Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamları İhtiyaç Analizi Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada, Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamları (ODÖO) dersi için bir ihtiyaç analizi ölçeği geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada yöntem olarak keşfedici sıralı karma desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın nitel boyutunun çalışma grubunu 34 uzman ve nicel boyutunun çalışma grubunu 255 üniversite öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın ilk aşamasında “Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamları İhtiyaç Analizi Ölçeği”nin maddelerini belirlemek için Delphi tekniğinden yararlanılmıştır. Ardından ikinci aşama olan geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Bunun için sırasıyla; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Barlett Küresellik Testi, Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA), Cronbach’s Alpha, madde toplam korelasyonu, Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) işlemleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) uygulanarak Okul Dışı Öğrenme Ortamları İhtiyaç Analizi Ölçeği (ODÖOİAÖ)’nin son haliyle oluşan 42 maddelik ölçek yapısı incelenmiş ve ölçeğin iki faktörlü bir yapı sergilediği tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin tümünün Cronbach’s Alfa değeri .95 olarak hesaplanmış olup birinci alt boyut olan “Öğrenme Çıktıları”nın Cronbach’s Alfa değeri .95 ve ikinci alt boyut olan “Dersin İçeriği”nin .94’tür. İlgili değerler dikkate alındığında ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) ile test edildiğinde, ODÖOİAÖ’nün iki alt faktörden oluşan bir yapıya sahip olduğu sonucu doğrulanmıştır. Bu ölçek, ODÖO dersi için ihtiyaç analizinin gerçekleştirilmesine yönelik değerli bir araç olarak hizmet etmekte, öğretim programlarının planlaması ve öğretim süreçlerinin geliştirilmesi için kanıta dayalı bulgular sunmakta ve eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin okul dışı öğrenme için gerekli bilgi ve becerilere yönelik yeterliliklerini değerlendirmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okul dışı öğrenme
• okul dışı öğrenme ortamları dersi
• ihtiyaç analizi
• ölçek geliştirme
• geçerlik ve güvenirlik

Development of the Out-of-School Learning Environments Needs Analysis Scale

Öz

The aim of this study is to develop a needs analysis scale for the Out-of-School Learning Environments (OSLE) course. An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was used in the study. The qualitative phase of the study involved 34 experts, while the quantitative phase included 255 university students. In the first stage, the Delphi technique was utilized to determine the items of the Out-of-School Learning Environments Needs Analysis Scale. In the second stage, validity and reliability analyses were conducted. Specifically, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Cronbach's Alpha, item-total correlation, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed sequentially. Following Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the final 42-item scale structure of Out-of-School Learning Environments Needs Analysis Scale (OSLENAS) was examined, revealing a two-factor structure. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the entire scale was calculated as 0.95, with the first sub-dimension ("Learning Outcomes") yielding 0.95, and the second sub-dimension ("Course Content") yielding 0.94. When these reliability coefficients were further evaluated and tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), it was confirmed that the Out-of-School Learning Environments Needs Analysis Scale has a two-factor structure. The scale serves as a valuable instrument for conducting the needs analysis of the OSLE course, providing evidence-based insights for curriculum planning and instructional improvements and assessing the competencies of education faculty students regarding their knowledge and skills required for out-of-school learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Out-of-school learning
• out-of-school learning environments course
• needs analysis
• scale development
• validity and reliability.

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, H. (2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. Encyclopedia for research methods for the social sciences. Sage.
2. Allison, P. (2016). Six waves of outdoor education and still in a state of confusion: Dominant thinking and category mistakes. Kwartalnik Pedagogiczny, 2, 176–184.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2018). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2014 ed., reprint 2018). American Educational Research Association.
4. Anjum, S. (2021). Impact of extracurricular activities on academic performance of students at secondary level. International Journal of Applied Guidance and Counseling, 2(2), 7-14.
5. Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 5–18.
6. Bayraktar, M. M., & Bayraktar, S. B. (2023). Din öğretiminde okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarının incelenmesi: Kırşehir Kültür Varlıkları ve Sanat Eserleri Örneği. Türkiye İlahiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 315-339.
7. Beames, S., Higgins, P., & Nicol, R. (2012). Learning outside the classroom: Theory and guidelines for practice. Routledge.
8. Becker, C., Lauterbach, G., Spengler, S., Dettweiler, U., & Mess, F. (2017). Effects of regular classes in outdoor education settings: A systematic review on students’ learning, social and health dimensions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 485.

9. Behrendt, M., & Franklin, T. (2014). A review of research on school field trips and their value in education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 9(3), 235–245.
10. Bolat, Y., & Köroğlu, M. (2020). Out-of-school learning and scale of regulating out-of-school learning: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 5(13), 1630–1663.
11. Brody, M., Bangert, A., & Dillon, J. (2007). Assessing learning in informal science contexts. Commissioned paper by the NRC for Science Learning in Informal Environments Committee. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228382063_Assessing_learning_in_informal_science_contexts
12. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
13. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2011). Quantitative data analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
14. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Yayınları.
16. Chuenjitwongsa, S., Poolthong, S., Bullock, A., & Oliver, R. G. (2017). Developing common competencies for Southeast Asian general dental practitioners. Journal of Dental Education, 81(9), 1114–1123.
17. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
18. Colwell, J., Woodward, L., & Hutchison, A. (2018). Out-of-school reading and literature discussion: An exploration of adolescents’ participation in digital book clubs. Online Learning, 22(2), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1222
19. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. L. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum.
20. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
21. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
22. Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
23. Çağlayan, E. (2020). Sanat eğitiminin geleceğinde okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarının yeri ve önemi. İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi, 5(2), 145–158.
24. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (3. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
25. Dalkey, N. C., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.
26. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
27. Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 401–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
28. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
29. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2017). Supporting literacy in out-of-school time: Best practices and strategies. National Institute on Out-of-School Time. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589376.pdf
30. Ene, C. U., Ugwuanyi, C. S., Okeke, C. I., Nworgu, B. G., Okeke, A. O., Agah, J. J., & Ekwueme, U. H. (2021). Factorial validation of teachers' self-efficacy scale using pre-service teachers: Implications for teacher education curriculum. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(1), 113–121.
31. Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
32. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6pt2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
33. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
34. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
35. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
36. Görgen, İ. (2019). Program geliştirmede temel kavramlar. In H. Şeker (Ed.), Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kavramlar ve yaklaşımlar. Anı Yayıncılık.
37. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
38. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
39. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (4), 1008-1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
40. Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and outward bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67, 43–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001043
41. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
42. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485
43. Ho, S., Atencio, M., Tan, Y. S. M., & Ching, C. T. (2015). The inclusion of outdoor education in the formal school curriculum: Singapore’s journey. In Routledge international handbook of outdoor studies (pp. 277-287). Routledge.
44. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
45. Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10
46. 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
47. Humphrey-Murto, S., Varpio, L., Gonsalves, C., & Wood, T. J. (2017). Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Medical Teacher, 39(1), 14–19.
48. Izgi-Onbasili, U. (2020). Investigation of the effects of out-of-school learning environments on the attitudes and opinions of prospective classroom teachers about renewable energy sources. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH, 6(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.670049
49. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575
50. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
51. Koyuncu, İ., & Kılıç, A. F. (2019). Açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanımı: Bir doküman incelemesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(198).
52. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
53. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1-8. sınıflar). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=7
54. Moje, E. B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2012). Adolescent literacy development in out-of-school time: A practitioner’s guidebook. National Center for Literacy Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535304.pdf
55. Mygind, E. A. (2007). Comparison between children’s physical activity levels at school and learning in an outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 2, 161–176.
56. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
57. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
58. Obanya, P. (1984). Integrating environmental education into the school curriculum. Educafrica (English Version) Bulletin of the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Africa, 163–171.
59. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.
60. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
61. Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 553–576.
62. Power, S., Taylor, C., Rees, G., & Jones, K. (2009). Out-of-school learning: Variations in provision and participation in secondary schools. Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520802584095
63. Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: Expert consensus on issues and research priorities. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 75–89.
64. Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2000). Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 1, 308–315.
65. Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council. https://www.field-studies-council.org/media/268859/2004_a_review_of_research_on_outdoor_learning.pdf
66. Rossman, M., & Carey, D. (1995). Yetişkin eğitimi ve Delphi tekniği: Açıklama ve uygulama. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(7), 233–237.
67. Salmi, H. S. (1993). Science centre education: Motivation and learning in informal education. Helsingin Yliopisto. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED363613
68. 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.
69. Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653
70. Senemoğlu, N. (2020). Gelişim, öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan uygulamaya. Anı Yayıncılık.
71. Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
72. Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5(1), 1–25.
73. Şahin, A. E. (2001). Eğitim araştırmalarında Delphi tekniği ve kullanımı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(20), 215–220. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a22a/e29ef58510cb47ec6042152fc2ae41495651.pdf
74. Şen, A. İ. (2023). Okul dışı öğrenme nedir? In A. İ. Şen (Ed.), Okul dışı öğrenme ortamları (3rd ed., pp. 2–20). Pegem Akademi.
75. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
76. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
77. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
78. Tösten, R. (2024). Okul dışı eğitim ve öğrenme. In A. Küçükoğlu & H. İ. Kaya (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya okul dışı öğrenme ortamları (pp. 2–21). Pegem Akademi.
79. Türkmen, H. (2010). İnformal (sınıf dışı) fen bilgisi eğitimine tarihsel bakış ve eğitimimize entegrasyonu. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(39), 46–59.
80. Vaughan, A. (2020). Conceptualizing scholarship on adolescent out‐of‐school writing toward more equitable teaching and learning: A literature review. The Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(5), 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1009
81. Waite, S., Bølling, M., & Bentsen, P. (2015). Comparing apples and pears? A conceptual framework for understanding forms of outdoor learning through comparison of English forest schools and Danish udeskole. Environmental Education Research, 1–25.
82. Wistoft, K. (2013). The desire to learn as a kind of love: Gardening, cooking, and passion in outdoor education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 13, 125–141.
83. Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and conducting needs assessments: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.