. (1994). Student Motivation to Learn. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED370200.
  • Main, R. G. (1993). Integrating Motivation into the Instructional Design Process. Educational Technology. 33(12), 37-41.
  • Margolis, H. & McCabe, P.P. (2004). Self-Efficacy a Key to Improving The Motivation Of Struggling Learners. The Clearing House, 77(6), 241-249.
  • Martin, A.J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A Tool for Measuring and Enhancing Motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 11, 1- 20.
  • Martin, A.J. (2004). School Motivation of Boys and Girls: Differences of Degree, Differences of Kind, or Both? Australian Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 133- 146.
  • Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., & Debus, R.L. (2003). Self handicapping and Defensive Pessimism: A Model of Selfprotection from a Longitudinal Perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.
  • Martin, B.L. & Briggs, L.J. (1986). The Affective and Cognitive Domains: Integration for Theory and Research. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  • Middleton, J. (1995). A Study of Motivation in the Mathematics Classroom: A Personal Constructs Approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3), 254-279.
  • Miller, M . (2005). Learning and teaching in the affective domain. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/affective.htm, September 14, 2006.
  • Muir, M. (2001). What Engages Underachieving Middle School Students in Learning? Middle School Journal, 33(2) 37-43.
  • Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78
  • Pressley, M. et al. (1992). Good Strategy Instruction is Motivating and Interesting. (Ed; Krapp, A., Hidi, S. and Renninger, K.A.), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development. Chapter 14, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
  • Schunk, D.H. (1990). Introduction to the Special Section on Motivation and Efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 3-6.
  • Seah, W.T. & Bishop, A.J. (2000, April). Values in Mathematics Textbooks: A Wiew Throught the Australasian Regions. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA,
  • Smith, L., Sinclair, K.E. & Chapman, E.S. (2002). Students’ goals, Self-Efficacy, Self-Handicapping, and Negative Affective Responses: An Australian Senior School Student Study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 471-485.
  • Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender Releated Differences in Science Activities. Science Education, 71, 91-103.
  • Tuan, H.L, Chin, C.C. & Shieh, S.H. (2005). The Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Students’ Motivation towards Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
  • Wiegers, I.M. & Friere, I.H. (1999). Gender, Female Traditionality, Achievement Level, and Cognition Success and Failure. Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 2, 125-137.
  • Wilson, J. (2001). Increasing Student Motivation through the Use of Instructional Strategy. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455962.
There are 50 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman Yaman This is me

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel Dede This is me

Publication Date March 1, 2007
Published in Issue Year 2007 Volume: 52 Issue: 52

Cite

APA Yaman, Y. D. D. S., & Dede, Y. D. D. Y. (2007). Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 52(52), 615-638.
AMA Yaman YDDS, Dede YDDY. Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. March 2007;52(52):615-638.
Chicago Yaman, Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman, and Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel Dede. “Öğrencilerin Fen Ve Teknoloji Ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi”. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 52, no. 52 (March 2007): 615-38.
EndNote Yaman YDDS, Dede YDDY (March 1, 2007) Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 52 52 615–638.
IEEE Y. D. D. S. Yaman and Y. D. D. Y. Dede, “Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi”, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, vol. 52, no. 52, pp. 615–638, 2007.
ISNAD Yaman, Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman - Dede, Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel. “Öğrencilerin Fen Ve Teknoloji Ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi”. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 52/52 (March 2007), 615-638.
JAMA Yaman YDDS, Dede YDDY. Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2007;52:615–638.
MLA Yaman, Yrd. Doç. Dr. Süleyman and Yrd. Doç. Dr. Yüksel Dede. “Öğrencilerin Fen Ve Teknoloji Ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi”. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, vol. 52, no. 52, 2007, pp. 615-38.
Vancouver Yaman YDDS, Dede YDDY. Öğrencilerin Fen ve Teknoloji ve Matematik Dersine Yönelik Motivasyon Düzeylerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi. 2007;52(52):615-38.