Sosyal Bilgiler Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği (SÖYÖ): Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Year 2017, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 0 - 0, 29.12.2016

Melehat Gezer , İbrahim Fevzi Şahin

https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.27861

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu araştırmada öğrencilerin sosyal bilgiler dersi öğrenme yaklaşımlarını geçerli ve güvenilir olarak ölçmeye olanak tanıyacak bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma, 2014-2015 Eğitim-Öğretim Yılı Güz Dönemi’nde Diyarbakır ili merkez ilçelerinde öğrenim gören toplam 388 ortaokul öğrencisinden oluşan bir çalışma grubu üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin kapsam ve görünüş geçerliği için uzman görüşüne başvurulmuş, yapı geçerliği için Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA) ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) uygulanmıştır. AFA sonucunda, toplam varyansın %39.43’ünü açıklayan, 24 madde ve iki faktörden oluşan bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Ortaya çıkan faktörler, derin öğrenme (DÖ) ve yüzeysel öğrenme (YÖ) yaklaşımı olarak adlandırılmıştır. DFA’dan elde edilen bulgular, SÖYÖ’ye ilişkin 24 madde ve iki faktörlü yapının yeterli uyum indekslerine sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirliği iç tutarlılık ve test tekrar test yöntemiyle incelenmiş ve hesaplanan güvenirlik katsayılarının kabul edilebilir sınırlar içerisinde yer aldığı belirlenmiştir. Madde analizinden elde edilen bulgular, ölçekte yer alan maddelerin tamamının ayırt edici olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, ölçeğin öğrencilerin sosyal bilgiler dersi öğrenme yaklaşımlarını ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler. Öğrenme Yaklaşımları, Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi Öğrenme Yaklaşımları, Sosyal Bilgiler Öğrenme Yaklaşımları Ölçeği, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik

References

• Batı, A.H., Tetik, C., & Gürpınar, E. (2010). Öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeği yeni şeklini Türkçeye uyarlama ve geçerlilik güvenirlilik çalışması. Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, 30(5), 1639-1646.
• Bentler, P.M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
• Bernardo, A.B.I. (2003). Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-114.
• Beverley, J. (2005) Perceptions of the learning context and learning approaches: Implications for quality learning outcomes in accounting. Accounting Education, 14(3), 271-291.
• Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J. B. (Eds.) (1991). Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
• Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. (3rd Ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press-McGraw Hill.
• Biggs, J.B., Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (2001) The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
• Brown, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. Bollen & J. Long, (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). London: Sage Publications.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Byrne, B., & Campbell, T.L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574.
• Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
• Byrne, B., Flood, B., & Willis, P. (2002). Approaches to learning of European business students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(1). 19-28.
• Canıdemir, A. (2013). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları ve başarı amaç yönelimlerinin akademik başarı ile ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203-221.
• Cano, F., & Berben, A.B.G. (2010). University students' achievement goals and approaches to learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 131—153.
• Cavallo, A.M.L., & Schafer, L.E. (1994). Relationships between students’ meaningful learning orientation and their understanding of genetic topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4), 393-418.
• Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50.
• Chin, C., & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109.138.
• Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
• Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455-468.
• Çolak, E., & Fer, S. (2007). Öğrenme yaklaşımları envanterinin dilsel eşdeğerlik, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışması. Çukurova Üniversitesi sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1), 197-212.
• Davidson, R.A. (2002) Relationship of study approach and exam performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 20 (1), 29-44.
• DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
• Diseth, Å. (2002). The Relationship between intelligence approaches to learning and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219-230.
• Diseth, Ǻ., and Ø. Martinsen, (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
• Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1907-1920.
• Ekinci, N. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin öğrenme yaklaşımları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(151), 74-88.
• Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.
• Entwistle, N.J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: CroomHelm.
• Entwistle, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (2002). Personal understanding and target understanding: mapping influences on the outcomes of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 321-342.
• Erkuş, A. (2012). Psikolojide ölçme ve ölçek geliştirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 57-72.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Geta, M. (2012). An investigation on the relationship between achievement goal orientation, approaches to learning and academic achievement of college students: The case of Bonga College of teacher education. Unpublished Master Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
• Gijbels, D., Van De Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341.
• Gözen, G. (2013). Psikolojik test ve değerleme: Testlere ve ölçmeye giriş. Güvenirlik. Ronald Jay Cohen & Mark E. Swerdlik, Çev: Ezel Tavşancıl. Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (2002). Variation in learning orchestration in university biology courses. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 737-751.
• Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
• İlhan, M., Çetin, B., & Kılıç, M.A. (2013). Matematik öğrenme yaklaşımları ölçeğinin (MÖYÖ) geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 113-145.
• Kember, D., & Leung, D.Y.P. (1998). The dimensionality of approaches to learning: An investigation with confirmatory factor analysis on the structure of the SPQ and LPQ. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395-407.
• Kızılgüneş, B. (2007). Predictive influence of students’ achievement motivation, meaningful learning approach and epistemological beliefs on classification concept achievement. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Kirby, J.R., Knapper, C.K.., Evans, C.J., Carty, A.E., & Gadula, C. (2003). Approaches to learning at work and workplace climate. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(1), 31-52.
• Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Lawshe, C.H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
• Leech, N.L. Barlett, K.C., & Morgan, G.A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics; Use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Lietz, P. (2011). The impact of values and learning approaches on student achievement: Gender and academic discipline ınfluences. Issues in Educational Research, 21(2), 201-231.
• Lublin, J. (2013). Deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning. Centre for Teaching and Learning Good Practice in Teaching and Learning.
• Magno, C. (2013). Assessing students’ critical thinking and approaches to learning. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 19-32.
• Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J.L. (2006). OECD’s brief self-report measure of educational psychology’s most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
• Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 4-11.
• Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II-Outcome as a function of the learners conception of the task. British Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 115-127.
• Meydan, H.C., & Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Meyers, L.S, Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and ınterpretation. London: SAGE Publications.
• Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51, 1172–1183.
• Önder, İ., & Beşoluk, Ş. (2010). Düzenlenmiş iki faktörlü çalışma süreci ölçeğinin (R-SPQ-2F) Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 55-67.
• Özkan, S. (2008). Modeling elementary students’ science achievement: the interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning strategies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. Australia: Australian Copyright.
• Prosser, M., & Millar, R. (1989) The "how" and "why" of learning physics. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 4, 513-528.
• Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K., & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 37-48.
• Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999a). Understanding learning and teaching, on deep and surface learning. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999b). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in Higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Rahman, S. & Mokhtar, S. (2012). Structural relationship of learning environment, learning approaches, and generic skills among engineering students. Asian Social Science, 8(13), 280-290.
• Ramsden, P. (1988). Improving learning: New Perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
• Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: New York Routledge Falmer.
• Rodriguez, L. & Cano, F. (2006). The epistemological beliefs, learning approaches and study orchestrations of university students. Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 617-636.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, 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.
• Sharma, D. (1997). Accounting students' learning conceptions approaches to learning and the influence of the learning-teaching context on approaches to learning. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 6 (2), 125-146.
• Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, S., & Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
• Snelgrove, S. & Slater, J. (2003). Approaches to learning: Psychometric testing of a study process questionnaire. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43(5), 496-505.
• Spencer, K. (2003). Approaches to learning and contemporary accounting education. Education in Changing Environment Conference Proceedings.
• Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2008). Students’ likes and dislikes regarding student-activating and lecture-based educational settings: Criteria that matter. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 295-317.
• Şeker, H., & Gençdoğan, B. (2006). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: The influence of learning context and student approaches to learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251-66.
• Uysal, E. (2010). A modeling study: The interrelationships among elementary students’ epistemological beliefs, learning environment perceptions, learning approaches and science achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• Ünal Çoban, G., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin feni öğrenme yaklaşımları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 271-293.
• Van Rossum, E.J., & Schenk, S.M. (1984). The relationship between learning conception, study strategy and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 73-83.
• Weston, R., and Gore, P.A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
• Yılmaz, M.B., & Orhan, F. (2011). Ders çalışma yaklaşımı ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159), 69-83.
• Zeegers, P. (2001). Student learning in science: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 115-132.
• Zhang, L.F. (2000). University students' learning approaches in three cultures: an investigation of Biggs's 3p Model. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 134(1), 37-55.