Lise Öğrencilerinde Öz-düzenleme Becerilerinin Kişilik Yapıları, Siber Aylaklık ve Nomofobi Entegrasyonlu Bir Model Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi

Öz

Öğrenme ortamlarındaki bireysel farklılıkların da eğitim-öğretim süreçlerindeki dönüşümler ile iç içe girerek önemli bir etkileşim alanı oluşturduğu düşünülen bu çalışmada, lise öğrencilerinin öz-düzenleme becerilerinin kişilik yapıları, siber aylaklık ve nomofobi entegrasyonlu bir model çerçevesinde incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışmada yanıt aranılan sorular; (1) Öz-düzenleme becerileri ile kişilik yapıları arasındaki ilişkide siber aylaklık ve nomofobinin aracılık etkisi nedir? (2) Kişilik yapıları ile siber aylaklık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkide nomofobinin aracılık etkisi nedir? şeklindedir. Yapısal regresyon modeli ile test edilen çalışmada elde edilen bulgular dışa dönük kişilik yapısının öz-düzenleme üzerinde doğrudan ve negatif etkisinin olduğunu, uyumlu kişilik yapısının ise öz-düzenleme üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte deneyime açıklık kişilik yapısı, nomofobi üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif bir etkiye sahip iken; nomofobi değişkeninin de siber aylaklık değişkeni üzerinde doğrudan ve pozitif bir etkiye sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Buna göre, çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar deneyime açıklık kişilik yapısının nomofobi değişkeni üzerinden siber aylaklık değişkeni üzerinde dolaylı bir etkisinin olduğu da ortaya koymaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kişilik yapıları
• Nomofobi
• Öğrenme süreçleri
• Öz-düzenleme
• Siber aylaklık
• Yapısal regresyon

The Examination of Self-Regulation Abilities in High School Students within the Framework of an Integrated Model of Personality Traits, Cyberloafing and Nomophobia

Öz

In this study, where individual differences in learning environments and the periods of transformation of education and learning are considered to become intertwined to create an important area of integration; the aimwas to examine the self-regulation abilities in high school students within the framework of an integrated model of personality traits, cyberloafing, and nomophobia. Questions aimed to be answered are as follows: (1) In the relationship between self-regulations skills and personality traits what are the mediating effects of cyberloafing and nomophobia? (2) What is the mediating effect of nomophobia on the relationships between personality traits and levels of cyberloafing? The findings obtained from the study which were tested using a regression model show that the extrovert personality trait has a direct and negative effect on self-regulation, whilst the agreeableness personality trait has a direct and positive effect on self-regulation. Besides, whilst the personality trait of openness to experience has a direct and positive effect on nomophobia; nomophobia as a variable has a direct and positive effect on the variable cyberloafing. In accordance with this, the results of the study also evidenced that personality trait openness to experience, has an indirect effect on the variable cyberloafing, through the variable of nomophobia.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Personality traits
• Nomophobia
• Learning processes
• Self-regulation
• Cyberloafing
• Structural regression.

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, Y., Dönmez, O. & Dursun, Ö. Ö. (2017). Cyberloafing and social desirability bias among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.043
2. Akhoroz, M. (2019). Examining the relationship between personality traits and nomophobia among preservice teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
3. Al-Menayes, J. (2016). The fear of missing out scale: Validation of the Arabic version and correlation with social media addiction. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 6(2), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijap.20160602.04
4. Arseven, İ. (2020). Lise öğrencilerinin dijital bağımlılık düzeyleri ile öz-düzenlemeli öğrenme becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ekev Akademi Dergisi, 24(82),173-195.
5. Askew, K. L. (2012). The relationship between cyberloafing and task performance andan examination of the theory of planned behavior as a model of cyberloafing[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Florida.
6. Askew, K., Buckner, J. E., Taing, M. U., Ilie, A., Bauer, J. A., & Coovert, M. D. (2014). Explaining cyberloafing: The role of the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.006
7. Aslan, S. (2008). Kişilik, huy ve psikopatoloji. Rewiews, Cases and Hypotheses in Psychiatry RCHP, 2(1-2), 7-18.
8. Aydın, F., & Ulutaş, İ. (2017). Okul öncesi çocuklarda öz-düzenleme becerilerinin gelişimi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (ASED), 1(2),36-45.

9. Baturay, M. H., & Toker, S. (2015). An investigation of the impact of demographics on cyberloafing from an educational setting angle. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 358-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.081
10. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
11. Bianchi, A., & Phillips, J. G. (2005). Psychological predictors of problem mobile phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.39
12. Bilgin, M. (2017). Ergenlerin beş faktör kişilik özelliği ile bilişsel esneklik ilişkisi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 16(62), 945-954. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.285296
13. Blanchard, A. L., & Henle, C. A. (2008). Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The role of norms and external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1067-1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.03.008
14. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage Publication.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (23. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
16. Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, application, and programming (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030005001
18. Chhabra, A., Pal, M. R., & Campus, L. (2020). Relationship between nomophobia and personality dimensions among young adults. Mukt Shabd Journal, 9(6), 4782-4790.
19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
21. Durak, H. Y. (2020). Cyberloafing in learning environments where online social networking sites are used as learning tools: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119867766
22. Duyan, V., Gulden, C., & Gelbal, S. (2012). Öz-Denetim Ölçeği-ODO: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Society and Social Work, 23(1), 25-38.
23. Erdoğan, İ. (2014). Eğitimdeki değişimlere dair eleştirel irdelemeler. HAYEF Journal of Education, 11(1), 129-140.
24. Ergün, E., & Altun, A. (2012). Öğrenci gözüyle siber aylaklik ve nedenleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 2(1), 36-53. -
25. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton.
26. Erikson, H. E. (1998). The life cycle completed. W. W. Norton & Company.
27. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
28. Gezgin, D. M., Arslantaş, T. K., & Şumuer, E. (2018). Meslek lisesi öğrencilerinin siber aylaklık düzeyinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 19(2), 408-424. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.344675
29. Gezgin, D. M., Hamutoglu, N. B., Gemikonakli, O., & Raman, I. (2017). Social networks users: Fear of missing out in preservice teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(17), 156-168.
30. Gezgin, D. M., Şumuer, E., Arslan, O., & Yıldırım, S. (2017). Nomophobia prevalence among pre-service teachers: A case of Trakya University. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 86-95. -
31. Gezgin, D. M. Hamutoglu, N. B., Sezen-Gultekin, G., & Gemikonakli, O. (2018). Relationship between nomophobia and fear of missing out among Turkish university students. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 13(4), 549–561. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v13i4.3464
32. Gökçearslan, S., Uluyol, C., & Şahin, S. (2018). Smartphone addiction, cyberloafing, stress and social support among university students: A path analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.036
33. Greene, J. A. (2018). Self-regulation in education. Routledge.
34. Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 164-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104321
35. Gunel, O. D. (2010). İsletmelerde yıldırma olgusu ve yıldırma magdurlarının kisilik ozelliklerine iliskin bir arastırma. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12, 37–65.
36. Hamutoğlu, N. B., Topal, M., & Gezgin, D. M. (2020). Investigating direct and indirect effects of social media addiction, social media usage and personality traits on FOMO. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), 248-261. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.241.17
37. Han, S., Kim, K. J., & Kim, J. H. (2017). Understanding nomophobia: Structural equation modeling and semantic network analysis of smartphone separation anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(7), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0113
38. Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: students' approaches to learning, self‐regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 99-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500392433
39. Hoşgör, H. (2020). Üniversite öğrencilerinin nomofobi düzeyini etkileyen faktörler ve ders performansları üzerinde nomofobinin etkisi. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15(25), 145-175. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.650312
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
41. İnanç, B. Y., & Yerlikaya, E. E. (2012). Kişilik Kuramları. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
42. Jia, H., Jia, R., & Karau, S. (2013). Cyberloafing and personality: The impact of the Big Five traits and workplace situational factors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 358-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813488208
43. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific International Software, Inc.
44. Kalaycı, E. (2010). The investigation of relationship between cyberloafing and self-regulated learning strategies among undergraduate students [Unpublished master thesis]. Hacettepe University.
45. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
46. Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
47. Krishnan, S.,Lim, V.K.G.,& Teo, T.S.H. (2010, December 12-15). How does personality matter? Investigating the impact of big-five personality traits on cyberloafing [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings TheThirty First International Conference on Information Systems, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
48. Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030311
49. Lam, P., & Tong, A. (2012). Digital devices in classroom--hesitations of teachers-to-be. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(4), 387-395.
50. Lee, S., Tam, C. L., & Chie, Q. T. (2013). Mobile phone usage preferences: The contributing factors of personality, social anxiety and loneliness. Social Indicators Research, 118, 1205–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0460-2
51. Liberman, B., Seidman, G., Mckenna, K. Y., & Buffardi, L. E. (2011). Employee job attitudes and organizational characteristics as predictors of cyberloafing. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2192-2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.015
52. Liew, J., Cameron, C. E., & Lockman, J. J. (2018). Parts of the whole: Motor and behavioral skills in self-regulation and schooling outcomes. Early Education and Development, 29(7), 909-913. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1500513
53. Lim, V. K. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(5), 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.161
54. McCoy, B. (2013). Digital distractions in the classroom: Student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5-14.
55. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the five‐factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00759.x
56. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. The Guilford Press.
57. McCrae, R. R., & Löckenhoff, C. E. (2010). Self-regulation and the five-factor model of personality traits. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 145–168). Wiley-Blackwell.
58. Mendoza, J. S., Pody, B. C., Lee, S., Kim, M., & McDonough, I. M. (2018). The effect of cellphones on attention and learning: The influences of time, distraction, and nomophobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.027
59. Öz, H., & Tortop, H. S. (2018). Üniversite okuyan genç yetişkinlerin mobil telefon yoksunluğu korkusu (Nomofobi) ile kişilik tipleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Yeni Medya Elektronik Dergi, 2(3), 146-159.
60. Peris, M., de la Barrera, U., Schoeps, K., & Montoya-Castilla, I. (2020). Psychological risk factors that predict social networking and internet addiction in adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4598. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124598
61. Prasad, S., Lim, V. K. & Chen, D. J. (2010, July 9-12). Self-regulation, individual characteristics and cyberloafing [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Taipei, Taiwan.
62. Przybylski, A.K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C.R., & Gladwell, V., (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1841-1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
63. Rothbart, M. K., & Jones, L. B. (1998). Temperament, self-regulation, and education. School Psychology Review, 27(4), 479-491.
64. Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Grolnick, W. S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. Achievement and Motivation: A Social-Developmental Perspective, 167(88), 167-88.
65. Sandars, J., & Cleary, T. J. (2011). Self-regulation theory: applications to medical education: AMEE Guide No. 58. Medical Teacher, 33(11), 875-886. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595434
66. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
67. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (2012). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. Routledge.
68. Skibbe, L. E., Montroy, J. J., Bowles, R. P., & Morrison, F. J. (2019). Self-regulation and the development of literacy and language achievement from preschool through second grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.005
69. Şumuer, E., Gezgin, D. M., & Yıldırım, S. (2018). Üniversite öğrencilerinin ders sırasında öğretim amacı dışında mobil telefon kullanımına etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(4), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.378459
70. Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x
71. Varol, F., & Yıldırım, E. (2019). Cyberloafing in higher education: Reasons and suggestions from students’ perspectives. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9340-1
72. Wyatt, K. & Phillips, J. G. (2005, November 21-25). Internet use and misuse in the workplace [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the 17th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Citizens Online: Considerations for Today and the Future, Narrabundah, Australia. .
73. Yıldırım, C., Şumuer, E., Adnan, M., & Yıldırım, S. (2016). A growing fear Prevalence of nomophobia among Turkish college students. Information Development, 32(5), 1322-1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915599025
74. Yılmaz, F. G. K., Yılmaz, R., Öztürk, H. T., Sezer, B., & Karademir, T. (2015). Cyberloafing as a barrier to the successful integration of information and communication technologies into teaching and learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.023
75. Yıldız Durak, H. (2019). Investigation of nomophobia and smartphone addiction predictors among adolescents in Turkey: Demographic variables and academic performance. The Social Science Journal, 56(4), 492-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.09.003