Öğrenme Sorumluluğu Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Year 2017, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 481 - 503, 30.06.2017

Bahadır Erişti

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.356578

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu araştırma ile öğrencilerin, okul öğrenmeleriyle ilgili, her
bir ders ve öğrenme alanı ile doğrudan ilişkilendirilebilecek, öğrenme
sorumluluğu kapsamındaki davranışları yerine getirme durumlarının
belirlenebilmesini olanaklı kılacak bir ölçek geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Araştırmanın katılımcıları, farklı alanlarda, lisans düzeyinde öğrenim gören
520 üniversite öğrencisidir. Araştırma verileri, açımlayıcı faktör analizi
yoluyla analiz edilmiş ve çözümlenmiştir. Veri çözümleme süreci sonucunda,
öğrenme sorumluluğu ile ilgili davranışları, dört faktör ve 28 madde ile
açıklayan (χ²: 6856,93; df: 351;
p<.000), toplam varyansın yaklaşık % 54’ünü açıklama gücüne sahip bir yapı
elde edilmiştir. Güvenirlik konusunda yapılan analizler, geliştirilen ölçeğin,
oldukça yüksek bir güvenirlik düzeyine (α=.927) sahip olduğunu ortaya
koymaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, bu ölçeğin, öğrencilerin, öğrenme
sorumluluğu kapsamındaki okul içi ve okul dışı davranışları hangi ölçüde yerine
getirdiklerini belirlemek amacıyla kullanılabilecek, yüksek düzeyde geçerlik ve
güvenirliğe sahip bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Öğrenme sorumluluğu, öğrenme sorumluluğu davranışları, okul içi öğrenme sorumluluğu davranışları, okul dışı öğrenme sorumluluğu davranışları

Development of A Learning Responsibility Scale

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to develop a scale that will enable to
determine the conditions of fulfillment of students’ behaviors within the scope
of learning responsibility which can be directly related to each course and
learning area in school learning. Participants of the study are 520 university
students studying at undergraduate level in different faculties. Scale
development process was developed in nine stages in the direction of literature
review, subject field experts and linguists, and finalized after pilot
implementation, to the research population. The analysis of the research data
was carried out by means of descriptive factor analysis. As the result of the
data analysis process, a structure with explanatory power of about 54% of the
total variance was obtained which explains the behaviors related to learning
responsibility with four factors and 28 items (χ2: 6856,93, df: 351; p
<.000). The reliability analysis shows that, the scale has a very high level
(α =.927) of reliability. The scale developed is assessed as a validated and
reliable tool that can be used to determine students' fulfillment of in-school
and out-of-school behaviors within the scope of their learning responsibility. 

Keywords

Learning responsibility, learning responsibility behaviors, in-school learning responsibility behaviors, out-of-school learning responsibility behaviors

References

• Boud, D (1988). Introduction to the second edition. In D. Boud (Ed), Developing student autonomy in learning (pp. 7-16). London: Kogan Page.
• Brooks, M.G. & Brooks, J.G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18- 24.
• Brooks, J.G. & Brooks, M.G. (2006). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. (Revised Ed). Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Caxton, ‎G., Atkinson, ‎T., Osborn, M. & Wallace, M. (2013). Liberating the learner: Lessons for professional development in education. New York: Routledge.
• Champagne, M.F, Clayton, T. Dimmitt, N. Laszewski, M. Savage, W. Shaw, J. Stroupe, R. Myint, M. & Walter, P. (2001). The assessment of learner autonomy and language learning in L, Dam (Ed), Learner Autonomy: New Insights. (pp. 45-55). AILA Review 15.
• Clarke, J. (1998). Students' perceptions of different tertiary learning environments. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 107-117.
• Clayton, J. (2003). Assessing and researching the online learning environment. In M. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds). Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective (pp. 157-186). Singapore: World Scientific..
• Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. (2nd. ed), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Cook-Sather, A. (2009). From traditional accountability to shared responsibility: The benefits and challenges of student consultants gathering midcourse feedback in college classrooms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 231-241.
• Cook-Sather, A. (2010). Students as learners and teachers: Taking responsibility, transforming education, and redefining accountability. Curriculum Inquiry, 40, 555–575.
• Davis, B. & Sumara, D. (2002). Constructivist discourses and the field of education: Problems and possibilities. Educational Theory, 52(4), 409-428.
• DeVellis, R.F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed), Los Angeles: Sage.
• Devlin, M. (2002). Taking responsibility for learning isn't everything: A case for developing tertiary students' conceptions of learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(2), 125-138.
• Diamond, J.B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J.P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98.
• Discenza, R., Howard, C. & Schenk, K. (2002). The design & management of effective distance learning programs. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
• Ellenburg, F.C. (2001). Society and schoole must teach responsible behavior. Educational Administration, 106(1), 9-11.
• Erişti, B. (1998). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğretme-öğrenme sürecine katılım durumları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1–2), 52–67.
• Erişti, B. (2010). Dönüşüm ve eğitim. İçinde H.F. Odabaşı (Ed), Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri ışığında dönüşümler (ss. 1-18). Ankara: Nobel.
• Erişti, B. (2011a). Öğrenmenin temelleri. İçinde G. Can (Ed), Eğitim psikolojisi (ss.135-164). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Erişti, B. (2011b). Öğretim hizmetinin niteliği. İçinde K. Selvi (Ed), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri (43-64). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Açıköğretim Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4). 
• Field, A.P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London: Sage Publications.
• Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
• Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61–74.
• Gaurdino, C.A. & Fullerton, E. (2010). Changing behaviors by changing the classroom environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 8-13.
• Glasser, W. (2005). Respponsibility, respect and relationships: Creating emotionally safe classrooms, Quality Educational Programs, Inc.
• Haladyna, T.M. & Rodriguez, M.C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge.
• Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. & Rivkin, S.G. (2002). New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement, Working Paper no. W8741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
• Hartley, K. & Bendixen, L.D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age: Examining the role of individual characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22–26.
• Hill, J.R. (2002). Overcoming obstacles and creating connections: community building in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14(1), 67–86.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. & Barrows, H. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48- 94.
• Hsu, Y.C. & Shiue, Y.M. (2005). The effect of self-directed learning readiness on achievement comparing face-to-face and two-way distance learning instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(2), 143–156.
• Hughes, C. (2001). Developing conceptual literacy in lifelong learning research: A case of responsibility? British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 601-614.
• Hung, M.L., Chou, C., Chen, C.H., & Own, Z.Y. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55, 1080–1090.
• Kitsantas, A. & Zimmerman, B.J. (2009). College students' homework and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-regulatory beliefs. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 1556-1623.
• Lee, V.E. & Loeb, J.B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104, 103-47.
• Lee, V.E. & Smith, J.B. (2001). High school restructuring and student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Lin, B. & Hsieh, C.T. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computers & Education, 37(4), 377–386.
• Lodge, C. (2007). Engaging student voice to improve pedagogy and learning: An exploration of examples of innovative pedagogical approaches for school improvement. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(5), 4-19.
• MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Preacher, K.J. & Hong S. (2001). Sample size in factor analysis: The role of model error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 611-637.
• McCabe, D.L. & Trevino, L.K. (2002). Honesty and honor codes. Academe, 88(1), 37-41.
• McCombs, B.L. (1992). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington: American Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional Education Laboratory.
• McCombs, B.L. (2001). Self-Regulated learning and academic achievement: A phenomenological view. In B.J. Zimmerman, & D.H. Schunk (Eds), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice. (pp.51-82). Mahwah, NJ: :Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Nelson, D.B. & Low, G.R. (2004). Personal responsibility map (PRM). Oakwood Solutions, LLC.
• Nemoto, T. & Beglar, D. (2014). Developing likert-scale questionnaires. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings. (pp. 1-8). Tokyo: JALT
• Özdamar, K. (2011). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
• Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.
• Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (2005), Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
• Roper, A.R. (2007). How students develop online learning skills. Educause Quarterly, 30(1), 62–64.
• Savin-Baden, M. & Major, C.H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• Schafer, E.C. & Sweeney, M. (2012). A sound classroom environment. ASHA Leader, 17(4), 14-17.
• Scherer, R.F., Wiebe F.A., Luther, D.C. & Adams, J.S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62, 763-770.
• Schmit, R.F., Miodrag, N. & Francesco, N.D. (2008). A human-computer partnership: The tutor/child/computer triangle promoting the acquisition of early literacy skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 63-84.
• Shavelson, R.J. (2007). Assessing student learning responsibly: From history to an audacious proposal, Change, 39(1), 26–33.
• Shavelson, R.J. & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly to the frenzy to assess learning in higher education. Change, 35(1), 10–19.
• Sierra, J.J. (2009). Shared responsibility and student learning: Ensuring a favorable educational experience. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 104-111.
• Snyder, J., Bolin, F. & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P.W. Jackson (Ed). Handbook of research on curriculum. (pp. 402-435). New Your, NY: MacMillan Publishing Co.
• Stockdale, S.L. & Brockett, R.G. (2010). Development of the PROSDLS: A measure of self-direction in learning based on the personal responsibility orientation model. Adult Education Quarterly, 200(10), 1–20.
• Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. (3rd. ed). New York: Harper & Row.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2006). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Warren, R.G. (1996). Carpe diem: A student guide to active learning. Lanham: University Press of America.
• Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
• Wößmann, L. (2003), School resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65(2), 117-170.
• Yeşil, R. (2013). School Learning Responsibility scale’s validity and reliability study (For primary school students). Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(4), 1-14.
• Zimmerman, B.J. & Kitsantas, A. (2005). The hidden dimension of personal competence: Self-regulated learning and practice. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. (pp. 204–222). New York: Guilford Press.