Origami in Mathematics Education: The Development and Validation of an Origami-Related Self-Efficacy Scale

Abstract

The current study aims to develop and validate a scale in order to measure preservice and/or in-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding the use of origami in mathematics education. In line with this purpose, Origami in Mathematics Education Self-Efficacy Scale (OMESS) is developed and administered to 143 preservice teachers in the pilot study. Exploratory factor analysis results indicate that single dimension explains 73 percent of the total variance. In the main study, OMESS is administered to 299 preservice teachers. Obtained data is analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis techniques, and RMSEA is found to be 0.068, NC is found to be 2.37, CFI and NFI are found to be 0.99. Furthermore, Cronbach alpha coefficient for the single dimension is calculated as 0.94. Followed by the additional validation studies, OMESS might serve as a valuable tool in order to measure self-efficacy beliefs on the use of origami in mathematics education.

Kaynakça

1. Arıcı, S., & Aslan-Tutak, F. (2015). The effect of origami based instruction on spatial visualization, geometry achievement, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 179-200.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Retrieved September 3, 2011 from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/014-BanduraGuide2006.pdf
6. Boakes, N. (2009). Origami instruction in the middle school mathematics classroom: Its impact on spatial visualization and geometry knowledge of students. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32 (7), 1-12.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabi. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
8. Cipoletti, B., & Wilson, N. (2004). Turning origami into the language of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10 (1), 26-31.

9. Cornelius, V., & Tubis, A. (2009). On the effective use of origami in the mathematics classroom. In R. J. Lang (Eds.), Origami 4: Fourth international meeting of origami science, math, and education (pp. 507-515). Natick, MA: A. K. Peters.
10. 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 & Evaluation, 10 (7): retrieved online from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
11. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
12. Çakmak, S., Işıksal, M., & Koç, Y. (2014). Investigating effect of origami based mathematics instruction on elementary students’ spatial skills and perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 59-68.
13. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
14. DeYoung, M. J. (2009). Math in the box. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 15 (3), 134-141.
15. Fiol, M. L., Dasquens, N., & Prat, M. (2011). Student teachers introduce origami in kindergarten and primary schools: Froebel revisited. In P. Wang-Iverson, R. J. Lang, & M. Yim (Eds.), Origami 5: Fifth international meeting of origami science, mathematics and education (pp. 151-165). New York: CRC Press.
16. Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
17. Franco, B. (1999). Unfolding mathematics with unit origami. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.
18. Frigerio, E. (2009). Origami, isometries, and multilayer tangram. In R. J. Lang (Eds.), Origami 4: Fourth international meeting of origami science, math, and education (pp. 533-547). Natick, MA: A. K. Peters.
19. Georgeson, J. (2011). Fold in origami and unfold math. Mathematics Teaching in Middle School, 16(6), 354-361.
20. Golan, M. (2011). Origametria and the Van Hiele Theory of teaching geometry. In P. Wang-Iverson, R. J. Lang, & M. Yim (Eds.), Origami 5: Fifth international meeting of origami science, mathematics and education (pp. 141-151). New York: CRC Press.
21. Golan, M., & Jackson, P. (2010). Origametria: A program to teach geometry and to develop learning skills using the art of origami. Retrieved online from http://www.emotive.co.il/origami/db/pdf/996_golan_article.pdf
22. Hartzler, S. (2003). Ratios of linear, area, and volume measures in similar solids. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 8 (5), 228-232.
23. Higginson, W., & Colgan, L. (2001). Algebraic thinking through origami. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6(6), 343-349.
24. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). NY: Guilford Publications, Inc.
26. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (3rd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
27. Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307-332.
28. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
29. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20 (4), 426-443.
30. Pajares, F., & Miller, D. M. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
31. Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., & Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-service student-teacher self-efficacy beliefs: An insight into the making of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(12), 46-58.
32. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 893-898.
33. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
34. Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Rahimi, S. (2015). Self-efficacy and casual attributions in teachers: Effects on burnout, job satisfaction, illness, and quitting intentions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 120-130.
35. Wares, A. (2011). Using origami boxes to explore concepts of geometry and calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42 (2), 264-272.
36. Yoshioka, R. (1963). Fold paper to learn geometry. The Science News-Letter, 83 (9), 138-139.