Lisans Öğrencileri İçin Proje Derslerinde Verilen Biçimlendirici Geri Bildirim Algı Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Geçerliği

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 12, 117 - 135, 25.07.2017

Mustafa Şat

Öz

Yükseköğretim ortamlarında proje temelli yaklaşıma
yönelik gittikçe artan bir eğilim oluşmuştur. Bu nedenle, öğrencilerin biçimlendirici
geri bildirim üzerine algılarını değerlendirmek ve ölçmek, öğrencilerin grup
çalışmasında öğrenmelerinin önemli bir parçası haline gelmiştir. Öğrencilerin
çoklu kaynaklardan kendilerine verilen biçimlendirici geri bildirimi nasıl
algıladıklarını ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirme gereği
oluşmuştur. Önemli olan bu ihtiyacı karşılamak için, bu çalışmanın amacı,
lisans öğrencilerinin proje çalışması sırasında bireysel veya grup olarak
aldıkları biçimlendirici geri bildirim hakkındaki algılarına yönelik çok
boyutlu bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Üç aşamadan oluşan bu çalışmanın ilk
aşamasında 10 katılımcı ile görüşülmüş, elde edilen nitel veriler kullanılarak
ölçek maddeleri geliştirilmiştir. İkinci aşamada ölçeğin geçerliği ve güvenirliği
sağlamak için 97 lisans öğrencisinden elde edilen nicel veriler açımlayıcı
faktör analizi ile incelenmiştir. İkinci aşamada ölçeğin geçerliği ve
güvenirliğini sağlamak için 97 lisans öğrencisinden elde edilen nicel veriler
açımlayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmiştir. Analiz sonunda ortaya çıkan üç
boyut "gelişme", "anlaşılırlık ve uygunluk" ve "teşvik
etme" olarak isimlendirilmiştir. En son aşamada ise 250 öğrenciden oluşan
farklı bir desenden elde edilen veriler kullanılarak 25 maddelik ölçeğin faktör
yapısı doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile incelenmiştir. Geliştirilen bu ölçeğin
grup çalışmasına dayalı çeşitli öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin
biçimlendirici geri bildirim algılarını ölçmek için araştırmacılara,
uygulayıcılara ve akademisyenlere yarar sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

biçimlendirici geri bildirim algısı, ölçek geliştirme, lisans öğrencileri, proje tabanlı ders

Kaynakça

• Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
• Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
• Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
• Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (1st ed.). New York, NY: 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). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
• 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), 1–9.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Draper, S. W. (2009). What are learners actually regulating when given feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00930.x
• Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.4.3.272
• Fernandes, S., Flores, M. A., & Lima, R. M. (2012). Students’ views of assessment in project-led engineering education: findings from a case study in Portugal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.515015
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Gabelica, C., Bossche, P. Van Den, Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: A review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003
• Gibson, I. S. (2001). Group Project Work in Engineering DesignÐLearning Goals and their Assessment *. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(3), 261–266.
• Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey Methodology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
• Helle, L., Tynjälä, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-Based Learning in Post-Secondary Education – Theory, Practice and Rubber Sling Shots. Higher Education, 51(2), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6386-5
• Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the Message Across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230
• Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford.
• Knight, P., & Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, Learning and Employability. Maidenhead, UK: SRHE/Open University Press.
• Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548
• London, M., & Sessa, V. I. (2006). Group Feedback for Continuous Learning. Human Resource Development Review, 5(3), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484306290226
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• O’connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
• Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: the students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601127869
• Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback : all that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
• Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830280103
• Razmov, V., & Vlasseva, S. (2004). Feedback Techniques for Project-based Courses.
• Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student Perceptions and Preferences for Feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n3p78
• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
• Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative Assessment : revisiting the territory Formative Assessment : revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84.
• Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62(3), 763–70. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
• 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.
• Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science Education, 36(1–2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
• Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (5th ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
• Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
• Taras, M. (2002). Using Assessment for Learning and Learning from Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000020273
• Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – Summative and Formative – Some Theoretical Reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
• Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
• Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061
• Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
• Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.99.3.432