İnceleme Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

THE INSTRUMENTS USED IN SCIENCE EDUCATION IN TURKEY: A DESCRIPTIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 364 - 383, 21.12.2015
https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.2-5000161329

Öz

The aim of this descriptive content analysis study was to analyze recent research articles related to developing and adapting scale/achievement tests. For this purpose national journals were searched. Totally 62 articles published in 21 different journals between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed in terms of participants, subjects, validity and reliability studies, data collection tools, research methods/designs employed, sample sizes, data analysis methods, variance range, factor loading, and Cronbach-Alpha values. “Scale/Achievement Test Classification Form” developed by researchers was used to analyze the data. The results of the study revealed that science and technology discipline was the most common subject for the developed/adapted scales and achievement tests. The most common participant groups were undergraduate and secondary level students and the common sample sizes were around 101-200. In addition, the common research trend in scales was student attitudes. Exploratory factor analysis was the most preferred analysis (74 %) for the developed/adapted scales, and confirmatory factor analysis was run for a small number of studies (4%). 

Kaynakça

  • Arıcak, O.T. & Ilgaz, G. (2007). The investigation of construct validity of biology course attitude scale with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 1-8.
  • Bowen, C. W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (1), 171-185.
  • Çalık, M., Ünal, S., Çoştu, B. & Karataş, F.Ö. (2008). Trends in Turkish science education. Essays in Education, Special Edition, 23-45.
  • Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment (pp.71). Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, London.
  • Crook, T. R., Shook, C. L., Madden, T. M. & Morris, M. L. (2010). A review of current construct measurement in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6 (4), 387-398.
  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed. Vol. 26). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London.
  • Eddy, R. M. (2000). Chemophobia in the college classroom: Extent, sources, and student characteristics. Journal of Chemical Education. 77 (4), 514-517.
  • Göktaş, Y., Akçay, A., Hasançebi, F., Bayrak, N., Varisoğlu, B., Baran, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Trends in educational research in Turkey: A content analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 443-460.
  • Guadagnoli, E. & Velicer, W.F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 265-275.
  • Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S. & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 238-247.
  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 104-121.
  • Koçak, C. & Önen, A.S. (2012). A study for the development of attitude scale towards daily life chemistry. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 318-329.
  • Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Osborne, J. W. & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9 (11), Retrieved March 9, 2014 fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11.
  • Price, J.P., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
  • Reynolds, C. R. (2010). Measurement and assessment: An editorial view. Psychological Assessment, 22 (1), 1-4.
  • Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M. & Dündar, H. (2014). Eğitim ve bilim dergisinde yayınlanan araştırmaların eğilimleri: İçerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39 (173), 430-453.
  • Slavec, A. & Drnovsek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review, 14 (1), 39-62.
  • Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H. & Yaşar, M.D. (2012). 14. Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of published papers. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds). Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp.341-374). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  • Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2012). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. 4. Baskı, Pegem Akademi, 424 s, Ankara.
  • Wells, R.R. (2003). The development of an instrument to assess chemistry perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation. Texas Tech University.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (6. Baskı), Seçkin Yayınevi, 366 s, Ankara.

Türkiyede Fen Eğitiminde Kullanılan Ölçme Araçları Betimsel İçerik Analizi

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 364 - 383, 21.12.2015
https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.2-5000161329

Öz

Bu çalışmayla fen eğitimi alanında geliştirilen ve Türk kültürüne uyarlanan ölçeklerde ve başarı testlerinde yazarların yoğunlaştığı alanları, araştırmalarda tercih edilen konuları, araştırma metodunu, örneklemi ve verilerin analizinde tercih edilen veri analiz yöntemini, sonuç da ise geliştirilen/uyarlama yapılan aracı belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla 2002-2013 yılları arasında 21 farklı ulusal dergide yayımlanmış fen eğitimi alanında geliştirilen/uyarlanan ölçeklerden/başarı testlerinden oluşan toplam 62 makalenin doküman incelemesi yapılmıştır. Geliştirilen/uyarlanan ölçeklerde ve başarı testlerinde daha çok fen ve teknoloji alanında yapılan çalışmaların ağırlık kazandığı, örneklem grubu olarak lisans ve ortaöğretim öğrencileriyle ve örneklem büyüklüğü olarak ise 101-200 aralığındaki örneklem büyüklükleriyle çalışmaların yapıldığı anlaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca daha çok öğrencilerin tutumlarını belirlemeye yönelik ölçeklerin geliştirildiği görülmektedir. Geliştirilen/adaptasyon çalışması yapılan ölçeklerin büyük bir çoğunluğunda açımlayıcı faktör analizinin (%74) tercih edildiği, çok az çalışmada ise doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin (%4) uygulandığı görülmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Arıcak, O.T. & Ilgaz, G. (2007). The investigation of construct validity of biology course attitude scale with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 1-8.
  • Bowen, C. W. (1999). Development and score validation of a chemistry laboratory anxiety instrument (CLAI) for college chemistry students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59 (1), 171-185.
  • Çalık, M., Ünal, S., Çoştu, B. & Karataş, F.Ö. (2008). Trends in Turkish science education. Essays in Education, Special Edition, 23-45.
  • Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment (pp.71). Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, London.
  • Crook, T. R., Shook, C. L., Madden, T. M. & Morris, M. L. (2010). A review of current construct measurement in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6 (4), 387-398.
  • Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1), 64-73.
  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd ed. Vol. 26). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London.
  • Eddy, R. M. (2000). Chemophobia in the college classroom: Extent, sources, and student characteristics. Journal of Chemical Education. 77 (4), 514-517.
  • Göktaş, Y., Akçay, A., Hasançebi, F., Bayrak, N., Varisoğlu, B., Baran, M. & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Trends in educational research in Turkey: A content analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (1), 443-460.
  • Guadagnoli, E. & Velicer, W.F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 265-275.
  • Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S. & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7 (3), 238-247.
  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 104-121.
  • Koçak, C. & Önen, A.S. (2012). A study for the development of attitude scale towards daily life chemistry. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 318-329.
  • Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O. & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Osborne, J. W. & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9 (11), Retrieved March 9, 2014 fromhttp://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=11.
  • Price, J.P., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.
  • Reynolds, C. R. (2010). Measurement and assessment: An editorial view. Psychological Assessment, 22 (1), 1-4.
  • Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M. & Dündar, H. (2014). Eğitim ve bilim dergisinde yayınlanan araştırmaların eğilimleri: İçerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39 (173), 430-453.
  • Slavec, A. & Drnovsek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review, 14 (1), 39-62.
  • Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H. & Yaşar, M.D. (2012). 14. Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of published papers. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds). Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp.341-374). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
  • Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2012). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. 4. Baskı, Pegem Akademi, 424 s, Ankara.
  • Wells, R.R. (2003). The development of an instrument to assess chemistry perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation. Texas Tech University.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (6. Baskı), Seçkin Yayınevi, 366 s, Ankara.
Toplam 23 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Cemal Tosun

Yavuz Taşkesenligil Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 21 Aralık 2015
Gönderilme Tarihi 21 Aralık 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Tosun, C., & Taşkesenligil, Y. (2015). THE INSTRUMENTS USED IN SCIENCE EDUCATION IN TURKEY: A DESCRIPTIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 364-383. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2015.15.2-5000161329