Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Çevrimiçi Epistemolojik İnançlarının Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, üniversite öğrencilerinin çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarına yönelik epistemolojik inançlarını tespit etmede kullanılacak alan odaklı (domain spesific) bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Geliştirilen ölçekte epistemolojik inançlar Hofer ve Pintrich’in (1997) revize ettiği haliyle hem inanç sistemi perspektifini hem de gelişimsel perspektifleri yansıtacak şekilde çok boyutlu olarak tasarlanmıştır. Covid-19 pandemi döneminde uzaktan öğretim yoluyla ders alan 1058 gönüllü öğrenci araştırmaya katılarak ölçek maddelerini yanıtlamıştır. Bu bağlamda açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda 15 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin faktör yapısı Nature of Knowing ve Nature of Knowledge olmak üzere 2 boyutlu olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Ölçekteki maddelerin faktör yükü dağılımlarının .40 ile .74 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Ölçeğin güvenirliği için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı .80 olarak bulunmuştur. Ayrıca bu iki faktörlü yapının toplam varyansın 39.44% ‘ünü açıkladığı görülmüştür. Ölçeğin hem doğu hem de batı kültürünün kesiştiği; kültürel çeşitliliği zengin; konumu gereği Asya ve Avrupa kıtaları arasında köprü görevi gören bir coğrafyada geliştirilmiş olmasının ölçeğe kültürler arası bir yapı kazandıracağı düşünülmektedir. Sonuç olarak, 15 maddeden oluşan 2 boyutlu “Online-Specific Epistemological Beliefs” ölçeği ile yapılacak çıkarım ve yorumların geçerli ve güvenilir olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemolojik inançlar ölçeği
• İnternet-odaklı epistemolojik inançlar
• Çevrimiçi öğrenme
• Yükseköğretim

ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ ONLINE SPECIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS

Öz

The purpose of this study is to develop a domain-specific scale that would be used to determine epistemological beliefs of university students towards online learning media. In the developed scale epistemological beliefs are designed as multidimensional to reflect both belief system perspective and developmental perspectives as revised by Hofer and Pintrich (1997). 1058 volunteer students that attended remote classes during the Covid-19 pandemic participated in the study and answered scale items. In this scope as a result of exploratory factor analysis, factor structure of the 15-item scale came forward as 2-dimensional, namely Nature of Knowing and Nature of Knowledge dimensions. It was noted that load distribution factor of scale items varied between 0.40 and 0.74. Cronbach Alfa coefficient calculated for scale reliability was found to be 0.80 for each dimension. Also, it was established that this two-factor structure explained 39.44% of total variance. It is considered that the sample of the study has a rich cultural diversity and acts as a bridge between the Asian and European continents adding an intercultural structure to the scale. Thus, it is believed that deductions and comments made with the 2-dimensional, 15-item “Online-Specific Epistemological Beliefs” scale would be valid and reliable.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epistemological beliefs scale
• Internet-specific epistemological beliefs
• Online learning
• Higher education

Kaynakça

1. Akkoyunlu, B., & Yilmaz, M. (2005). Prospective teachers’ information literacy level, internet usage frequencies and purposes of their internet usage. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), 19, 1-14.
2. Askar, P. & Mazman, S. G. (2013). Adaptation of online information searching strategy inventory into Turkish. Education and Science, 38(168), 167-182.
3. Bahcivan, E. (2014). Examining relationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 870-882.
4. Kapucu, S. ve Bahcivan, E. (2015). High school students’ scientific epistemological beliefs, self-efficacy in learning physics and attitudes toward physics: A structural equation model. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 252-267.
5. Bahcivan, E. (2016). Investigating the relationships among PSTs’ teaching beliefs: are epistemological beliefs central? Educational Studies, 42(2), 221-238.
6. Bahcivan, E. ve Cobern, W. W. (2016). Investigating coherence among Turkish elementary science teachers’ teaching belief systems, pedagogical content knowledge and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(10), 62-86.
7. Bahcivan, E. (2017). Epistemological research in educational sciences: critical investigation of past, present and future perspectives. Mersin University Journal of The Faculty of Education, 13(2), 760-772. doi: 10.17860/mersinefd.301121
8. Bilecik, A., & Bahcivan, E. (2017). Investigating relationships among scientific epistemological beliefs, environmental knowledge and environmental attitudes: A structural equation modeling in the context of pre-service science teachers. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 157-168.

9. Güneş, E., & Bahcivan, E. (2018). A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers' digital literacy: Responses to “which beliefs” and “how and why they interact” questions. Computers & Education, 118, 96-106.
10. Ay, K. (2016). Çevrimiçi bilgi arama stratejileri ve bazı eğitimsel değişkenlerle ilişkilerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of online information search strategies and their relationships with several educational variables]. (Master's dissertation). Hacettepe University Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Available from the Council of Higher Education, National Dissertation Center, Dissertation ID: 435195.
11. Aydin, A. F. (2020). Disinformation in social media in post-truth period: The Covid-19 (new coronavirus) pandem process. Asya Studies-Academic Social Studies, 4(12), 76-90.
12. Basbay, M. (2013). Analysing the relationship of critical thinking and metacognition with epistemological beliefs through structural equation modeling. Education and Science, 38(169), 250-262.
13. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
14. Belenky, M. R, Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.
15. Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Vermetten, Y. (2005). Information Problem Solving by Experts and Novices - Analysis of a Complex Cognitive Skill. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 487−508.
16. Bråten, I. (2008). Personal Epistemology, Understanding of Multiple Texts, and Learning within Internet Technologies. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies Across Diverse Cultures (351–376). NY: Springer.
17. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1027–1042.
18. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationship between Internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 141-171.
19. Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet, 395, 912–920
20. Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, Knowledge and Beliefs: Epistemological Studies Across Diverse Cultures (65–112). NY: Springer.
21. Buehl, M. M. & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28-42.
22. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A. & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415- 449.
23. Chiu, Y. L., Liang, J. C. & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Internet-Specific Epistemic Beliefs and Self-Regulated Learning in Online Academic Information Searching. Metacognition and Learning, 8(3), 235-260.
24. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
25. Debowski, S. (2001). Wrong way: Go back! An exploration of novice search behaviours while conducting an information search. The Electronic Library, 19, 371-382.
26. Deryakulu, D. (2004a), Epistemolojik İnançlar [Epistemological Beliefs]. In Y. Kuzgun and D. Deryakulu (Ed.), Eğitimde Bireysel Farklılıklar [Individual Differences in Education], s. 259-289, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
27. Deryakulu, D. (2004b). The relationships between university students' learning and study strategies and their epistemological beliefs. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 38, 230 - 249.
28. Eren, A. (2006). Üniversite öğrencilerinin genel ve alan-odaklı epistemolojik inançlarının incelenmesi [Examining the general and domain-specific epistemological beliefs of undergraduates]. (Doctoral dissertation). Abant Izzet Baysal University Graduate School of Social Sciences, Bolu, Turkey. Available from the Council of Higher Education, National Dissertation Center, Dissertation ID: 211317
29. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
30. Gecgel, H., Kana, F., Ozturk, N. E., & Akkas, İ. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service teachers' reading motivations and social media-specific epistemological beliefs. Journal of Language Education and Research, 6(2), 478-507.
31. Heidari, E., Mehrvarz, M., Marzooghi, R., & Stoyanov, S. (2021). The role of digital informal learning in the relationship between students' digital competence and academic engagement during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 1154-1166.
32. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.
33. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.
34. Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85-95.
35. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
36. Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P. & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1193-1203.
37. King, P. M, & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38. Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. A. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89–116.
39. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Kurbanoğlu, S. (2002). WWW Bilgi kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Letters, 19(1), 11-25.
41. Lee, S.W.Y., & Tsai, C.C. (2011). Students’ perception of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 905–914
42. Lodewyk, K. R. (2007). Relations among epistemological beliefs, academic achievement, and task performance in secondary school students. Educational psychology, 27(3), 307-327.
43. Lorenzen, M. (2002). The land of confusion? High school students and their use of the World Wide Web for research. Research Strategies, 18(2), 151–163
44. Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal Epistemology and Mathematics: A Critical Review and Synthesis of Research. Review of Educational Research, 74 (3), 317-377.
45. Nazim, M. (2008). Information searching behavior in the internet age: A users’ study of Aligarh Muslim University. The International Information & Library Review, 40(1), 73-81.
46. Nimrod, G. (2020). Changes in internet use when coping with stress: older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American journal of geriatric psychiatry, 28(10), 1020-1024.
47. Oliver, B., & Goerke, V. (2007). Australian undergraduates’ use and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportunities for creating engaging learning experiences for the Net Generation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2),171-186.
48. Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, T. C. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemologicalbeliefs of college students. Research in higher education, 39(4), 365-384.
49. Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study, Counsel, Harvard University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED024315).
50. Perry, W. G. Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
51. Qian, G. & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of Epistemological beliefs and Learned Helplessness in Secondary School Students’Learning Science Concepts From Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 282-292.
52. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), s. 498-504.
53. Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological Development and Academic Performance among Secondary Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1-6.
54. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–320.
55. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing the Embedded Systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach, Educational Psychologist, 39(1), s. 19-29.
56. Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school students. The elementary school journal, 105(3), 289-304.
57. Schommer-Aikins, M., Mau, W. C., Brookhart, S., & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding middle students' beliefs about knowledge and learning using a multidimensional paradigm. The journal of educational research, 94(2), 120-127.
58. Schreiber, J. B. & Shinn, D. (2003). Epistemological Beliefs of Community College Students and Their Learning Processes, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(4), s. 699-709.
59. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D. & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 123-138.
60. Szymkowiak, A., Melović, B., Dabić, M., Jeganathan, K., & Kundi, G. S. (2021). Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Technology in Society, 65, 101565.
61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights MA: Allyn & Bacon.
62. Tsai, C. C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in Internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 970-974.
63. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Information commitments in web-based learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 105-112.
64. Tsai, C. C. (2008). The preferences toward constructivist internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 16-31
65. Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C. & Hwang, G. J. (2011). The correlates of Taiwan teachers' epistemological beliefs concerning Internet environments, online search strategies, and search outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 54-63.
66. Turkish Statistical Institute-TUIK, (2020). Household ICT usage survey [Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması]. Retrieved July 14, 2021 from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Bilisim-Teknolojileri-(BT)-Kullanim-Arastirmasi-2020-33679
67. The Psychiatric Association of Turkey-PAT, (2020). Karantinanın ruhsal etkileri ve koruyucu önlemler [Psychological effects of quarantine and protective measures]. Retrieved August 15, 2021 from https://www.psikiyatri.org.tr/TPDData/Uploads/files/KarantinaCOVID.pdf
68. United Nations Development Programme-UNDP, (2020). The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. Human Development Report, New York. Retrieved August 11, 2021 from https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/library/human_development/hdr-2020.html
69. Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. M. (2005). Effects of instruction on changes in epistemological beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 314–330.
70. Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, A. & Boshuizen, P. A. H. (2008). Information-problem Solving: A Review of Problems Students Encounter and Instructional Solutions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 623–648.
71. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2021). Informal and Incidental Learning in the time of COVID-19. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 23(1), 88-96.
72. WeAreSocial, (2020). Digital 2021: Turkey. Retrieved July 21, 2021 from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-turkey
73. Whitmire, E. (2003). Epistemological beliefs and the information-seeking behavior of undergraduates. Library and Information Science Research, 25(2), 127-142.
74. World Health Organization-WHO, (2020). Covid-19 salgını sırasında ruh sağlığı ve psikososyal konular [Mental health and psychosocial issues during the Covid-19 pandemic]. Retrieved August 18, 2021 from https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=dso-ruh-sagligi-onerileri.pdf
75. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). Developing an Information Commitment Survey for assessing students’ web information searching strategies and evaluative standards for web materials. Journal Of Educational Technologyand Society, 10(2), 120.
76. Zafarmand, N. (2010). Halkla ilişkiler alanında yeni mecra ve uygulamaların yeri ve önemi: Sosyal medya ve PR2.0 [The importance and the place of new pathway and practices in the field of pr: social media and PR 2.0]. (Master's dissertation). Gazi University Graduate School of Social Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. Available from the Council of Higher Education, National Dissertation Center, Dissertation ID: 271288