The Role of Motivation in Self Regulation Skills in Eighth Grade Students’ Science Classess

Abstract

The aim of this study is the adaptation of “Motivation and Self-Regulation Scale” developed by Velayutham, Aldridge, and Fraser (2011) into Turkish. The secondary aim is to determine the relationship between the predictive power of the motivation levels of 8^th grade students and their self-regulatory skills in science classes. The research was conducted through the survey method. 1128 students of eighth grade from 14 different schools participated in the study to conduct the validation and reliability of the scale. In addition, data were collected from 1484 students from 14 different schools to determine the relationship among the motivation levels, self-regulation strategies and levels of success in science classes of eighth grade students were by the “Motivation and Self-Regulation” scale adapted into Turkish. The English form of 32 items in 4 sub-dimensions of the “Motivation and Self-regulation Scale” developed by Velayutham, Aldridge and Fraser (2011) was used as a means of data collection in the research. Moreover, English-Turkish Compliance Scaling Form and Turkish Understandability Scaling Form were used. Data were analyzed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Mann Whitney U test and multiple regression analysis. As a result, “Motivation and Self-Regulation Scale” developed by Velayutham, Aldridge and Fraser (2011) as 32 items was adapted into Turkish. The applicability and reliability studies were conducted, and it was found that 25 items of the scale was applicable to and reliable for Turkey in cultural terms. The study revealed that learning goals, task value and self-efficacy besides self-regulation variable, which are the sub-dimensions of motivation had a significant correlation with the student’s success. Moreover, learning goals, task value and self-efficacy, which are the sub-dimensions of motivation, were found to be significantly correlated to the level of self-regulatory skills.

Keywords

• Learning goal
• motivation
• self-efficacy
• self regulation
• task value.

Sekizinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Fen Derslerine Karşı Öz Düzenleme Becerilerinde Motivasyonun Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Velayutham, Aldridge ve Fraser (2011) tarafından geliştirilen “Motivasyon ve Öz-Düzenleme Ölçeği”nin Türkçeye uyarlanmasıdır. Diğer amacı ise 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri dersine karşı motivasyon düzeylerinin öz-düzenleme becerilerini yordama gücü arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemektir. Araştırma tarama (survey) yöntemi kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasını yapmak üzere 14 farklı okuldan toplam 1128 sekizinci sınıf öğrenci çalışmaya katılmıştır. Ayrıca Türkçeye uyarlanan “Motivasyon ve ÖzDüzenleme” ölçeğiyle sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin fen bilimleri derslerine karşı motivasyon düzeyleri, öz düzenleme stratejileri ve fen başarıları arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek amacıyla 14 farklı okuldan toplam 1484 öğrenciden veri toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, Mann Whitney U testi ve çoklu regresyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak Velayutham, Aldridge ve Fraser (2011) tarafından 32 madde olarak geliştirilen “Motivasyon ve Öz-Düzenleme Ölçeği” Türkçeye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılmış, ölçeğin 25 maddelik halinin kültürel açıdan Türkiye’de kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada motivasyonun alt boyutları olan öğrenme amaçları, görev değeri ve öz-yeterlik ile öz-düzenleme değişkenleri birlikte, öğrenci başarısı ile anlamlı bir ilişki içinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca motivasyonun alt boyutları olan öğrenme amaçları, görev değeri ve öz-yeterlikle birlikte, özdüzenleme beceri düzeyleri ile anlamlı bir ilişki içinde olduğu da belirlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Görev değeri
• motivasyon
• öğrenme amaçları
• özdüzenleme
• öz-yeterlik

Kaynakça

1. Baloglu, M. (2005). Matematik kaygısı derecelendirme ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyar-lanması, dil geçerliği ve ön psikometri incelemesi [The adaptation of the mathematics anxiety rating scale-elementary form into Turkish, language validity, and preliminary psychometric investigation]. Kuram ve Uygu-lamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 7-30.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Boekaerts, M., & Cascallar, E. (2006). How far have we moved toward the integra-tion of theory and practice in self-regulation?. Educational Psychology Re-view,18, 199-210.
4. Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of moti-vation and effort for classroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(2), 151–184. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1902_5
5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis: For applied research. New York: Guilford.
6. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları (Second edn.). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
7. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
8. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, (5th Edtion). London, UK. Hanrahan, M. (2002, July). Learn-ing science: Revisiting humanist dimensions of intellectual engage-ment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Educa-tion Research Association, Townsville, Queensland.

9. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205.
10. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
11. Joroskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software Interna-tional, Inc.
12. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.
13. Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orienta-tion theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–187. d.oi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
14. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Sec-ond Edition). NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
15. Kuyper, H., van der Werf, M. P. C., & Lubbers, M. J. (2000). Motivation, meta-cognition and self-regulation as predictors of long term educational attain-ment. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 6(3), 181-205. doi: 10.1076/1380-3611(200009)6:3;1-A;FT181
16. Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth-grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 , 585–610.
17. Liou, P. Y., & Kao, P. J. (2014). Validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation towards technology learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 79-96. doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.893235.
18. Lynch, D. J., & Trujillo, H. (2011). Motivational Beliefs and Learning Strategies in Organic
19. Chemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 9(6), 1351–1365. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9264-x
20. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (seventh edition). Boston: Pearson.
21. Midgley, C. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 116–125.
23. Pajares, F., Britner, S. L. & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and
24. self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 406–422.
25. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 366–381.
26. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student mo-tivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 95, 667–686.
28. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and Self-regulated Learning Component of Classroom Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Psyhology, 82, 33–40.
29. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence beliefs in academic functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85–104). New York: Guilford Press.
30. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writ-ing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23(1), 7–25. doi: 10.1080/10573560600837578
31. Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74.
32. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidel, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (Fourth Edi-tion). MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
33. Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000323737
34. Un Acikgoz, K. (2003). Etkili Öğrenme ve Öğretme. İzmir: Eğitim Dünyası Yayın-ları.
35. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2159-2179. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.541529
36. Wolters, C. A. (1999). The relation between high school students’ motivational reg-ulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom perfor-mance. Learning and Individual Differences, 11 , 281–300.
37. Wolters, C. A., & Rosenthal, H. (2000). The relation between students’ motivational beliefs and their use of motivational regulation strategies. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(7-8) , 801–820. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00051-3
38. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S. and Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the Ages of 11
39. and 25, In Handbook of Educational Psychology, edited by D. C. Berliner, and R. C. Calfee, 148–185. New York: Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.
40. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self- regulated learning and academic achievement : An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–7.doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2
41. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contempo-rary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
42. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
43. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Ameri-can Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909
44. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student Differences in Self-regulated Learning: Relating Grade, Sex, and Giftedness to Self-efficacy and Strategy Use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.