The Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of the Student Engagement Scale

Year 2015, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 53 - 59, 30.04.2015

Erol Uğur , Ahmet Akın

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to examine the validity and reliability of the Turkish Version of the Student Engagement Scale (Mazer, 2013b). Participants were 257 undergraduate students. Results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the thirteen items loaded on four factors: x²= 114.44, df= 53, RMSEA= .067, NFI= .95, NNFI= .96, CFI= .97, IFI= .97, RFI= .92, GFI= .94, SRMR= .048. Factor loadings ranged from .58 to .94 and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .47 to .79. Internal consistency reliability coefficients were .81 for silent in class subscale, .88 for oral in class subscale, .84 for thinking about content subscale, .81 for out of class subscale. These results demonstrate that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument.

Key words: Student engagement, Validity, Reliability, Confirmatory factor analysis

Keywords

Student engagement, Validity, Reliability, Confirmatory factor analysis

Öğrenci Bağlılığı Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Öğrenci Bağlılığı Ölçeğini (Mazer, 2013b) Türkçeye uyarlayarak geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Araştırma 257 üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde 13 maddeden ve dört alt boyuttan (etkin dinleme, sözel katılım,  ders içeriği hakkında düşünme, sınıf dışı çalışma) oluşan modelin iyi uyum verdiği görülmüştür (x²= 114.44, sd= 53, RMSEA= .067, NFI= .95, NNFI= .96, CFI= .97, IFI= .97, RFI= .92, GFI= .94, SRMR= .048). Ölçeğin faktör yükleri .58 ile .94, düzeltilmiş madde toplam korelasyon katsayıları ise .47 ile .79 arasında sıralanmaktadır. Ölçeğin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık güvenirlik katsayıları etkin dinleme alt boyutu için .81, sözel katılım alt boyutu için .88, ders içeriği hakkında düşünme alt boyutu için .84, sınıf dışı çalışma alt boyutu için .81 olarak bulunmuştur. Bu sonuçlar ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Öğrenci bağlılığı, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

Keywords

Öğrenci bağlılığı, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi

References

• Arastaman, G. (2009). Lise birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin okula bağlılık (school engagement) durumlarına ilişkin öğrenci, öğretmen ve yöneticilerin görüşleri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 102-112.
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.
• Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2009). Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 651-670.
• Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(3), 297-308.
• Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 59-772.
• Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk of school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1), 47-67.
• Bryson, C., & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44, 349-62.
• Choi, B. K., & Rhee, B. S. (2014). The influences of student engagement, institutional mission, and cooperative learning climate on the generic competency development of Korean undergraduate students. Higher Education, 67(1), 1-18.
• Dotterer, A. M., McHale, S., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Implications of out-of-school activities for school engagement in African American adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 36, 391-401.
• Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout prevention: A practice guide (NCEE 2008e4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
• Finn, J. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Reviev of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
• Günüç, S. (2014). The relationshıps between student engagement and their academic achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 5(4), 216-231.
• Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015) Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analy¬sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
• Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scien¬tific Software International.
• Jurik, V., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2013). How student characteristics affect girls’ and boys’ verbal engagement in physics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 23, 33-42.
• Kalaycı, H., & Murat, Ö. (2013). Lise öğrencilerinin okul yaşamının niteliğine ilişkin algılarının okul bağlılıkları üzerine etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(2), 293-315.
• Krausea, L. K., & Coatesb, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.
• Lewis, A. D., Huebner, E. S., Malone, P. S., & Valois, R. F. (2011). Life satisfaction and student engagement in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 249-262.
• Mazer, J. P. (2013). Validity of the student interest and engagement scales: Associations with student learning outcomes. Communication Studies, 64, 125-140.
• Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes students engaged in learning? A time-use study of within- and between-ındividual predictors of emotional engagement in low-performing high schools. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 390-401.
• Poitras, J., Stimec A., & Hill, K. (2013). Fostering student engagement in negotiation role plays. Negotiation Journal, 29(4), 439-461.
• Ryan, J. F. (2005). Institutional expenditures and student engagement: A role for financial resources in enhancing student learning and development? Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 235-249.
• Sanders, M. L., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Mcconkie, M. L. (2011). Increasing student engagement and learning: Using big hairy audacious goals as an empowering semester project. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 495-519.
• Sciarra, D. T., & Seirup, H. J. (2008). The multidimensionality of school engagement and math achievement among racial groups. Professional School Counseling, 11(4), 218-228.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Çinko, M. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstan¬bul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.
• Şimşek, H. (2011). Lise öğrencilerinde okulu bırakma eğilimi ve nedenleri. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 27-47.
• Van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2014). Engaging students: The role of teacher beliefs and interpersonal teacher behavior in fostering student engagement in vocational education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 21-32.
• Zepke, N., L. Leach., & P. Butler. (2010). Engagement in post-compulsory education: Students’ motivation and action. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15, 1-17.