Öğrenme Yaklaşımları ve Çalışma Becerileri Ölçeğinin Türk Örneklemi Üzerinde Psikometrik Değerlendirmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 30 Issue: 3, 679 - 690, 31.07.2022

Pınar Çelik , Prof.dr.ilhan Sılay

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.838212

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğrenme yaklaşımları ve çalışma becerileri ölçeğinin beşli likert tipi, 52 madde, 3 faktörden (derinsel, stratejik, yüzeysel) oluşan ikinci bölümünün Türkçe uyarlamasının yapılarak, faktör yapısının incelenmesidir. Bu amaçla ilk olarak yazarlardan Noel Entwistle ile elektronik posta yoluyla iletişim kuruldu ve ölçeğin uyarlanabileceğine ilişkin gerekli izin alındı. İngiliz ve Türk dili uzmanlarından yardım alınarak Türkçeye çevrilen ölçeğin İngilizce ve Türkçe versiyonları Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi (DEU) İngilizce Öğretmenliği öğrencilerine (N=46) bir hafta arayla uygulandı ve öğrencilerin her iki uygulamadan aldıkları puanlar arasında yüksek düzeyde korelasyon bulunduğu (r= .805, p=.00) belirlendi. Ardından, ölçeğin faktör yapılarının incelenmesi için DEU’ de öğrenim gören ve temel fizik dersi alan 421 öğrenciden toplanan veriler ile Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi (EFA) yapıldı ve faktör yükleri .4’ ün altında ve faktör yükleri arasındaki fark .1’ den küçük olan 5 maddenin ölçekten çıkarılması ile ölçeğin orijinal faktör yapısı ile uyumlu 3 faktör altında toplanabileceği belirlendi. Ölçeğin açıklayıcı faktör analizi ile belirlenen üç faktörlü yapısının uyumluluğunu test etmek amacı ile ölçek, doğrulayıcı faktör analizine (CFA) tabii tutuldu. CFA sonunda üç faktörlü yapının veri setimizle yeterli düzeyde uyumlu olduğu belirlendi (χ2/sd=1.96, RMSEA=.072; CFI=.82, GFI=.78, NFI=.88). Ayrıca ASSIST’in öğrencilerin öğrenme yaklaşımlarını birbirinden ayırmada ne derece başarılı olduğunu saptamak ve ayırma fonksiyonlarını belirleyebilmek için ölçek, ayırma analizine tabii tutuldu. Yapılan karesel ayırma analizi ile ölçekteki 3 alt boyuttan birine atanan bir öğrencinin, diğer alt boyutlardan anlamlı düzeyde ayrılmış kabul edilebildiği ve böylelikle öğrencilerin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının başarılı şekilde saptanabildiği sonucuna ulaşıldı.

Keywords

öğrenme yaklaşımları ve çalışma becerileri ölçeği, psikometrik değerlendirme, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, açıklayıcı faktör analizi

Psychometric Evaluation on Turkish Version of The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the factor structure of the Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) by adapting the second part, which consists of five-point Likert scale, 52 items, and 3 factors (deep, strategic, surface), in Turkish. For this purpose, firstly one of the authors, Noel Entwistle, was contacted via email, and the necessary permission was received regarding the adaptation of the scale. The English and Turkish versions of the scale, which was translated into Turkish with the help of English and Turkish language experts, were applied to Dokuz Eylül University (DEU) English Language Teacher Education students (N = 46) one week apart, and it was determined that there was high correlation (r = .805, p=.05) between the scores of the students from both applications. Then, for examining the factor structures of the scale, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed with the data collected from 421 students who are studying at DEU and taking a basic physics course. It was determined that, by removing 5 items with factor loadings below .4 and the difference between factor loadings less than 0.1 from the scale, the scale could be collected under 3 factors compatible with the original factor structure. The scale was subjected to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in order to test the compatibility of the three-factor structure of the scale determined by EFA. As a result of CFA, it was determined that the three-factor structure has sufficient compatibility with our data set (χ2/sd=1.96, RMSEA=.072; CFI=.82, GFI=.78, NFI=.88). Besides, the scale was subjected to discriminant analysis in order to determine how successful the ASSIST was in separating the learning approaches of students and to determine the discriminant functions. With Quadratic Discriminant Analysis, it was concluded that a student assigned to one of the 3 sub-dimensions in the scale could be considered significantly separated from other sub-dimensions, and thus the learning approaches of the students could be determined successfully.

Keywords

approaches and study skills inventory, psychometric evaluation, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses

References

• Biggs, J. B. (1978). Individual and group differences in study process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 266-279. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1978.tb03013.x
• BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (1), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070315
• Brown, W. F., & Holtzman, W. H. (1955). A study-attitudes questionnaire for predicting academic success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 75-84. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0039970
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with amos: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd Edition). Madison, NY: Routledge.
• Coşkun, Ö., Özeke, V., Budakoğlu, İ., Tutan , B., Nazlı, H., & Aksoy, M. (2017). Ders çalışma becerileri ve yaklaşımı ölçeğinin uyarlanması: tıp fakültesi öğrencileri için geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Galen Medical Journal, 29,23-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.12996/gmj.2018.06
• Dennis, H. C. (2014). Study skills Inventory. University of Central Florida, Orlando. http://sarc.sdes.ucf.edu/form-studyskills
• Duff, A. (2003). Quality of learning on an mba programme: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23, 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303230
• Entwistle, N., Hanley, M., & Hounsell, D. (1979). Identifying distinctive approaches to studying. Higher Education, 8(4), 365-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i368095
• Entwistle, N. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Nichols Publications.
• Entwistle, N. J., & Tait, H. (1994) Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development, 14, 2–10. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1004.750&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Enwistle, N., & Tait, H. (1995). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment across disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219956413
• Enwistle, N. J. (1997). The approaches and study skills ınventory for students (ASSIST). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/questionnaires/ASSIST.pdf
• Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2003). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education. London: Koga Page. https://biblioteca.pucv.cl/site/colecciones/manuales_u/A%20Handbook%20for%20Teaching%20and%20Learning%20in%20Higher%20Education%20Enhancing%20academic%20and%20Practice.pdf
• Locke, N. M. (1940). Student skills ınventory: a study habits test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24, 493-504. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0058668
• Marshall, D., & Case, J. (2005). Approaches to learning research in higher education: a response to haggis. British Educational Research Journal, 31 (2), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1080/014119205200340242
• Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976a). On quantitiative differences in learning. I: outcome and process, British Journal of Educational Psychology 46, 4–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
• Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976b). On quantitiative differences in learning. II: outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1111%2Fj.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x
• Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x
• Newble, D. I., & Entwistle, N. J. (1986). Learning styles and approaches: implications for medical education. Medical Education, 20, 162–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01163.x
• Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in genetics and ecology: an examination of the potency of the concept-mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270508
• Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: improving teaching: new perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2011). College of education students’ approaches to learning and study skills. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36, 65-80. https://www.nuraysenemoglu.com/FileUpload/bs678778/File/college_of_education_students_approaches_to_learning_and_study_skills.pdf
• She, H. C. (2005). Promoting students’ learning of air pressure concepts: the interrelationship of teacher approaches and student learning characteristics. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74 (1), 29-51. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.1.29-52
• Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: a reconceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (ed.) Improving students as learners. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
• Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In: B. G. Tabachnick, & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• Weinstein, C. E., & Palmer, D. R. (2002). Learning and study strategies inventory (LASSI): User’s manual (2nd eEdition). Clearwater: FL: H & H Publishing.
• Wrenn, C. G. (1933). Study-habits inventory. Oxford, England: Stanford University Press.