The Turkish Adaptation Study of the Perceived Cost of the School Science Scale for Primary School Students

Öz

The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the cost of the school science scale developed by Toma (2021) by adapting it into Turkish. A translation team was subsequently gathered for the study, translation - back translation processes were carried out, and then validity and reliability analyses were conducted by giving the final version of the scale. The related scale was applied to the 4th grade primary school students studying in Konya, and then normality tests were conducted. The model confirmatory factor analysis of the scale was tested and it was noted that the scale had a two-factor structure. The values of the model have an acceptable fit. In addition, the validity and reliability analyses of the scale were calculated by taking Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted values into consideration. As a result of the examination, it was decided that the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to calculate the cost perception for science learning at the primary school level.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science
• Perceived Cost of School Science
• Primary School Student
• Scale Adaptation

İlkokul Öğrencileri İçin Fen Maliyet Algısı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Toma (2021) tarafından geliştirilen fen maliyet algısı ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmasını yaparak psikometrik özelliklerini belirlemektir. Bu kapsamda çalışmada bir çeviri ekibi oluşturulmuş, çeviri - geri çeviri işlemleri yürütülmüş, ölçeğin son hâli verilerek geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri yapılmıştır. İlgili ölçek Konya ilinde öğrenim görmekte olan ilkokul 4.sınıf öğrencilerine uygulanmış ardından normallik testleri yapılmıştır. Ölçeğe ait model doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile test edilmiş ve ölçeğin iki faktörlü bir yapıda olduğu görülmüştür. Modele ait değerlerin kabul edilebilir uyuma sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri Cronbach alfa, bileşik güvenirlik ve ortalama varyans değeri dikkate alınarak hesaplanmıştır. İnceleme sonucunda ölçeğin, ilkokul düzeyinde fen öğrenmeye yönelik maliyet algısını hesaplamak için kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğuna karar verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen
• Fen Maliyet Algısı
• İlkokul Öğrencisi
• Ölçek Uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Summers, R., Said, Z., Wang, S., & Culbertson, M. (2015). Development and large-scale validation of an instrument to assess arabic-speaking students' attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(16), 2637-2663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1098789
2. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları (Sık kullanılan istatistiksel analizler ve açıklamalı SPSS çözümleri). İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
3. Alkış Küçükaydın, M. (2018). The effect of fifth grade students science anxiety on metacognitive awareness. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(5), 878–886. https://dx.doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.878
4. Alkış Küçükaydın, M. (2021). Examination of elementary school students scientific attitudes and intellectual risk-taking behaviors. Science Education International, 32(2), 149–158. https://dx.doi.org/10.33828/sei.v32.i2.8
5. Balım, A. G., & Aydın, H. S. G. (2009). Fen ve teknolojiye yönelik tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(25), 33-41.
6. Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. In J. D. Wright (Ed.). International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 503-509). Elsevier.
7. Bennett, J., & Hogarth, S. (2009). Would you want to talk to a scientist at a party? High school students' attitudes to school science and to science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1975-1998. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802425581
8. Blalock, C. L., Lichenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In pursuit of validity: a comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935–2005. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 961-977. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344578

9. Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Michelli, N. M., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). Complex by design: Investigating pathways into teaching in new york city schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285943
10. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2011b). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Pegem Akademi
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıcı Çakmak, E., & Akgün, Ö. E, Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011a). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
12. Bybee, R., & McCrae, B. (2011). Scientific literacy and student attitudes: Perspectives from PISA 2006 science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518644
13. Chen, A., & Liu, X. L. (2009). Task values, cost, and choice decisions in college physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28(2), 192-213. https://doi.org/10.1123/JTPE.28.2.192
14. Chiang, E. S., Byrd, S. P., & Molin, A. J. (2011). Children’s perceived cost for exercise: Application of an expectancy-value paradigm. Health Education & Behavior, 38(2), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198110376350
15. Convert, B. (2005). Europe and the crisis in scientific vocations. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2005.00233.x
16. Çelikdemir, M. (2006). Examining middle school students' understanding of the nature of science [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
17. Eccles, J. (2011). Gendered educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398185
18. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167295213003
19. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: a developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
20. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spencer (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). W. F. Freeman and Company.
21. Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009009018235
22. Flake, J. K., Barron, K. E., Hulleman, C., McCoach, B. D., & Welsh, M. E. (2015). Measuring cost: the forgotten component of expectancy-value theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 232-244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.002
23. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
24. Gaspard, H., Dicke, A.-L., Flunger, B., Schreier, B., Häfner, I., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2015). More value through greater differentiation: Gender differences in value beliefs about math. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 663-677. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000003
25. Gefen, D., Straub, D. ve Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 1-70. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.00407
26. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12077
27. Güden, C., & Timur, B. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin fen bilimlerine yönelik tutumlarının bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. International Journal of Active Learning, 1(1), 49-72.
28. Hillman, S. J., Zeeman, S. I., Tilburg, C. E., & List, H. E. (2016). My attitudes toward science (MATS): the development of a multidimensional instrument measuring students’ science attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-016-9205-x
29. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
30. Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents, task values, and Real-Life achievement-related choices. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (pp. 405-439). Academic Press.
31. Jenkins, E. W., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068435
32. Jiang, Y., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Gaspard, H. (2018). An expectancy-value-cost approach in predicting adolescent students’ academic motivation and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.005
33. Kass, R. A., & Tinsley, H. E. A. (1979). Factor analysis. Journal of Leisure Research,11,120−138.
34. Keçeci, G., & Kirbağ Zengin, F. (2021). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik fen ve teknoloji tutum ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turkish Journal of Educational Science, 2(2), 143-168.
35. Kennedy, J., Quinn, F., & Taylor, N. (2016). The school science attitude survey: A new instrument for measuring attitudes towards school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 39(4), 422-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1160046
36. Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equation modeling. Guilford.
37. Koballa, T. R. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in science education. Science Education, 72(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730720202
38. Kosovich, J. J., Hulleman, C. S., Barron, K. E., & Getty, S. (2015). A practical measure of student motivation. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5-6), 790-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614556890
39. Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Meldrum, J., & Vallett, D. (2012). Measuring science interest: Rasch validation of the science interest survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 643-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9314-z
40. Luttrell, V. R., Callen, B. W., Allen, C. S., Wood, M. D., Deeds, D. G., & Richard, D. C. S. (2010). The mathematics value inventory for general education students: Development and initial validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(1), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344526
41. Marcoulides, G., & Schumacher, R. (2001). New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
42. Mason, C. L., Kahle, J. B., & Gardner, A. L. (1991). Draw-a-scientist test: Future implications. School Science and Mathematics, 91(5), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12078.x
43. Mıhladız, G. D., & Duran, M. (2010). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilime yönelik tutumlarının demografik değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(20), 100-121.
44. Munby, H. (1983). An investigation into the measurement of attitudes in science education. SMEAC Information Reference Center.
45. Munby, H. (1997). Issues of validity in science attitude measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4%3C337::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-S
46. Nieswandt, M. (2007). Student affect and conceptual understanding in learning chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 908-937. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20169
47. Nuhoğlu, H. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik bir tutum ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 7(3), 627-639.
48. Özdamar, K. (2017). Ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi. IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINITAB uygulamalı. Nisan Kitabevi.
49. Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 315-329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034027
50. Ramsden, J. M. (1998). Mission impossible?: Can anything be done about attitudes to science? International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200201
51. Rennie, L. J., & Punch, K. F. (1991). The relationship between affect and achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(2), 193-209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280209
52. Sato, J. (1998). Effects of Learners' Perceptions of Utility and Costs, and Learning Strategy Preferences. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(4), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep1953.46.4_367
53. Shinogaya, K. (2018). Motives, beliefs, and perceptions among learners affect preparatory learning strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 612-619. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1349074
54. Summers, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2018). Development and validation of an instrument to assess student attitudes toward science across grades 5 through 10. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 172-205. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21416
55. Tabachnick, B. G. , & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.
56. Toma, R. B. (2021). Measuring children’s perceived cost of school science: Instrument development and psychometric evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101009
57. Toma, R. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2022). A comprehensive review of instruments measuring attitudes toward science. Research in Science Education, 52, 567- 582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09967-1
58. Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Lüdtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy-value theory: a latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 763-777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470
59. Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.). International handbook of science education (pp. 597-625). Springer
60. Usta, E., & Akkanat, Ç. (2015). Investigating scientific creativity level of seventh grade students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1408-1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643
61. Wang, T. L., & Berlin, D. (2010). Construction and validation of an instrument to measure Taiwanese elementary students’ attitudes toward their science class. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2413-2428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903431561
62. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). 35 years of research on students' subjective task values and motivation: a look back and a look forward. Advances in Motivation Science, 7(20),161-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.05.002
63. Wigfield, A., Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Eccles, J. (2017). Achievement values: Interactions, interventions, and future directions. In A. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D. Yeager (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (pp. 116-134). Guilford Press.
64. Wyer, M. (2003). Intending to stay: Images of scientists, attitudes toward women, and gender as ınfluences on persistence among science and engineering majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v9.i1.10