Turkish Adaptation Study of Mathematics-Gender Stereotypes Scale

Öz

The purpose of this study was to adapt the Mathematics-Gender Misconceptions Scale (MGMS) developed to assess teachers' and pre-service teachers' gender-based misconceptions in mathematics and to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish form. The participants of the study were 271 mathematics teaching students studying at a university in western Turkey. The convenience sampling method was used to form the study group. The construct validity of the Turkish version of MGMS was examined by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The goodness-of-fit indices revealed by CFA indicate that the Turkish form of the measurement tool has a three-factor structure that can be summed similar to the original form and that the goodness of fit of the three-factor model is high. In addition to Cronbach's Alpha coefficients, McDonald Omega coefficients were also calculated in order to examine the reliability of the whole Turkish form and its sub-dimensions. It was found that the empathizing-systemizing dimension had a Cronbach's Alpha internal consistency coefficient of .96, the girls’ compensation dimension had a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of .94, the girls’ non-compensability dimension had a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of .84, and the whole scale had a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of .96. The McDonald Omega coefficients for empathizing-systemizing, girls’ compensation, girls’ non-compensability, and the whole scale were .93, .91, .85, and .94, respectively. These findings indicate that the reliability of the entire Turkish form of the MGMS and its three sub-dimensions is at a high level. Considering that the participants of this study were pre-service mathematics teachers, it is thought that it would be useful to examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish form of the MGMS in a sample of mathematics teachers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• gender stereotypes
• misconceptions
• mathematics
• scale adaptation

Matematik-Toplumsal Cinsiyet Kavram Yanılgıları Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin ve öğretmen adaylarının matematik alanındaki toplumsal cinsiyet temelli kavram yanılgılarını değerlendirmek için geliştirilen Matematik-Toplumsal Cinsiyet Kavram Yanılgıları Ölçeğinin uyarlanması ve Türkçe formun psikometrik özelliklerini incelemektir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları Türkiye’nin batısında yer alan bir üniversitede öğrenim gören 271 matematik öğretmenliği bölümü öğrencisidir. Çalışma grubunun oluşturulmasında kolay örnekleme (convenience sampling) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Matematik-Toplumsal Cinsiyet Kavram Yanılgıları Ölçeği (M-TCKYÖ) Türkçe formunun yapı geçerliği doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) ile incelenmiştir. DFA ile ortaya konan uyum iyiliği indeksleri ölçme aracının Türkçe formunun orijinal form ile benzer şekilde, toplanabilir nitelikte üç faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğuna ve üç faktörlü modelin uyum iyiliğinin yüksek olduğuna işaret etmektedir. M-TCKYÖ Türkçe formunun tamamının ve alt boyutlarının güvenirliğini incelemek amacıyla Cronbach Alfa katsayılarının yanında McDonald Omega katsayıları da hesaplanmıştır. Empati kurma-sistemleştirme boyutunun .96, kızlar için telafi boyutunun .94, kızlar için telafi edilemezlik boyutunun .84 ve ölçeğin bütününün .96 Cronbach Alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısına sahip olduğu bulunmuştur. Empati kurma-sistemleştirme, kızlar için telafi, kızlar için telafi edilemezlik boyutlarına ve ölçeğin tamamına ilişkin McDonald Omega katsayıları ise sırasıyla .93, .91, .85 ve .94 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu bulgular, M-TCKYÖ Türkçe formunun tamamının ve üç alt boyutunun güvenirliğinin yüksek düzeyde olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışmanın katılımcılarının matematik öğretmen adayları olduğu göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, M-TCKYÖ Türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin matematik öğretmenlerinden oluşan bir örneklemde de incelenmesinin yararlı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• toplumsal cinsiyet kalıp yargıları
• kavram yanılgıları
• matematik
• ölçek uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. Akgündüz, D., Ertepınar, H., Ger, A. M., & Türk, Z. (2018). STEM eğitiminin öğretim programına entegrasyonu: Çalıştay raporu. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi.
2. Başpınar, F. U., & Pehlivanlı Kadayıfçı, E. (2021). Türkiye’de Katılımcı Demokrasinin Güçlendirilmesi: Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliğinin İzlenmesi Projesi Faz-II (Bilim, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik Alanlarında Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Haritalama ve İzleme Çalışması). Ankara: CEİD Cinsiyet Eşitliği İzleme Derneği.
3. 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.
4. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anxiety affects girls’ math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(5), 1860-1863.
5. Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers' beliefs matter 12 years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 97.
6. Brown, C. S. (2019). Sexualized gender stereotypes predict girls’ academic self-efficacy and motivation across middle school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(6), 523-529.
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (8. Baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
8. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic applications and programs. Erlbaum

9. Contini, D., Di Tommaso, M. L., & Mendolia, S. (2017). The gender gap in mathematics achievement: Evidence from Italian data. Economics of Education Review, 58, 32-42.
10. Dersch, A. S., Heyder, A., & Eitel, A. (2022). Exploring the nature of teachers’ math-gender stereotypes: The math-gender misconception questionnaire. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 820254.
11. Dey, J. G., & Hill, C. (2007). Beyond the pay gap. American Association of University Women Educational Foundation
12. Dökmen, Z. Y. (2010). Toplumsal cinsiyet (2. basım). Remzi Kitabevi.
13. Eccles, J. S. (2015). Gendered socialization of STEM interests in the family. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 7(2), 116-132.
14. Eccles, J. S., & Wang, M. T. (2016). What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 100-106.
15. Eitel, A., Prinz, A., Kollmer, J., Niessen, L., Russow, J., Ludäscher, M., Renkl, A., & Lindner, M. A. (2021). The Misconceptions About Multimedia Learning Questionnaire: An Empirical Evaluation Study with Teachers and Student Teachers. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 20(3), 420-444. https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257211028723
16. Epstein, C. F. (1970). Encountering the male establishment: Sex-status limits on women’s careers in the professions. American Journal of Sociology, 75(6), s. 965-982.
17. Escovar, E., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Uddin, L. Q., & Menon, V. (2016). The empathizing-systemizing theory, social abilities, and mathematical achievement in children. Scientific reports, 6(1), 23011.
18. Esen, Y. (2015). Toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği ve eğitim. Kemal Matbaası.
19. Fennema, E., & Hart, L. E. (1994). Gender and the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 648-659.
20. Ganley, C. M., George, C. E., Cimpian, J. R., & Makowski, M. B. (2018). Gender equity in college majors: Looking beyond the STEM/Non-STEM dichotomy for answers regarding female participation. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3), 453-487.
21. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. Routledge.
22. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). New directions for research on the role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes: Response to commentaries. Sex Roles, 66, 191-196.
23. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Holder, K., & Kessels, U. (2017). Gender and ethnic stereotypes in student teachers’ judgments: A new look from a shifting standards perspective. Social psychology of education, 20, 471-490.
24. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
25. Jöreskog, K. G., Olsson, U. H., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In Multivariate analysis with LISREL (pp. 283-339). Springer series in statistics. Springer, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-33153-9_7
26. Johnson, H. J., Barnard-Brak, L., Saxon, T. F., & Johnson, M. K. (2012). An experimental study of the effects of stereotype threat and stereotype lift on men and women's performance in mathematics. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(2), 137- 149.
27. Keller, J. (2002). Blatant stereotype threat and women's math performance: Self-handicapping as a strategic means to cope with obtrusive negative performance expectations. Sex Roles, 47(3), 193-198.
28. Kessels, U., Heyder, A., Latsch, M., & Hannover, B. (2014). How gender differences in academic engagement relate to students’ gender identity. Educational Research, 56, 219–228. doi:10.1080/ 00131881.2014.898916
29. Koçer, D., & Örmeci, L. (2024). Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Teknoloji Alanında Oluşan Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği. 11 Ekim 2024 tarihinde https://kockam.ku.edu.tr/en/turkiyede-dunyada-teknoloji-alaninda-olusan-toplumsal-cinsiyet-esitsizligi adresinden alındı.
30. Larkin, D. (2012), Misconceptions about “misconceptions”: Preservice secondary science teachers' views on the value and role of student ideas. Sci. Ed., 96: 927-959. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21022
31. Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociology of education, 87(4), 259-280.
32. Li, Q. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41(1), 63-76.
33. Li, J., Faisal, E., & Al Hariri, A. (2022). Numbers for boys and words for girls? Academic gender stereotypes among chinese parents. Sex Roles, 87(5), 306-326.
34. Maccoby, E. E. (2002). The intersection of nature and socialization in childhood gender development. In C. von Hofsten & L. Baeckman (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium, Vol. 2: Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 37-52). Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
35. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519- 530.
36. Mindrila, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60-66.
37. Mizala, A., Canals, C., & Ortega, C. (2023). Promoting gender equity in and through education (Educational Practices Series, 36). UNESCO International Bureau of Education (IBE) https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388037
38. Navarro, M., Martin, A., & Gómez-Arízaga, M. P. (2022). Profiles of pre-service primary teachers: attitudes, self-efficacy, and gender stereotypes in teaching science and mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1), em2062.
39. Nurlu, Ö. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin matematiğe ilişkin cinsiyet kalıp yargılarının belirlenmesi ve öğrencilere yansımalarının incelenmesi. Doktora tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara. Nürnberger, M., Nerb, J., Schmitz, F., Keller, J., & Sütterlin, S. (2016). Implicit gender stereotypes and essentialist beliefs predict preservice teachers’ tracking recommendations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(1), 152-174.
40. Régner, I., Steele, J. R., Ambady, N., Thinus-Blanc, C., & Huguet, P. (2014). Our future scientists: A review of stereotype threat in girls from early elementary school to middle school. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 27(3), 13-51.
41. Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., & Copur-Gencturk, Y. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of students’ mathematics proficiency may exacerbate early gender gaps in achievement. Developmental psychology, 50(4), 1262.
42. Sáinz, M., Fàbregues, S., & Solé, J. (2020). Parent and teacher depictions of gender gaps in secondary student appraisals of their academic competences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 573752.
43. 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.
44. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. L. L. Erlbaum Associates.
45. Skočajić, M. M., Radosavljević, J. G., Okičić, M. G., Janković, I. O., & Žeželj, I. L. (2020). Boys just don’t! Gender stereotyping and sanctioning of counter-stereotypical behavior in preschoolers. Sex Roles, 82, 163-172.
46. Sarı, M. H., & Solak, A. (2024). Matematik Kaygısının ve Matematik Performansının Ardındaki Örtük Nedenler: Cinsiyet Kalıp Yargısının Rolü. Yaşadıkça Eğitim, 38(3), 702–720. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2024383803
47. Starr, C. R., & Simpkins, S. D. (2021). High school students’ math and science gender stereotypes: Relations with their STEM outcomes and socializers’ stereotypes. Social Psychology of Education, 24(1), 273-298.
48. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate behavioral research, 25(2), 173-180.
49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate analysis. Allyn and Bacon. Tucker, L. R, & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
50. West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. Handbook of structural equation modeling, 1(1), 209-231.
51. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J., Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of educational psychology, 89(3), 451.