Matematik Dersine Bağlılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Year 2017, , 28 - 51, 12.01.2017

Sacide Güzin Mazman Akar , Osman Birgin , Büşra Göksu Kübra Uzun Büşra Gümüş Elif Seval Peker

https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.286926

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Rimm-Kauffman (2010)
tarafından geliştirilen “Matematik Dersine Bağlılık Ölçeği”ni Türkçeye
uyarlamak,  geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalışma sonuçlarını ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma grubunu “Matematik Dersine
Bağlılık Ölçeği’ni” yanıtlayan 602 ortaokul öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Orijinal
ölçek 13 madde ve üç faktörden (sosyal, duyuşsal ve bilişsel) oluşmaktadır.
Ölçeğin test tekrar test güvenirlik katsayısı .591 hesaplanırken, iç tutarlılık
katsayısı .872 olarak elde edilmiş ve maddelerin birbiri ile ilişkisini
gösteren madde-toplam korelasyonlarının .30 ile .66 arasında değer aldığı
saptanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerlik çalışmaları için birinci ve ikinci düzey
doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri yapılmıştır. Yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör
analizleri sonunda ölçeğin orijinal ölçekteki gibi “sosyal”, “bilişsel” ve
“duyuşsal” bağlılık olmak üzere üç faktörden oluştuğu doğrulanmış ve kurulan
modellerin iyi uyum gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda, ölçeğin
Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olarak matematik bağlılığı
ile ilgili çalışmalarda kullanılabilir olduğu ifade edilebilir.

Keywords

Öğrenci bağlılığı, matematik dersine bağlılık, ölçek uyarlama

Adaptation of Student Engagement in Mathematics Scale into Turkish

Abstract

The purpose of this study
is to adapt “Student Engagement in Mathematics Scale”, developed by
Rimm-Kauffman (2010), into Turkish and to determine validity and reliability of
the scale in Turkish form. The study group is consisted of 602 secondary school
students. The original scale consisted of 13 items with three factors (social,
emotional and cognitive). Adapted scale’s test-retest reliability coefficient
was found .591 and Cronbach alpha value was found .872. Item-total correlations
of scale items ranged between .30 to .66. First order and second order
confirmatory factor analyses were executed for construct validity. As a result
of confirmatory factor analyses, the scale was confirmed consisting of three
factors namely “social”, “cognitive” and “emotional” as in original scale. These
results showed that Turkish form of the scale, being reliable and valid, can be
used in studies related to mathematics engagement.

Keywords

Student engagement, math engagement, scale adaptation

References

• Baki, A. (2008). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi. Ankara: Harf yayınları.
• Bingham, G. E., & Okagaki, L. (2012). Ethnicity and student engagement. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 65-95). New York: Springer US.
• Birgin, O., Baloğlu, M., Çatlıoğlu, H., & Gürbüz, R. (2010). An investigation of mathematics anxiety among sixth through eighth grade students in Turkey. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 654-658.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Veri analizi el kitabı (7. Baskı). Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakan, M., Tan, Ş. ve Atar, H. Y. (2014). TIMSS 2011 ulusal matematik ve fen raporu: 4.sınıflar. Ankara: İşkur Matbaacılık.
• Chen, P. D., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Learning at a distance: engaged or not? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 4(3), (pp.1-8).
• Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman-Young, S., Spanjers, D. M., & Varro, P. (2008). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 1099–1119). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
• Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237-257). New York: Springer US.
• Doğan, U. (2014). Validity and reliability of student engagement scale. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 390-403.
• Dursun, Ş. ve Dede, Y. (2004). Öğrencilerin matematikte başarısını etkileyen faktörler matematik öğretmenlerinin görüşleri bakımından. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2), 217-230.
• Ergün, E. ve Usluel, Y. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci bağlılık ölçeğinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 20-33.
• Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
• Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). New York: Springer US..
• Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
• Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610.
• Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440-465.
• Hughes, J., & Kwok, O. M. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achieving readers' engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39.
• Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: a three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 1-14.
• Klaasen, R., M., Yerdelen, S., & Durksen, T. (2013). Measuring teacher engagement: development of the engaged teachers scale (ets). Frontline Learning Research, 2, 33- 52.
• Kline, P. (1993). A handbook of test construction. London, UK: Routledge.
• Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edition ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Kong, Q. P., Wong, N. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2003). Student engagement in mathematics: development of instrument and validation of construct. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15, 4-21.
• Krause, K., & Coates, H. (2008). Students' engagement in first-year university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
• Leis, M., Schmidt, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2014). Using the partial credit model to evaluate the student engagement in mathematics scale. Journal of Applied Measurement, 16(3), 251-267.
• Liu, C., Marchewka, J. T., Lu, J., & Yu, C. S. (2005). Beyond concern: A privacy-trust behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 42, 289-304.
• Ma, X. (1997). Reciprocal relationships between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(4), 221–229.
• Mazer, J. P. (2013). Validity of the student interest and engagement scales: Associations with student learning outcomes. Communication Studies, 64, 125-140.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2016). 2015-2016 eğitim-öğretim yılı 1. dönem ortak sınavı test ve madde istatistikleri. Ankara: MEB Ölçme Değerlendirme ve Sınav Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Meece, J. (2009). Measure of student cognitive engagement. Unpublished measure, University of North Carolina.
• Mohamed, L., & Waheed, H. (2011). Secondary students’ attitude towards mathematics in a selected school of Maldives. International Journal of humanities and social science, 1(15), 277-281.
• Nicolaidou, M., & Philippou, G. (2003). Attitudes towards mathematics, self-efficacy and achievement in problem solving. European Research in Mathematics Education III. Pisa: University of Pisa.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
• Papanastasiou, C. (2002). Effects of background and school factors on the mathematics achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(1), 55-70.
• Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83-98.
• Peker, M. ve Mirasyedioğlu, Ş. (2003). Lise 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin matematik dersine yönelik tutumları ve başarıları arasındaki ilişki. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 157–166.
• Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). New York: Springer US.
• Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.
• Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2010). Student engagement in mathematics scale (SEMS). Unpublished measure, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
• Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170.
• Rowley, S. J., Kurtz-Costes, B., Meyer, R., & Kizzie, K. (2009). Engagement and self-concept during the transition to middle school: Gender and domain-specific differences in change in African American youth. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.
• Savaş, E., Taş, S. ve Duru, A. (2010). Matematikte öğrenci başarısını etkileyen faktörler. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 113-132.
• Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517-525.
• Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323-332.
• 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, 571-581.
• Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York: Springer US.
• Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
• Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar, Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-73.
• Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and online learning. UIS community of practice for e-learning. Retrieved from http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning.ppt
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
• Uğur, E., & Akın, A. (2015). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of the student engagement scale. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1), 53-59.
• Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents' perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633-642.
• Watkins, D. (1989). The role of confirmatory factor analysis in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 685-701.
• Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation: Results from PISA 2000. Paris, Fr: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.