Developing The Student Satisfaction Scale for Online Physical Education and Sports Course

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 135 - 156, 31.12.2022

Hande Buşra Eren , Yağmur Güler , Damla Güler , Ömay Çokluk-bökeoglu , Semiyha Tuncel

https://doi.org/10.47778/ejsse.1198448

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale that can be used to determine student satisfaction with physical education and sports courses conducted online. The scale was applied to 953 students who took online physical education and sports courses. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied to determine the construct validity of the scale. According to the exploratory factor analysis results, the scale consists of four factors including: Learner-Content Interaction, Learner - Learner Interaction, Learner - Instructor Interaction and Learner-Interface Interaction with a total of 25 five-Likert type items. The four-factor construct of the scale is confirmed by exploratory factor analysis. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients calculated to determine the reliability of the scale ranged from ,87 to ,92 for its sub-dimensions. As a result of the findings obtained in this study, it has been revealed that the Online Physical Education and Sports Course Satisfaction Scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used to determine student satisfaction with the online physical education and sports course. 

Keywords

Student Satisfaction, Online, Physical Education and Sports Course, Interaction

Çevrim İçi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Dersine Yönelik Öğrenci Memnuniyet Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çevrim içi ortamda yürütülen beden eğitimi ve spor dersine yönelik öğrenci memnuniyetini belirlemede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Ölçek çevrim içi beden eğitimi ve spor dersi alan 953 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliğinin belirlenmesi için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ölçekte yer alan maddelerin; Öğrenci-İçerik Etkileşimi, Öğrenci-Öğrenci Etkileşimi, Öğrenci- Öğretmen Etkileşimi, Öğrenci-Arayüz Etkileşimi olmak üzere toplam 4 alt boyuttan ve beşli Likert tipi 25 maddeden oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin dört faktörlü yapısı, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile de doğrulanmaktadır. Ölçeğin güvenirliğinin belirlenmesi için hesaplanan Cronbach alpha güvenirlik katsaysayılarının alt boyutları için ,87 ile ,92 arasında değiştiği bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgular sonucunda, Çevrim İçi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Dersi Memnuniyet Ölçeği’nin çevrim içi ortamda yürütülen beden eğitimi ve spor dersine yönelik öğrenci memnuniyetini belirlemede kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya konulmuştur. 

Keywords

Öğrenci Memnuniyeti, Çevrim İçi, Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Dersi, Etkileşim

References

• Alpar, R. (2011). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Detay.
• An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1), 65-83.
• Artino, A. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students' satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 191-202.
• Balcı, B. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi.
• Bangert, A. W. (2006). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17, 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032699
• Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions with achievement. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i2.516
• Bayrak, F., Tibi, M. H., & Altun, A. (2020). Development of online course satisfaction scale. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 110-123. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.803378
• Bernardi, R. A. (2016). Validating research results when Cronbach’s alpha is below .70: A methodological procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003023
• Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W., Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7275/qv2q-rk76
• Biner, P. M., Welsh, K. D., Barone, N. M., Summers, M., & Dean, R. S. (1997). The impact of remote-site group size on student satisfaction and relative performance in interactive telecourses. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526949
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
• Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of learning satisfaction in Japanese online distance learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.525 Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press.
• Buchanan, A. M., & Brock, S. (2016). What if they see me miss? Nuances of teaching in a movement-based environment. Strategies, 29(3), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08924562.2016.1159154
• Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Plenum Press.
• Chen, S. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online courses: An objectivist-constructivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72-86.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Çardak, Ç. S. (2012). Harmanlanmış öğrenme sürecinde öğrencilerin etkileşimlerinin ve öğrenme düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
• Daşdan-Ada, E. N. (2021). Uzaktan eğitime özgü beden eğitimi dersi temel psikolojik ihtiyaçlar ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Türkiye Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.32706/tusbid.926646
• De Vellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
• Dünya Sağlık Örgütü. (2020, Mart 11). WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at The Media Briefing On COVID-19. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
• Edvardsson, I. R., & Oskarsson, G. K. (2008). Distance education and academic achievement in business administration: The case of the University of Akureyri. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.542
• Erkuş, A. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme-1: Temel kavramlar ve işlemler (3. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
• Gil, H. (2008). The challenge of the transition from online delivery to online teaching and learning. McFerrin, K., Weber, R., Carlsen, R., & Willis, D (Ed.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference bildiriler kitabı içinde (ss. 2589-2594). Las Vegas: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Gunawardena, C. N. & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (ss. 355-395). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Cunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
• Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Jondeau, E., & Rockinger M. (2003). Conditional volatility, skewness, and kurtosis: existence, persistence, and comovements. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27(10), 1699 – 1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1889(02)00079-9
• Jöroskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993): LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
• Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
• Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817
• Karagöz, Y. (2016). SPSS 23 ve AMOS 23 uygulamalı istatistiksel analizler. Nobel.
• Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (30. Baskı). Nobel.
• Keller, J. M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance Instruction, 26(8), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4160260802
• Kip, B. (2017). Çevrim içi öğrenenlerin farklı destek ortamlarını kullanma sıklıklarıyla sosyal bulunuşluk algıları arasındaki ilişki. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
• Liguori, E., & Winkler, C. (2020). From offline to online: Challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 3(4), 346-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127420916738
• Lister, M. (2014). Trends in the design of e-learning and online learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 671-680.
• Martinez-Caro, E. (2011). Factors affecting effectiveness in e-Learning: An analysis in production management courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 19(3), 572-581. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20337
• Meydan, C.H., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapisal eşitlik modellemesi ve Amos uygulamaları. Detay.
• McPherson, M. S., & Bacow, L. S. (2015). Online higher education: Beyond the hype cycle. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(4), 135–154.
• Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 115–122.
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interactions. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
• Northrup, P., Lee, R., & Burgess, V. (2002, Haziran). Learner perceptions of online interaction [Sözlü sunum]. ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, Colorado.
• Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252099
• Rodriguez Robles, F. M. (2006). Learner characteristic, interaction and support service variables as predictors of satisfaction in web-based distance education, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, The University of New Mexico, Organizational Learning and Instructional Technologies.
• Sağın, A. E., Yücekaya, M. A., & Güllü, M. (2021). Beden eğitimi öğretmenlerinin uzaktan eğitim yeterlikleri ölçeği: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Spor ve Performans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(2), 200-211. https://doi.org/10.17155/omuspd.839314
• Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah.
• Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 102-120.
• Segars, A., & Grover, V. (1993) Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(4), 517-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249590
• Singh, V., & Thurman, A. (2019). How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988-2018). American Journal of Distance Education, 33(4), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082
• Süral, İ. (2012). Çevrim içi öğrenmede kişiselleştirmenin öğrenci performansı ve memnuniyet düzeyi ile ilişkisi. Doktora Tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
• Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ekinoks.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel.
• Tibi, M. H. (2015). Improving collaborative skills by computer science students through structured discussion forums. Journal of Technologies in Education, 10(3-4), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.18848/2381-9243/CGP/v10i3-4/56460
• Tosun, N., & Özgür, H. (2009). E-öğrenme ortamlarinda öğrenci-içerik etkileşimi. Karadeniz Technical University Press (Ed.), 3th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium bildiriler kitabı içinde (ss. 327-331). Trabzon: Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi
• Ünlü, H. (2022). Uzaktan eğitimle beden eğitimi dersleri yapılabilir mi? Çevrimiçi beden eğitimi dersleri. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(2), 170-186. https://doi.org/10.33689/spormetre.1055629
• Zemke, R. (2000). The Best customer to have is the one you have already got. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 23(2), 33-35.