A Study on the Development of an Attitude Scale Towards the Use of PowerPoint in Classroom

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 4, 1237 - 1246, 15.07.2018

Sakıp Kahraman Durmuş Özbaşı Muzaffer Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.434168

Cited By: 2

Öz

The research was
designed to develop a reliable and valid instrument that would serve to measure
undergraduates’ attitude towards PowerPoint (PP), which is used as a teaching
tool in classrooms. The data needed for reliability and validity analysis were
collected from students enrolled at a middle-sized university in the
northwestern Turkey. To determine construct validity of the instrument,
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted using the data from 341
students and a 26-item three-factor model was extracted. Then, the 26-item
three-factor model obtained from the EFA was cross-validated by performing Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) on the data from a different group of 303 students in the
same population and the results revealed acceptable model fits. Reliability
coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for the whole scale was found to be .96. The
results indicated that the instrument was sufficiently reliable and valid to
measure undergraduates’ attitudes towards PP, used as a teaching tool in
classrooms.

Anahtar Kelimeler

PowerPoint, attitude scale, validity and reliability

PowerPoint’in Derste Kullanılmasına İlişkin Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırma üniversite öğrencilerinin
derslerde öğretim aracı olarak kullanılan PowerPoint’e (PP) karşı tutumlarını
belirlemeye yönelik olarak geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmek için tasarlanmıştır.
Ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması için gerekli olan veriler, Türkiye’nin
kuzeybatısındaki orta büyüklükteki bir üniversitede öğrenim görmekte olan öğrencilerden
toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğini belirlemek için 341 öğrenciden toplanan
veriler kullanılarak Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) yapılmış ve 26 maddelik üç
alt boyutlu bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Aynı evrenden 303 öğrenciden oluşan
farklı bir gruptan elde edilen veriler üzerinde Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi
(DFA) yapılarak AFA’dan elde edilen 26 maddelik üç alt boyutlu modelin çapraz
geçerliği test edilmiştir. Sonuçlar model uyumunun kabul edilebilir olduğunu
göstermiştir. Geliştirilen ölçeğin iç tutarlılık katsayısı (Cronbach’s Alpha)
ölçeğin tamamı için .96 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar geliştirilen
ölçeğin öğrencilerin öğretim aracı olarak kullanılan PP’ye karşı tutumlarını
ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olarak kullanılabileceğine işaret
etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

PowerPoint, tutum ölçeği, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Kaynakça

• Akdag, M., & Tok, H. (2008). The effects of traditional instruction and PowerPoint presentation-supported instruction on student's achievement. Science and Education, 33(147), 26-34.
• Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz, M. (2005). Türetimci çoklu ortam öğrenme kuramı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 9-18.
• Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students’ experience in the classroom. Computers & Education, 47(1), 116-126.
• Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2008). An assessment of student preferences for PowerPoint presentation structure in undergraduate courses. Computers & Education, 50(1), 148-153.
• Atkins-Sayre, W., Hopkins, S., Mohundro, S., & Sayre, W. (November, 1998). Rewards and Liabilities of Presentation Software as an Ancillary Tool: Prison or Paradise?. Paper presented at the National Communication Association Eighty Fourth Annual Convention, New York
• Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77-86.
• Brock, S., & Joglekar, Y. (2011). Empowering PowerPoint: Slides and teaching effective-ness. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6(1), 85-94.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
• Chen, J., & Lin, T. F. (2008). Does downloading PowerPoint slides before the lecture lead to better student achievement?. International Review of Economics Education, 7(2), 9-18.
• 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.
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods appro-aches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cudeck, R., Du Toit, S.H.C. & Sörbom, D. (Editörs, 2001). Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.
• Daniels, L., Kane, J., & Rosario, B. (2007, January). The impact of PowerPoint on student performance, course evaluations, and student preferences in economics courses: an experi-ment at three institutions. Allied Social Science Association Meeting, Chicago, Illionis.
• De Wet, C. F. (2006). Beyond presentations: Using PowerPoint as an effective instructional tool. Gifted Child Today, 29(4), 29-39.
• El Khoury, R. M., & Mattar, D. M. (2012). PowerPoint in Accounting Classrooms: Constructive or Destructive? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(10), 240-259.
• Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme–I: Temel kavramlar. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları
• Fidan, M. E., (2012). Üniversitelerde muhasebe dersini PowerPoint sunumu ve klasik yöntem ile alan öğrenciler arasındaki farklılıklar: Bilecik Üniversitesi örneği. Journal of Yasar Uni-versity, 25(7) 4281-4306.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage publications.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallend, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Frey, B. A., & Birnbaum, D. J. (2002). Learners' perceptions on the value of PowerPoint in lectures. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467192).
• Harrison, A. (1998). Power up! Stimulating your students with PowerPoint. Learning and Leading with Technology, 26, 6-10.
• Holzl, J. (1997). Twelve tips for effective PowerPoint presentations for the technologically challenged. Medical Teacher, 19(3), 175-179.
• Jöroskop, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with SIMPLIS command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International, Inc.
• Kahraman, S., Çevik, C., & Kodan, H. (2011). Investigation of university students’ attitude toward the use of PowerPoint according to some variables. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1341-1347.
• Katz, D (1967). “The functional approach to the study of attitude” reading in attitude theory and measurement. Ed. M.Fishbein . New York: John Wiley&Sons, Inc. 32-38
• Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures-effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18-21.
• Mantei, E. J. (2000). Using Internet class notes and PowerPoint in the physical geology lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 301-305.
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press.
• Meo, S. A., Shahabuddin, S., Al Masri, A. A., Ahmed, S. M., Aqil, M., Anwer, M. A., & Al-Drees, A. M. (2013). Comparison of the impact of PowerPoint and chalkboard in undergra-duate medical teaching: an evidence based study. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 23(1), 47-50.
• Metin, M., Yilmaz, G. K., Coskun, K., & Birisci, S. (2012). Developing an attitude scale towards using instructional technologies for pre-service teachers. The Turkish Online Jour-nal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 36-45.
• Noppe, I., Achterberg, J., Duquaine, L., Huebbe, M., & Williams, C. (2007). PowerPoint presentation handouts and college student learning outcomes. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-11.
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford. England: Oxford University Press
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
• Pratkanis, A. R. & Greenwald, A.G. (1989) A sociocognitive model of attitude structure and function. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, 22, SanDiego, Academic Press:245-286
• Priya, M. M. (2012). PowerPoint use in teaching. Retreived from 07 May 2017 from http://www.cs.iit.edu/~cs561/spring2012/PowerPoint/ChenQ.pdf
• Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173-184.
• Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values; a theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
• Rowcliffe, S. (2003). Using PowerPoint effectively in science education: lessons from research and guidance for the classroom. School Science Review, 84, 69-76.
• Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858-867.
• Seth, V., Upadhyaya, P., Ahmad, M., & Moghe, V. (2010). PowerPoint or chalk and talk: Perceptions of medical students versus dental students in a medical college in In-dia. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 1, 11-16.
• Sherif, M. & Sherif, C. W. (1996). Sosyal psikolojiye giriş II. Çeviri: Mustafa Atakay ve Aysun Yılmaz. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar.
• Sugahara, S., & Boland, G. (2006). The effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in the accounting classroom. Accounting Education, 15(4), 391-403.
• Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203-215.
• Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1228-1239.
• Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we repla-ce the blackboard with PowerPoint?. Computers & Education, 35(3), 175-187.
• Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics of social sciences. (Third Edition). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. (Üçüncü baskı) Nobel yayın dağıtım: Ankara.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
• Uz, Ç., Orhan, F., & Bilgiç, G. (2010). Prospective teachers’ opinions on the value of Power-Point presentations in lecturing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2051-2059.
• Voss, D. (2004). Points of view: PowerPoint in the classroom PowerPoint in the classroom, Is it really necessary?. Cell Biology Education, 3(3), 155-156.
• Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chien, W. R., Chien, Y. T., & Tseng, Y. H. (2013). Tracking learners' visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real classroom. Computers & Education, 62, 208-220.