Turkish Adaptation Of Writing Self-Efficacy Scale

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 5, 2233 - 2242, 15.09.2019

Meryem Yılmaz Soylu Buket Akkoyunlu

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3423

Cited By: 8

Öz

The purpose of this study was to adapt Self-Efficacy of Writing Scale (Bruning et. al, 2013) to Turkish and to examine its psy-chometric reliability and validity. The original scale consisted of 16 items and has three sub-scales naming convention, ideation and self-regulation. The authors worked with Turkish experts and the authors of the original scale to assess linguistic validity of translated scale. Six hundred forty-eight middle school students filled the Turkish version of the scale.  Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine construct validity.  Analyses showed that adapted scale has 3 sub-scales including 13 items total. For internal reliability of each sub-scales, Cronbach Alpha coefficient were calculated. Cronbach Alpha coefficient for convention sub-scale was .82, this coefficient was .87 and .84 for ideation and self-regulation sub-scales respectively. Overall, analyses showed that Turkish version of Self-Efficacy of Writing Scale was linguistically and psychometrically valid and reliable to measure writing self-efficacy. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

self-efficacy, writing self-efficacy, writing, convention, ideation, self-regulation, scale adaptation

Yazma Öz-Yeterlik Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Bruning ve arkadaşları (2013) tarafından geliştirilen Yazma Öz-yeterliği Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanarak yazma öz-yeterliğini ölçmede psiko-metrik olarak geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olup olmadığını değerlendirmektir. Aktarma, fikir üretme ve öz-düzenleme alt ölçeklerine sahip orijinal ölçek 16 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Dil geçerliği için alandaki uzmanlar ve ölçeği geliştiren grupla çalışılmıştır. Ölçeğin Türkçe formu 648 ortaokul öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda, uyarlanan ölçeğin 13 maddeden ve orijinal ölçekteki gibi üç boyuttan oluştuğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Alt ölçeklere ait iç tutarlık (Cronbach Alfa) katsayıları hesaplanmıştır. Aktarma boyutunda iç tutarlığın .82, fikir üretme alt boyutunda .87 ve öz-düzenleme boyutunda da .84 olduğu bulunmuştur. Analiz sonuçları, Türkçeye uyarlanan Yazma Öz-yeterliği Ölçeğinin yazma öz-yeterliğini ölçmede dil eşdeğerliği olan geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

: öz yeterlik, yazma öz-yeterliği, yazma, aktarma, fikir üretme, öz-düzenleme, ölçek uyarlama

Kaynakça

• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Aşkar, P., & Mazman, S. G. (2013). Çevrimiçi Bilgi Arama Stratejileri Envanteri’ nin Türkçeye uyarlama çalışma-sı. Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(168), 168-182.
• Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist. 28, 117-148.
• Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.). Self-Efficacy Beliefs Of Adolescents. (Vol. 5., pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Beghetto, R. A. (2005). Does assessment kill student creativity? The Educational Forum,69(2), 254-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984694
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(1), 25.
• Bruning, R. (2017, Ekim 9). Kişisel iletişim
• Conley, D.T. (2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college readiness. Eugene, OR, Educational Policy Improvement Center.
• Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity in the classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Cropley, A. J. (1997). Fostering creativity in the classroom. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), The creativity research handbook (pp. 83-114). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Demir, T. (2014). Yazma öz yeterlik ölçeğinin türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması,E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi,1(2), 28-35.
• Dempsey, M., Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D. (2010). An empirical test of a new model of self-efficacy for writing. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
• Faris, K. A., Golen, S. P., & Lynch, D. H. (1999). Writing apprehension in beginning accounting majors. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(2), 9-22.

• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120 –160. doi:10.1177/ 0741088384001001006
• Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creative Research Journal,1, 8-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400418809534284
• Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all students. Retrieved from http:// doc. ren-learn.com/KMNet/R004250923GJCF33.pdf
• Güneş, F., Kuşdemir, Y. ve Bulut, P. (2017). Yazma Öz Yeterlik Ölçeğinin psikometrik özellikleri. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 58, 101-114.
• Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Brindle, M., & Sandmel, K. (2009). Metacognition and children’s writing. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 131–153). New York, NY: Ro-utledge.
• Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Hand-book of writing research (pp. 28–40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Herrington, A., Hodgson, K. & Moran, C. (2009). Teaching the new writing: Technology, change, and assessment in the 21st-century classroom. Teachers College Press. Language & Literacy Series ERIC Number: ED527588
• Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2008). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. FitzGerald (Eds.), Hand-book of writing research (pp. 144-157). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

• 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. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kaiser, H. 1974. An index of factor simplicity. Psychometrika. 39, 31–36.
• Krapels, R. H., & Davis, B. D. (2003). Designation of “communication skills” in position listings. Business Communi-cation Quarterly, 66(2), 90-96.

• Levy, F. & Murnane, R. 2004. The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
• Martinez, C. T., Kock, N., & Cass, J. (2011). Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: Factors predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54, 351-360.
• Matoti, S., & Shumba, A. (2011). Assessing the writing efficacy of post-graduate students at a university of techno-logy in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences: Interdisciplinary Reflection of Contemporary Society, 29, 109-118.
• McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465–471. doi:10.2307/357865
• McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M.J.W. 2008. The three p’s of pedagogy for the networked society: personalization, partici-pation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27. http:// les.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/EJ895221.pdf.
• McVey, D. (2008). Why all writing is creative writing. Innovations in Education & Teaching International,45(3), 289-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703290802176204
• Özbay, M . ( 2011). Türkçe özel öğretim yöntemleri I, Ankara : Öncü Kitap.
• Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 139- 158.
• Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self- efficacy in school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39, 239–249.

• Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163–175. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2 163::AID- PITS10 3.0.CO;2-C
• Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0995
• Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2008). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. FitzGerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158-170). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimi-nation increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214 – 221.
• Redecker, C. & Punie, Y.,(2013). The future of learning 2025: developing a vision for change. Future Learning, 1, pp. 3-17. www.academia.edu/6470910/The_Future_ of_Learning_2025_Developing_a_vision_for_change (Accessed 7 April 2014).
• Russ, T. L. (2009). The status of the business communication course at U.S. colleges and universities. Business Com-munication Quarterly, 72, 395-413.
• Sak, U. (2004). About creativity, giftedness, and teaching the creatively gifted in the classroom. Roeper Review, 26(4), 216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554272.
• Scanlon, J. (2006). Reading, writing, and creativity. Business Week Online, 10.
• Scott, C.L. The futures of learning 2: What kind of learning for the 21st century? (UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris. [ERF Working Papers Series, No. 14], 2010).
• Sever, S. (2004). Türkçe öğretimi ve tam öğrenme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
• Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Developmental and ability differences in self-efficacy, causal attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386
• Shell, D., Murphy, C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and wri-ting achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91–100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
• Smith, D. K., Paradice, D. B., & Smith, S. M. (2000). Prepare your mind for creativity. Communications of the ACM, 43(7), 110-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/341852.341870
• Sternberg, R.J. & Subotnik, R.F. (2006). Optimizing student success in school with the other three: reasoning, resi-lience, and responsibility. Research in Educational Productivity Series. Charlotte, NC, Information Age Publis-hing. http://books.google.com/ 9Cthe+application+of+intelligence,+creativity, +and+knowledge+for+a+common+ good.%E2%80%9D&source=gbs_navlinks_s (Accessed 21 July 2014).
• Sturgell, I. (2008). Touchstone texts: Fertile ground for creativity. Reading Teacher, 61(5), 411-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.5
• Şengül, M. (2013). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik “Yazma Öz Yeterlikleri Ölçeği” geliştirme çalışması. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(1), 81-94.
• The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2004, September). Writing: A ticket to work...Or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-ticket-to-work.pdf
• The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2005, July). Writing: A powerful message from state government. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/powerful-message-from-state.pdf
• Torrance, E. P. (1992). A national climate for creativity and invention. Gifted Child Today,15(1), 10-14
• Wagner, T. (2010). Overcoming the global achievement gap (online). Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University. www.aypf.org/documents/Wagner%20Slides%20%20 global%20 achievement%20gap%20brief%205-10.pdf (Accessed 16 July 2014).
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). A writer’s discipline: The development of self-regulatory skill. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp. 51– 69). New York, NY: Kluwer.