Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Tutkunluk Düzeyinin Belirleyicilerinden Biri Olarak Cinsiyet

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 43, 70 - 82, 01.02.2020

Şafak Öz Aktepe Güler İslamoğlu

Öz

Kritik düşünebilmek, problem çözebilmek, işbirliği yapabilmek ve etkili ileşim kurabilmek 21. yüzyıl becerileri olarak tanımlanmakta Ananiadou ve Claro, 2009 ; öğrenci tutkunluğu student engagement ise söz konusu becerilerin yordayıcıları arasında yer almaktadır Carini, Kuh ve Klein, 2006 . Tutkunluk seviyesinin eğitimde geçirilen yıllar içerisinde düşüş gösterdiğine ilişkin araştırma bulguları Klem ve Connell, 2004 , özellikle üniversite öğrencilerinin tutkunluklarının güçlendirilmesine ilişkin politika ve uygulamaların geliştirilmesi gerekliliğine işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışmada da bir demografik özellik olan cinsiyetin üniversite öğrencilerinin tutkunluk düzeylerini farklılaştırmadaki etkisi araştırılmakta; böylece, tutkunluğu arttırmaya yönelik politika ve uygulamaların geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunulması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, farklı üniversitelerde eğitim gören üniversite öğrencilerine ulaşılmış, ölçek uygulaması ile veri toplanmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen demografik bilgi formu ve öğrenci tutkunluğu ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Tutkunluğun ölçülmesinde özellikle üniversite öğrencilerinin tutkunluğunu ölçmek üzere geliştirilmiş olan ve tutkunluğun aidiyet ve değer verme olarak adlandırılan psikolojik boyutunu da kapsayan Günüç ve Kuzu 2015 tarafından geliştirilen öğrenci tutkunluğu ölçeği kullanılmıştır.Araştırmanın örneklemini oluşturan 483 katılımcının anket formlarını yanıtlaması ile elde edilen veriler istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen faktör ve güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda ölçeğin orijinal faktör yapısıyla uyumlu 6 faktör elde edilmiştir. Söz konusu faktörler: öğretim elemanları ile ilişkiler, aidiyet, bilişsel tutkunluk, arkadaşlar ile ilişkiler, davranışsal tutkunluk ve değer vermedir. Elde edilen faktörlerin her biri için ortalama faktör değerleri hesaplanmış ve öğrencilerden en yüksek değerlendirmeyi alan ifadeler belirlenmiştir. Cinsiyetin öğrencilerin tutkunluk düzeylerini farklılaştırmadaki etkisini test edebilmek için t-Testleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, cinsiyetin öğrenci tutkunluğu ve öğrenci tutkunluğunun her bir boyutu üzerinde etki sahibi olduğunu göstermiştir. Kız öğrencilerin tutkunluk düzeyi ile erkek öğrencilerin tutkunluk düzeyi arasında anlamlı fark olduğu; kız öğrencilerin tutkunluk düzeyinin, hem toplam tutkunluk hem de tutkunluğun her bir boyutu için, erkek öğrencilerin tutkunluk düzeyinden yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Makalenin sonunda araştırma bulguları tartışılmış; demografik verinin analizi sonucunda elde edilen bulgular da dikkate alınarak araştırmacı ve uygulayıcılara öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Öğrenci Tutkunluğu, Yerleşkeye Tutkunluk, Sınıfa Tutkunluk, Cinsiyet

Gender as a Determinant of Student Engagement for University Students

Öz

Critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration with others, and effective communication are 21st-century skills and competencies Ananiadou and Claro, 2009 . Researchers have identified that student engagement contributes to the achievement of the mentioned skills and competencies Carini, et al., 2006 . However, research suggests that the more years students spend in school, the less engaged they become Klem & Connell, 2004 . All these facts about student engagement refer to the importance of the development of effective engagement policy and practices, especially for university students. For this reason, this study aims both to investigate whether gender differences affect students’ engagement levels at higher education and to contribute to the efforts to develop effective engagement policies and practices. A survey conducted over university students from various universities. In order to identify the characteristics of participants, a detailed demographic information form was developed by researchers. Student engagement was measured with the student engagement scale, developed by Günüç and Kuzu 2015 , to measure student engagement in higher education, specifically. Both demographic form and student engagement questionnaire were distributed to university students, and 483 university students participated. Collected data were analyzed statistically; descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, and independent samples t-test were conducted. Results of confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that items of the scale were loaded on six factors: Relationships with the faculty members, sense of belonging, cognitive engagement, peer relationships, behavioral engagement, and valuing. These results were compatible with the original factor structure provided by Günüç and Kuzu 2015 . The results of t-tests suggest that there was a significant difference between male and female students concerning student engagement levels. Female students have higher engagement scores than male students both for total student engagement and all factors of student engagement. Results of descriptive statistics provide useful insight for policymakers and practitioners while developing policies for increasing student engagement in higher education. These results could help researchers and practitioners by addressing and identifying new fields to study, as well

Anahtar Kelimeler

Student Engagament, Campus Engagement, Class Engagaement, Gender

Kaynakça

• Adelabu, D. D. (2007). “Time Perspective and School Membership As Correlates to Academic Achievement Among African American Adolescents”, Adolescence, 42(167): 525-538.
• Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Arastaman, G. (2009). “Lise Birinci Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Okula Bağlılık (School Engagement) Durumlarına İlişkin Öğrenci, Öğretmen ve Yöneticilerin Görüşleri”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, sayı: 26, ss. 102-112.
• Braxton, J., Milem, J., & Sullivan, A. (2000). “The İnfluence of Active Learning on The College Student Departure Process: Toward A Revision of Tinto’s Theory”, Journal of Higher Education, 71(5): 569–590.
• Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G.L (2004). “Teacher Support and The School Engagement of Latino Middle and High School Students At Risk of School Failure”, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(1): 47-67.
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). “Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkage”, Research in Higher Education, 47: 1–32.
• Chapman, E. (2003). “Alternative Approaches to Assessing Student Engagement Rates”, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13): 7.
• Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). “Seven Principles For Good Practice In Undergraduate Education”, American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7): 3–7.
• Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., & Wylie, C. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer Science & Business Media (eBook), 2012.
• Edgar, S. (2015). “Identifying the Influence of Gender On Motivation and Engagement Levels In Student Physiotherapists”, Medical Teacher, 37: 348–353.
• Fletcher, A. Meaningful Student Involvement: Guide to Students as Partners in Change (2nd Ed.). Olympia, WA: Freechild Project, 2005.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). “School Engagement: Potential Of The Concept, State Of The Evidence”, Review of Educational Research, 74 (1): 59–109.
• Fredricks, J. A., & W. McColskey (2012). The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-Report Instruments. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 763–782. Boston, MA: Springer.
• Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). “Sense of Relatedness as Factor in Children’s Academic Engagement and Performance”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95: 148-163.
• Gorski, E. (2011). Student tracking finds limited learning in college, Roanoke Times (January, 18). [Online] , [Erişim tarihi: 03.10.2019].
• Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). “Student Engagement Scale: Development, Reliability and Validity”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4): 587–610.
• Hagel, P., Carr, R., & Devlin, M. (2012). “Conceptualising and Measuring Student Engagement Through The Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE): A Critique”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (4): 475–486.
• Juvonen, J. (2007). “Reforming Middle Schools: Focus on Continuity, Social Connectedness, and Engagement”, Educational Psychologist, 42(4): 1997-208.
• Kenny, G., Kenny, D., & Dumont, R. Mission and Place: Strengthening Learning and Community Through Campus Design. Oryx/Greenwood, 1995.
• Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (2004). “Relationships Matter: Linking Teacher Support to Student Engagement and Achievement”, Journal of School Health, 74 (7): 262-273.
• Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). “Students’ Engagement in First-Year University”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5): 493–505.
• Kuh, G. (2001). “Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside The National Survey of Student Engagement”, Change, 3(33): 10-17.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). “The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations”, New Directions For Institutional Research, 141: 5–20.
• Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
• Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J.L., Buckley, J.A. Bridges, B.K., & Hayek J.C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature. Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, A.B.D.: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
• Markwell, D. A Large and Liberal Education: Higher Education for the 21st Century, Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing & Trinity College, University of Melbourne, 2007.
• Martin, A. J. (2007). “Examining a Multidimensional Model of Student Motivation and Engagement Using a Construct Validation Approach”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2): 413–440.
• Martin, A. J. (2008). “Enhancing Student Motivation and Engagement: The Effects of a Multidimensional Intervention”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (2): 239–269.
• Martin, A. J. (2009). “Motivation and Engagement Across The Academic Life Span: A Developmental Construct Validity Study of Elementary School, High School, and University/College Students”, Educational Psychological Measurement , 69(5): 794–824.
• Martin, A. J. Motivation and Engagement: Conceptual, Operational, and Empirical Clarity. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 303–311. Boston, MA: Springer, 2012.
• Morse, A. B., Christenson, S. L, & Lehr, C.A. (2004). “Promoting School Completion”, Counseling, February: 9-13.
• Newmann, F. Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools. Teachers College Press. 2–3, 1992..
• Özdemir, M. ve Kalaycı (2013). “Okul Bağlılığı ve Metaforik Okul Algısı Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Çankırı İli Örneği”, Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, sayı:13(4), ss. 2125-2137.
• Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights From Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
• Plenty, S., & Heubeck, B.G. (2011). “Mathematics Motivation and Engagement: An Independent Evaluation of A Complex Model with Australian Rural High School Students”, Educational Research and Evaluation, 17 (4): 283–299.
• Reeve, J. A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Student Engagement. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, edited by S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, and C. Wylie, 149–172. Boston, MA: Springer, 2012.
• Sarı, M. (2013). “Lise Öğrencilerinde Okula Aidiyet Duygusu”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sayı: 13(1), ss. 147-160.
• Shi, J., Wen, W., Li, Y., & Chu, J. (2014). “China College Student Survey (CCSS): Breaking the Black Box of the Process of Learning”, International Journal of Chinese Education, 3 (1): 132–159.
• Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). “Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across The School Year”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4): 572.
• Yin, H., & Wang, W. (2016). “Undergraduate Students’ Motivation and Engagement in China: An Exploratory Study”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41 (4): 601–621.