Araştırma Topluluğu Ölçeğinin Türkçe'ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarının etkililiğini ortaya koymak için geliştirilen Araştırma Topluluğu Ölçeğini, Türkçe’ye uyarlayarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasını gerçekleştirmektir. Özgün formu İngilizce olan ölçek, üç faktör (bilişsel buradalık, toplumsal buradalık ve öğretimsel buradalık) ve 34 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Ölçek, öncelikle yazar tarafından Türkçe’ye çevrilmiş, hem özgün hem de Türkçe formu, dil ve alan uzmanlarına incelettirilmiştir. Bu işlemle öncelikle Türkçe dil eşdeğerliği; sonra alan uzmanlarının önerileri ışığında ölçeğin kapsam geçerliği sağlanmıştır. Ardından yapı geçerliğini saptamak üzere, çevrimiçi ve karma ders deneyimi olan 140 öğrenciden elde edilen veriler üzerinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, ölçeğin üç faktörden oluştuğunu doğrulamış ve ölçeğin uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğunu göstermiştir. Son olarak aracın güvenirliği Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı ile değerlendirilmiş ve faktörlere ilişkin iç tutarlık katsayılarının .79 ile .91 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma topluluğu ölçeği, toplumsal buradalık, bilişsel buradalık, öğretimsel buradalık

An Adaptation of the Community of Inquiry Index: The Study of Validity and Reliability

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of The Community of Inquiry Index in a group of Turkish college students. The original questionnaire is in English and is composed of three factors (cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence) with 34 items. First of all, the original questionnaire was translated into Turkish by the author, and experts’ opinions in terms of language, content, measurement and evaluation were concidered. Finally, the Turkish version was administered to a group of university students (n=140) who were experienced in online learning or blended learning. The factor structure of the inventory was conducted through the confirmatory factor analysis. The findings of the analysis showed that the factor structures of the inventory, which have three sub scales and 34 items, were similar to the original inventory. The internal consistency values of scales range between .79 and .91.

Keywords

• community of inquiry instrument,social presence,cognitive presence and teaching presence

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, Z. Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K. (2009). A Response to the Review of the Community of Inquiry Framework. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 123-136.
2. Anagnostopoulos, D., Basmadjian, K. G., & McCrory, R. S. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 107, 1699−1729.
3. Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Teaching Presence in a Computer Conferecing Context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environment. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 57-68.
4. Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 73−85.
5. Arbaugh, J.B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S.R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P., Richardson, J.C., & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education. 11 (3-4), 133-136.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri çözümlemesi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
7. Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 1019-1031.
8. Comrey, A. L. & Lee, H. B., (1992). A first course in factor analiysis, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

9. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
10. Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4-36.
11. De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46,6–28.
12. Garrison, D. R. (2006). Cognitive presence for effective asyncronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. (August, 30). [Online]: Retrieved on 25August-2006, at URL: http://www.communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/SLOAN%20CP%20Chapter%202003.doc
13. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
14. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, (2-3), 87-105
15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
16. Garrison, D.R. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among cognitive, social and teaching presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.
17. Gorsky, P., Caspi, A. Antonovsky, A., Blau, I., & Mansur, A. (2010). The Relationship between Academic Discipline and Dialogic Behavior in Open University Course Forums. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2).
18. Ice, P., Gibson, A.M., Boston, W. & Becher, D. (2011). An Exploration of Differences between Community of Indicators in Low and High Disenrollment Online Courses. Journal of Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(2).
19. Joo, Y.J., Lim, K.Y., & Kim, E.K. (2011). Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education, 57, 1654–1664.
20. Jöreskog, K. G. ve Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
21. Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education Spring, 15(2), 30-49.
22. Kalaycı, Ş, (2005). SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Asil Yayın Dağıtım, İstanbul,
23. Kline, R. B., (1998). Principles and Practise of Structural Equation Modeling: a Researcher’s Guide, Guilford Press, New York.
24. Oriogun, P. K., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005). Validating an approach to examining cognitive engagement in online groups. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 197−214.
25. Öztürk, E. (2009). Çevrimiçi öğrenme topluluklarında iletişim aracı türünün ve sanal konukların bilişsel ve toplumsal buradalık üzerindeki etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
26. Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 397-431). (2nd ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8–22.
28. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleme: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 3(6), 49-74.
29. Şimşek, Ö. F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş. temel ilkeler ve lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Ekinoks.
30. Tu, C. (2007). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45 – 60.
31. Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). Research in online learning community. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology (e-Jist), (5) 1. [Online]: Retrieved on 25-July-2011, at URL: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/Vol5_No1/chtu.html
32. Ubon, N.A., & Kimble, C. (2003). “Supporting the creation of social presence in online learning communities using asynchronous text-based CMC” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 3rd International Conference on Technology in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Heidelberg, Germany.
33. Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1).
34. Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, & learning. Journal of Educational computing Research, 31, 247−271.
35. Zydney, J. M., deNoyelle, A., & Kyeong-Ju Seo, K. (2012). Creating a community of inquiry in online environments: An exploratory study on the effect of a protocol on interactions within asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education. 58 (1), 77–87.