Turkish Adaptation of the 3 x 2 Goal Orientation Scale

Year 2019, , 839 - 866, 15.10.2019

Cansel Kadıoğlu Akbulut , Esen Uzuntiryaki-kondakçı

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.517750

Cited By: 6

Abstract

The
purpose of this study was to translate the Goal Orientation Scale revised by
Elliot, Murayama and Pekrun (2011) based on the 3 x 2 model into Turkish and to
conduct the validity and reliability analyses. The adaptation of the scale to Turkish
was done with the pre-service teachers taking “Educational Psychology” course
at university level. A total of 198 pre-service teachers participated in the
pilot study while 311 pre-service teachers attended the main study. As a
result of pilot study, some revisions were made in the sentence structure of
the items considering the expert opinions. As a result of the main study, it
was found that the scale consisted of 18 items and six sub-dimensions
(task-approach, task-avoidance, self-approach, self-avoidance, other-approach,
other-avoidance) consistent with the original study. In
addition, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were satisfactory for each
sub-dimension. As a result of this study, the scores obtained by using 3 x 2 Goal
Orientation Scale were found to be valid and reliable. Accordingly, separating the
mastery goals in the 2 x 2 model as "task" and "self" goals
in the 3 x 2 model was found to be appropriate for Turkish sample.

Keywords

Goal orientation, Achievement Goal Theory, 3 x 2 Model, Educational Psychology, Scale Adaptation

3 x 2 Hedef Yönelimi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu
araştırmanın amacı Elliot, Murayama ve Pekrun (2011) tarafından 3 x 2 modeline
göre güncellenen Hedef Yönelimi Ölçeği’ni Türkçe’ye çevirmek, geçerlik ve
güvenirlik analizlerini yapmaktır. Ölçeğin Türkçe uyarlaması üniversite
düzeyinde “Eğitim Psikolojisi” dersini almakta olan öğretmen adayları ile
yapılmıştır. Araştırma pilot ve asıl çalışma olmak üzere iki kısımdan
oluşmaktadır. Pilot çalışmaya 198 öğretmen adayı katılırken asıl çalışmaya 311
öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Pilot çalışma sonucunda, uzman görüşleri dikkate
alınarak maddelerin cümle yapılarında bazı değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Asıl
çalışma sonucunda ise, ölçeğin, aslına uygun olarak 18 maddeden ve altı alt
boyuttan (görev-yaklaşma, görev-kaçınma, öz-yaklaşma, öz-kaçınma,
diğer-yaklaşma, diğer-kaçınma) oluştuğu bulunmuştur. Her boyut için Cronbach
alfa güvenirlik katsayısı yeterli düzeyde çıkmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonucunda,
Türkçe’ye uyarlanan 3 x 2 Hedef Yönelimi Ölçeği kullanılarak elde edilen
puanların geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu doğrultuda 2 x 2
modelindeki “öğrenmeye yönelik” hedeflerin “görev” ve “öz” şeklinde ayrıldığı 3
x 2 modelinin Türkiye örneklemi için uygun olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

Hedef yönelimi, Başarı Hedefleri Kuramı, 3 x 2 Modeli, Eğitim Psikolojisi, Ölçek Uyarlama

References

• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
• Bartels, J. M. & Magun-Jackson, S. (2009). Approach–avoidance motivation and metacognitive self-regulation: The role of need for achievement and fear of failure. Learning and Individual Differences,19(4), 459–463.
• Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology; 35(1), 75-87.
• Conroy, D. E. ve Elliot, A. J. (2004). Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: Addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(3) 271-285.
• David, A. P. (2014). Analysis of the separation of task-based and self-based achievement goals in a Philippine sample. Psychological Studies, 59(4), 365-373.
• Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social –cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
• Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement Goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.
• Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
• Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 968-980.
• Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
• Elliot, A.J., Murayama, K., ve Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 x 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632-648.
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J.M., Carter, S.M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316-330.
• Hulleman, C. S., & Rhee Bonney, C. (2006, April; co-organizers). Defining and distinguishing mastery-avoidance goals: Definitions, domains, and assessment. Symposium organized for the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Participants: S. Karabenick (chair), A. Elliot, C. Hulleman, C. Rhee Bonney, K. Barron, N. Van Yperen, J. M. Harackiewicz (discussant).
• Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 107–114.
• Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415-435.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
• Lüftenegger, M., Klug, J., Harrer, K., Langer, M., Spiel, C., & Schober, B. (2016). Students’ achievement goals, learning-related emotions and academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 603.
• Madigan, D. J., Stoeber, J., & Passfield, L. (2017). Perfectionism and achievement goals revisited: The 3× 2 achievement goal framework. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 120-124.
• Mascret, N., Elliot, A. J., & Cury, F. (2015). Extending the 3 x 2 achievement goal model to the sport domain: The 3 x 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17, 7-14.
• Mascret, N., Elliot, A. J., & Cury, F. (2017). The 3× 2 achievement goal questionnaire for teachers. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 346-361.
• McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395.
• Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
• Méndez-Giménez, A., Cecchini-Estrada, J. A., Fernández-Río, J., Saborit, J. A. P., & Méndez-Alonso, D. (2017). 3 x 2 classroom goal structures, motivational regulations, self-concept, and affectivity in secondary school. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, 1-12.
• Ning, H. K. (2018). Psychometric Properties of the 3 x 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a Hong Kong Sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(3), 261-272.
• Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani,C. & Smith, A. L. (2009). Achievement goals, self-handicapping, and performance: A 2 x 2 achievement goal perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 1471-1482.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
• 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.
• Sungur, S., & Şenler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45-62.
• Van Yperen N.W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 x 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1432-1445.
• Wolters, C. A (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250.
• Wu, C. C. (2012). The cross-cultural examination of 3 x 2 achievement goal model in Taiwan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 422-427.
• Yang, Y., Taylor, J., & Cao, L. (2016). The 3 x 2 achievement goal model in predicting online student test anxiety and help-seeking. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 32(1), 1–16.
• Yerdelen, S., & Padir, M. A. (2017). Öğretmenler için 3x2 Başarı Yönelimi Ölçeği'nin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik-Güvenirlik Çalışması [Adaptation of 3x2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Teachers into Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(3), 1027-1039.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Ziedner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.