gefad Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1301-9058 3108-5342 Gazi Üniversitesi 10.17152/gefad.1720680 Mathematics Education Matematik Eğitimi Matematik Öğretmen Adayları İçin Matematiksel Zihniyet Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması Mathematical Mindset Scale for Prospective Mathematics Teachers: A Validity and Reliability Study https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4621-6558 Demirci Neslihan BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, MATEMATİK VE FEN BİLİMLERİ EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ, MATEMATİK EĞİTİMİ ANABİLİM DALI https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8619-8334 Ezentaş Rıdvan BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-8155 Arslan Çiğdem BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ 04 27 2026 46 1 1 17 06 16 2025 02 22 2026 Copyright © 1985, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 1985 Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

Bireylerin öğrenme süreçlerini etkileyen temel unsurlardan biri, zekâ ve yeteneklerinin geliştirilebilir olduğuna dair sahip oldukları zihniyet yapısıdır. Özellikle matematik gibi zorlayıcı disiplinlerde bu zihniyet; öğrencilerin tutum, başarı ve motivasyonlarını şekillendiren kritik bir değişkendir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Megawanti ve arkadaşları (2024) tarafından geliştirilen ve yazarlarından temin edilen geniş kapsamlı madde havuzu temel alınarak hazırlanan “Matematiksel Zihniyet Ölçeği”nin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarının gerçekleştirilmesidir. Araştırma, Türkiye’deki altı farklı üniversitenin ilköğretim ve ortaöğretim matematik öğretmenliği programlarında öğrenim gören 337 öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini test etmek amacıyla yapılan analizler sonucunda; öğretmen adaylarının zihniyet algılarını detaylı bir şekilde yansıtan 8 faktör ve 25 maddeden oluşan modelin iyi uyum sergilediği saptanmıştır. Ölçeğin bütününe ilişkin Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı 0.86 iken, alt boyutlara ait bileşik güvenirlik (CR) değerlerinin 0.603 ile 0.808 arasında değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkçeye uyarlanan bu ölçeğin, matematik öğretmen adaylarının çok boyutlu matematiksel zihniyet yapılarını belirlemede geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

One of the fundamental factors influencing individuals’ learning processes is their mindset regarding the malleability of intelligence and abilities. Particularly in challenging disciplines such as mathematics, mindset constitutes a critical variable that shapes students’ attitudes, achievement, and motivation. The purpose of this study is to adapt the Mathematical Mindset Scale developed by Megawanti et al. (2024) and constructed from a comprehensive item pool provided by the original authors into Turkish and to examine its validity and reliability. The study was conducted with 337 prospective mathematics teachers enrolled in primary and secondary mathematics teacher education programs at six different universities in Türkiye. As a result of the analyses to test the construct validity of the scale, an eight-factor model comprising 25 items that comprehensively reflects prospective teachers’ mindset perceptions was found to demonstrate good model fit. The overall Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was 0.86, while the composite reliability (CR) values for the subscales ranged from 0.603 to 0.808. The findings indicate that the Turkish version of the scale is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the multidimensional structures of prospective mathematics teachers' mathematical mindsets.

 Matematik öğretmen adayları matematiksel zihniyet ölçek uyarlama zihniyet Mathematical mindset prospective mathematics teachers scale adaptation mindset Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00038-0 Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 Beyaztaş, D. İ., & Hymer, B. (2018). An analysis of Turkish students’ perception of intelligence from primary school to university. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416649041 Boaler, J. (2013, March). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. The Forum, 55(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.2304/forum.2013.55.1.143 Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1237374 Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 Bui, P., Pongsakdi, N., McMullen, J., Lehtinen, E., & Hannula-Sormunen, M. M. (2023). A systematic review of mindset interventions in mathematics classrooms: What works and what does not? Educational Research Review, 40, 100554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100554 Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289 Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2. Ed.). Routledge. Can, A. (2020). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (9.Baskı). Pegem Akademi. Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S. (2019). Örnekleme yöntemi. H. Özmen ve O. Karamustafaoğlu (Edlr.), Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri içinde (2. Baskı, s. 56-78). Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786052417867.04 Chapman, S., & Mitchell, M. (2018). Mindset for math. The Learning Professional, 39(5), 60-64. Chen, S., Ding, Y., & Liu, X. (2023). Development of the growth mindset scale: Evidence of structural validity, measurement model, direct and indirect effects in Chinese samples. Current Psychology, 42(3), 1712-1726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01532-x Çiftçi, S. K., & Yıldız, P. (2020). Matematik inancı ölçeği: Yapı geçerliği ve güvenirlik analizleri. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 56, 121-138. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi. Daly, I., Bourgaize, J., & Vernitski, A. (2019). Mathematical mindsets increase student motivation: Evidence from the EEG. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 15, 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2019.02.005 Delice, A., Erden, S., Yılmaz, K., & Sevimli, E. (2016). Matematik İnanç Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması sürecinde geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 737-754. Denzine, G. M., & Kowalski, G. J. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of the assessment for living and learning scale: A cross-validation investigation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2002.12069044 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41 (10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040 Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315783048 Dweck C. S. (2014) Mindsets and math/science achievement. Carnegie Corporation of New York. Erden, B., & Yıldız, S. (2023). Gelişim odaklı zihniyet inançları ölçeği geliştirme çalışması ve psikometrik özellikleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(1), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2023..-1162857 Erkuş, A. (2003). Psikometri üzerine yazılar. Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları No 24. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition). Sage Publications. 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 Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Education. Goldin, G. A. (2002). Affect, meta-affect, and mathematical belief structures, In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Törner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 59 72). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47958-3_4 Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. Prentice Hall, Inc. Hacıömeroğlu, G. (2011). Matematiksel problem çözmeye ilişkin inanç ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 119-132. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-13. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2004). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 15-50). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611758 Hart, L. E. (1989). Describing the affective domain: Saying what we mean. In affect and mathematical problem solving: A new perspective (pp. 37-45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3614-6_3 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Ignacio, N. G., Nieto, L. J. B., & Barona, E. G. (2006). The affective domain in mathematics learning. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 16-32. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/169 Im, S., & Park, H. J. (2023). A mathematical mindset scale using the positive norms. Psychology in the Schools, 60(8), 2901-2918. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22904 Karakelle, Ş., & Sarac, S. (2022). Creative mindsets scale: Turkish validity and reliability. Cyprus Turkish Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology, 4(2). http://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.22.2.01 Karakuş, H., Akman, B., & Ergene, Ö. (2018). The Turkish adaptation study of the mathematical development beliefs scale. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 8(2), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2018.009 Kim, M., Han, S. J., & Kim, J. (2023). A short-form of team mindset scale: Using psychometric properties of the items. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1063541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1063541 Leder, G. C. (1985). Measurement of attitude to mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(3), 18-34. McLeod, D. B (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D.A Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.575-596). Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-60752-874-620251028 Megawanti, P., Supriyati, Y., & Tjalla, A. (2024). Development of mathematical mindset scale for mathematics education students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(4), 2139-2147. https://doi.org/ 10.11591/ijere.v13i4.27845 Op’t Eynde, P. & De Corte, E. (2004). Junior high school students’ mathematics-related belief systems: Their internal structure and external relations. [Paper presentation]. 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-10), Copenhagen, Denmark. Park, S. B. (2021). Validating a mindset scale. [Master’s thesis, University of Oslo]. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/86867/1/Sohlbin-Park-UiO-Thesis.pdf Pehkonen, E., & Pietila, A. (2003). On relationships between beliefs and knowledge in mathematics education. Europian Research in Mathematics Education 3, 1-8. Pratiwi, B. N., & Royanto, L. R. (2020). Mindset dan task value: Dapatkah memprediksi kinerja siswa Sekolah Dasar (SD) pada bidang matematika? Persona Jurnal Psikologi Indonesia, 9(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.30996/persona.v9i1.2802 Rammstedt, B., Grüning, D. J., & Lechner, C. M. (2024). Measuring growth mindset: Validation of a three-item and a single-item scale in adolescents and adults. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 40(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000735 Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012 Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teachers’ mathematics beliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576. https://doi.org/10.2307/749691 Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2(102-119), 273-290. Saragih, M. J. (2019). Perlunya belajar mata kuliah aljabar abstrak bagi mahasiswa calon guru matematika. Jurnal Cendekia, 3(2), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v3i2.104 Savickiene, I. (2010). Conception of learning outcomes in the Bloom’s Taxonomy affective domain. Quality of Higher Education, 7, 37-59. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, 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. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Exploration of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/749440 Sigmundsson, H., & Haga, M. (2024). Growth mindset scale: Aspects of reliability and validity of a new 8-item scale assessing growth mindset. New Ideas in Psychology, 75, 101111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101111 Stohlmann, M. (2022). Growth mindset in K-8 STEM education: A review of the literature since 2007. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 149-163. https://dx.doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202213029 Suh, J., Graham, S., Ferranone, T., Kopeinig, G., & Bertholet, B. (2011). Developing persistent and flexible problem solvers with a growth mindset. Motivation and Disposition: Pathways to Learning Mathematics, 73, 169-184. Sun, K. L. (2019). The mindset disconnect in mathematics teaching: A qualitative analysis of classroom instruction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 56, 100706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.04.005 Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. Ed.). Pearson Education Limited. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Ünlü, M., & Ertekin, E. (2018). Developing a geometry belief scale for middle school students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(1), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.346334 Vignoli, M., Dosi, C., & Balboni, B. (2023). Design thinking mindset: Scale development and validation. Studies in Higher Education, 48(6), 926-940. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2172566 Vitale, J. S. (2020). Student perceptions of mathematical mindset influences. [Doctoral thesis, University of New England]. https://dune.une.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1294&context=theses Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O., & Lenz, E. R. (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research. Springer Publishing Company. Yılmaz, E. (2022). Development of mindset theory scale (growth and fixed mindset): A validity and reliability study (Turkish version). Research on Education and Psychology, 6(Special Issue), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1054235 Yurt, E. (2023). Sosyal bilimlerde çok değişkenli analizler için pratik bilgiler SPSS ve AMOS uygulamaları. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Zijlmans, E. A., van der Ark, L. A., Tijmstra, J., & Sijtsma, K. (2018). Methods for estimating item-score reliability. Applied Psychological Measurement, 42(7), 553-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621618758290