Development of Academic Engagement Scale for University Students: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2022, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 60 - 68, 30.04.2022

Hatice Kızılkaya , İsmail Doğan

Abstract

In order to be able to talk about successful educational outcomes in higher education, universities should have qualified and rich educational
practices and their students should be actively involved in the education and training activities of the institution. Students’ interests,
aspirations, attitudes, values and behaviours about the university and educational practices affect their academic and social adaptation hakwith
the university and this situation is reflected in their school attendance, academic development and success. Accordingly, engagement
as a result of the adaptation of students with the academic and social systems of the university is highly important for the school life of
the students due to its relationship with academic development and achievement. In this study, it was aimed to develop a scale that would
reveal the academic engagement of university students and that could include different components of the behavioural dimension of
student engagement. The study group consisted of 882 senior students at a public university in Turkey. As a result of the exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses applied to the scale, a 25-item structure with three sub-dimensions was revealed. The sub-dimensions of the
scale are named as “participation in the course, library, resource access”, “communication with faculty members” and “participation in
scientific and cultural activities”. While the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the whole scale is .91, the Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficients for each sub-dimension are between .78 and .90. All findings indicate that the Academic Engagement Scale is reliable and valid
for measuring academic engagement of university students.

Keywords

University, Higher education, Engagement, Academic engagement

Üniversite Öğrencilerine Yönelik Akademik Aidiyet Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması*

Abstract

Yükseköğretimde başarılı eğitim çıktılarından söz edebilmek için üniversitelerin nitelikli ve zengin eğitim öğretim uygulamalarına sahip
olmaları ve yürütmelerinin yanında, öğrencilerin de mensubu oldukları kurumun eğitim ve öğretim faaliyetlerinde aktif bir şekilde yer
alma çabası içinde olmaları gerekir. Öğrencilerin üniversiteye ve üniversitenin faaliyetlerine yönelik, istek, tutum, değer ve davranışları
onların kurumla akademik ve sosyal uyumlarını etkilemekte, bu durum da okula devam, akademik gelişim ve başarılarına yansımaktadır.
Bu doğrultuda öğrencilerin üniversitenin akademik ve sosyal sistemleriyle uyumu sonucunda oluşan aidiyet, akademik gelişim ve başarı
ile ilişkili olarak öğrencilerin eğitim hayatları için oldukça önemlidir. Bu çalışmada üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik aidiyetlerini
ortaya koyabilecek, aidiyetin davranışsal boyutunun farklı bileşenlerini bir arada bulundurabilecek bir ölçek geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Araştırmanın çalışma grubuna, Türkiye’de yer alan bir kamu üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 882 son sınıf öğrencisi dahil edilmiştir. Ölçeğe
uygulanan açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri sonucunda üç alt boyuta sahip 25 maddelik bir yapı ortaya konulmuştur. Alt boyutlar
“derse katılım, kütüphane, kaynak erişimi”, “öğretim üyeleri ile iletişim” ve “bilimsel ve kültürel etkinliklere katılım” olarak adlandırılmıştır.
Ölçeğin tamamı için Cronbach alpha güvenirlik katsayısı .91 iken, her bir alt boyut için Cronbach alpha güvenirlik katsayıları .78, ve .90
arasındadır. Tüm bulgular Akademik Aidiyet Ölçeği’nin üniversite öğrencilerinin akademik aidiyetlerini ölçmek için güvenilir ve geçerli
olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

üniversite, yükseköğretim, aidiyet, akademik aidiyet

References

• Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: a development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40 (5), 518-529.Retrieved from:http://chawkinson.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/122997693/Student_Involvement_ A_Development_Theory_for_Highe.pdf
• Baron, P. & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (6), 759-772.
• Blumenfeld, P., Modell, J., Bartko, W. T., Secada, W. G., Fredricks, J. A., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement of inner city students during middle childhood. In C.R. Cooper, C. Garcia Coll, W. T. Bartko, H.M. Davis & C. Chatman (Eds.), Developmental pathways through middle childhood: rethinking diversity and contexts as resources (pp. 145-170), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates.
• Bryson, C. & Hand, L. (2007). The role of engagement in inspiring teaching and learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44 (4), 349- 362. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı, İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Collie, R. J., Holliman, A. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017). Adaptability, engagement, and academic achievement at university. Educational Psychology, 37 (5), 632- 647.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2021). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Doğan, İ. (2020). Eğitim Sosyolojisi, Kavramlar ve Sorunlar, Mart 2020, 2. Basım, Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Faktör analizi (Derya Çakıcı Eser, Çev.). Tarık Totan (Ed.), Ölçek geliştirme kuram ve uygulamalar (ss.115-158). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59 (2), 117-142.
• Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
• Finn, J. D. & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 221-234.
• Finn, J. D. & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement. The Journal of Negro Education, 62 (3), 249-268.
• 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.
• Gonyea, R.M., Kish, K.A., Kuh, G.D., Muthiah, R.N., & Thomas, A.D. (2003). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Norms for the Fourth Edition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, Policy, and Planning.
• Goodenow, C. & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friend’s values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62 (1), 60-71.
• Günüç, S. & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: campus-class- technology theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 86- 113.
• Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 758-773.
• Korkmaz, A. (2007). Does student engagement matter to student success? (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). Indiana University, Bloomington, United States.
• Krause, K. & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (5), 493-505.
• Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 5- 10.
• Linnenbrink, E. A. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
• Marks, H. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 153-184.
• Maroco, J., Maroco, A. L., Campos, J. A. D. B. & Fredricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engagement: development of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29 (1).
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2013). Retrieved from https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/engagement-indicators.html.
• Newmannn, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significiance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Eds.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11-39), New York: Teachers College Press.
• Özdamar, K. (2016). Eğitim, sağlık ve davranış bilimlerinde ölçek ve test geliştirme yapısal eşitlik modellemesi, IBM SPSS, IBM SPSS AMOS ve MINITAB uygulamalı. Eskişehir: Nisan Kitabevi.
• Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences, an account of the development and use of college student experience questionnaire. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Inst. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255099.pdf.
• Pascarella, E., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75 (3), 249-284.
• Pike, G. & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First and second generation college students: a comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76 (3), 276-300. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3838799.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness of fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23-74.
• Skinner, E. A. & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 571-581.
• Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection, conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Pscyhological Measurement, 69 (3), 493-525.
• Sun, J.C. & Rueda, R. (2012) Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191-204.
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2015). Temizlik: analizden önce verilerin taranması. (Murat Özer ve Necati Engeç, Çev.) Mustafa Baloğlu (Ed.) Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (ss. 60-116). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89-125.
• Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school. A sense of belonging and participation results from PISA 2000, Paris: Organization for Economic Co- Operation and Development, (OECD).
• Zhoc, K. C. H., Webster, B. J., King, R. B., Li, J. C. H. & Chung, T. S. H. (2019). Higher education student engagement scale (HESES): Development and Psychometric Evidence. Research in Higher Education, 60(2), 219-244.