Fen Bilimleri Motivasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye ve Kimya’ya Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik Çalışması

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1 - Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 15 - 34, 14.07.2016

Ayla Çetin Dindar Ömer Geban

Öz

Bu çalışma Glynn ve Koballa tarafından geliştirilen Fen Bilimleri Motivasyon Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik değerleri ile ilgili bulguları içermektedir. Bu çalışmanın örneklemini Ankara ve Edirne illerindeki 1354 lise öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Ölçeğin temel bileşenler faktör analizi sonucunda kimya öğrenmeye ilişkin öz-yeterlilik, kimya sınavlarına ilişkin endişe, kimya öğrenmeye ilişkin dışsal ve içsel motivasyon olmak üzere dört boyutu olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle de dört faktörlü modelin uygulanan örneklemde orta derecede uyum gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda yürütülen geçerlilik analizleri de dört faktörlü modeli desteklemektedir. Uyarlanan ölçeğin Cronbach alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısı 0.913 olarak bulunmuştur. Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçek, lise öğrencilerinin kimya öğrenmeye ilişkin motivasyonlarını tespit etmeyi hedeflemektedir. Uyarlanan ölçeğin diğer motivasyon ölçeklerinden farkı, öğrencilerin öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyonlarını belirlemesinin yanında kimya dersine özgü olması ve dolayısıyla öğrencilerin bu ders ile ilgili motivasyonlarını belirlemesidir. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma sonuçlarının alanyazındaki Türkçe ölçek eksikliğini gidermesi beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kimya Motivasyon Anketi, Kimya Egitimi, Anket Uyarlama

Adaptation of the Science Motivation Scale into Turkish and Chemistry: Analysis of Validity

Öz

This study is an adaptation of Science Motivation Scale, developed by Glynn and Koballa, into Turkish and reports validity and reliability of the adapted scale. The sample consisted of 1354 high school students from Ankara and Edirne. The data collected from different types of high schools was analyzed and moderately similar factor structures were found as in the original scale. Based on the principal component analysis, four dimensions which were self-efficacy in learning science, anxiety about science assessment, extrinsically motivated science learning, and intrinsically motivated science learning were determined. These four dimensioned model was analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis and moderate fit was determined. In addition, validity analysis supports the validity of scores on the four-factor model. The Cronbach alpha reliability was found to be 0.913. This scale aims to determine high school students’ motivation to learn chemistry. The distinction of this scale is that determining student motivation on learning chemistry rather than asking for general questions in science. The findings of the study are meant to contribute to the chemistry education field by providing an adapted scale.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Chemistry motivation scale, Chemistry education, Scale adaptation, Secondary school

Kaynakça

• Alsop, S. (2003). Science education and affect. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1043- 1047. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052180
• Anderman, E. M. & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811– 831. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660310805
• Anderson, L.W. (1981). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools. Boston: Ally and Bacon.
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
• Bloom, B. S. (1979). Human characteristics and school learning. Mc Grav-Hill.
• Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418925).
• Boyle, R. A., Magnusson, S. J., & Young, A. J. (1993). Epistemic motivation and conceptual change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 955-970. doi: 10.1002/tea.20249.
• Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499. doi: 10.1002/tea.20131.
• Brophy, J. E. (1988). On motivating students. In D. Berliner and B. Rosenshine, Talks to Teachers (Eds.), 201-245. New York: Random House.
• Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• DeBacker, T. K. & Nelson, R. M. (1999). Variations on an expectancy-value model in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 71-94. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1998.0984
• Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003- 066X.55.1.68
• Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage Publications.
• Gauger, R. (1990). Chem tech and physics tech. The Science Teacher, 57(9), 39-43.
• Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159–1176. doi: 10.1002/tea.20442
• Glynn, S. M., & Koballa, T. R., Jr., (2006). Motivation to learn science. In Joel J. Mintzes and William H. Leonard (Eds.) Handbook of College Science Teaching (pp. 25-32). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
• Glynn, M. S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2007). Nonscience majors learning science: A theoretical model of motivation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1088–1107. doi: 10.1002/tea.20181
• Glynn, M.S., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Brickman, P. (2009). Science motivation questionnaire: Construct validation with nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 127–146. doi: 10.1002/tea.20267
• Jacobsen, D. A., Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2002). Methods for teaching, promoting student learning (6th Ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
• Koballa, T. R., Jr., & Glynn, S. M. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science education. In S. K. Abell and N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook for Research in Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lau, S. & Roeser, R.W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139–162. doi:10.1207/S15326977EA0802_04
• Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80(6), 613-650. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<613::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-M
• Linn, M. C. & Hyde, J. S. (1989). Gender, mathematics, and science. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 17-19, 22-27. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018008017
• McCarthy, C. B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 245–263. doi: 10.1002/tea.20057
• Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004
• Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic setting. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004543
• Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881. doi: 10.1080/09500690500339654
• Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0663.82.1.33
• Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. doi: 10.3102/00346543063002167
• Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and application (2nd Ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
• Randel, B., Stevenson, H.W. & Witruk, E. (2000). Attitudes, beliefs, and mathematics achievement of German and Japanese high school students. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(2), 190–198. doi: 10.1080/016502500383313
• Richardson, J.T.E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches of studying in higher education: a literature survey. Higher Education, 27, 449–468. doi: 10.1007/BF01384904
• Steinkamp, M. W. & Maehr, M. L. (1984). Gender differences in motivational orientations toward achievement in school science: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 39-59. doi: 10.3102/00028312021001039
• Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101–109. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 2736(199601)33:1<101::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Z
• Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. (1989). Test anxiety in elementary and secondary school students. Educational Psychologist, 24, 159–183. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_3
• Zusho, A., Pintrich P. R., & Coppalo, B. (2003). Skill and will: the role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081-1094. doi:10.1080/0950069032000052207