BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Revize Edilmiş İşlemsel Uzaklık Ölçeğinin Uyarlama Çalışması

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 718 - 731, 01.10.2016

Öz

Bu araştırma kapsamında; revize edilmiş işlemsel uzaklık ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması ve ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizlerinin gerçekleştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Tarama modeline göre yürütülen araştırma, kullanılan veri toplama araçlarındaki sorulara uygun şekilde yanıtlar veren 227 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Üç faktörden ve 12 maddeden oluşan revize edilmiş işlemsel uzaklık ölçeğinin uyarlanması sürecinde yapılan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları modelin gerçek verilerle uyumunun kabul edilebilir düzeylerde olduğunu göstermektedir. Güvenilirliğe ilişkin yapılan analizler ise ölçeğin güvenilir ve madde ayırt ediciliğinin yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin Türkçe formu için hesaplanan Cronbach α katsayıları, alt faktörler için .83 ile .89 arasında değişmekte iken, ölçeğin geneli için .91 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu bulgular ışığında bu araştırma kapsamında uyarlaması gerçekleştirilen revize edilmiş işlemsel uzaklık ölçeğinin, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında işlemsel uzaklık algısının belirlenmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu söylenebilir.

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes (pp. 97–112). Atwood Publishing.
  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness of fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173.
  • Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Online learning and teaching in higher education. McGraw-Hill International.
  • Brahmawong, C. (2004). Guidelines for internet-based distance education in colleges and universities in Thailand. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 12(2), 7–13.
  • Burnham, B. R., & Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in Distance Education: A report from the other side. In Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (38th, Stillwater, Oklahoma, May 16-18) (pp. 49–54).
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık
  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 584-594.
  • de Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67–81.
  • Drago, W., Peltier, J., & Sorensen, D. (2002). Course content or the instructor: Which is more important in on-line teaching? Management Research News, 25(6/7), 69–83.
  • Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
  • Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287–303.
  • Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
  • Holmberg, B. (1991). The feasibility of a predictive theory of distance education: What are we allowed to expect. In B. Holmberg & G.Ortner (Eds.), Research Into Distance Education.
  • Horzum, M. B. (2011). Developing transactional distance scale and examining transactional distance perception of blended learning students in terms of different variables. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1582–1587.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.
  • Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-138.
  • Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling (First Edition). CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 20–35). Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd ed.: A Systems View of Online Learning. Toronto:Wadsworth.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364–382.
  • Sandoe, C. (2005). Measuring transactional distance in online courses: The structure component. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida.
  • Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Uşun, S. (2006). Uzaktan eğitim. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2015). The adaptation study of transactional distance scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 91–105.
  • Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Virginia Commonwealth University.
Yıl 2016, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 718 - 731, 01.10.2016

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance Learners in Higher Education: Institutional Responses for Quality Outcomes (pp. 97–112). Atwood Publishing.
  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness of fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173.
  • Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Smith, J. L. (2007). Online learning and teaching in higher education. McGraw-Hill International.
  • Brahmawong, C. (2004). Guidelines for internet-based distance education in colleges and universities in Thailand. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 12(2), 7–13.
  • Burnham, B. R., & Walden, B. (1997). Interactions in Distance Education: A report from the other side. In Annual Adult Education Research Conference Proceedings (38th, Stillwater, Oklahoma, May 16-18) (pp. 49–54).
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık
  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(4), 584-594.
  • de Bruyn, L. L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: can the development of convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance Education, 25(1), 67–81.
  • Drago, W., Peltier, J., & Sorensen, D. (2002). Course content or the instructor: Which is more important in on-line teaching? Management Research News, 25(6/7), 69–83.
  • Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
  • Garrison, D. R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 10(4), 287–303.
  • Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).
  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
  • Holmberg, B. (1991). The feasibility of a predictive theory of distance education: What are we allowed to expect. In B. Holmberg & G.Ortner (Eds.), Research Into Distance Education.
  • Horzum, M. B. (2011). Developing transactional distance scale and examining transactional distance perception of blended learning students in terms of different variables. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 1582–1587.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
  • Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162.
  • Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 120-138.
  • Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling (First Edition). CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 20–35). Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (2003). Handbook of distance education. Routledge.
  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning, 3rd ed.: A Systems View of Online Learning. Toronto:Wadsworth.
  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Paul, R. C., Swart, W., Zhang, A. M., & MacLeod, K. R. (2015). Revisiting Zhang’s scale of transactional distance: Refinement and validation using structural equation modeling. Distance Education, 36(3), 364–382.
  • Sandoe, C. (2005). Measuring transactional distance in online courses: The structure component. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of South Florida.
  • Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 223–242.
  • Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Uşun, S. (2006). Uzaktan eğitim. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Yılmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2015). The adaptation study of transactional distance scale. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 30(4), 91–105.
  • Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Virginia Commonwealth University.
Toplam 34 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ramazan Yılmaz

Yusuf Ziya Olpak

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ekim 2016
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2016 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Yılmaz, R., & Olpak, Y. Z. (2016). Revize Edilmiş İşlemsel Uzaklık Ölçeğinin Uyarlama Çalışması. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(3), 718-731.
All the articles published in the journal are open access and distributed under the conditions of CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
 88x31.png