Derse katılmama durumundaki zaman yönelimi ölçeğinin psikometrik özellikleri

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 1178 - 1190, 26.06.2011

Ali Eryılmaz , Esra Dereli

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilköğretim öğrencileri için derse katılmama durumlarındaki zaman yönelimlerini ölçen bir ölçme aracı geliştirmektir. Çalışma, 10-14 yaş arasındaki Eskişehir’ de ilköğretim öğrenimi gören 179 ( %48,5) kız ve 190 ( % 51,5) erkek olmak üzere toplam 369 öğrenci üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada geçerlik analizi için açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör ve güvenirlik analizleri için iç tutarlık analizi ve test tekrar test tekniği ile analizler yapılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, yapılan AFA sonucunda ölçeğin altı faktörden oluştuğu ve söz konusu faktörlerin açıklanan varyansa olan toplam katkısının % 60.75 düzeyinde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin boyutları, “Şimdide Davranış Sergilemek”, “Gelecekte Gelişim Görevini Başarıp-Başarmayacağını Düşünme”, “Gelecekte İhtiyacını Doyurmayı Düşünme”, “Kontrolü Yitirme”, “Geçmişteki Sorunları Düşünme” ve “Geçmişin Hazzını Düşünme” olarak isimlendirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, “İlköğretim Öğrencileri İçin Derse Katılmama Durumundaki Zaman Yönelimleri Ölçeği’nin” yüksek düzeyde güvenilir ve geçerli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu ölçekle, gelecekte çeşitli araştırmalar yapılarak alanın gelişmesine katkıda bulunulabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

ilköğretim öğrencileri, derse katılmama, zaman yönelimi, ölçek

Psychometric properties of time orientation during classroom disengagement scale

Öz

This study aimed to develop a scale to measure time orientation of primary school students
during classroom disengagement. Participants were a total of 369 primary school children, 179 female and 190
male students aged between 10-14. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysises and certain reliability
analyses were used in the study. The findings revealed a six-dimensional scale, 60.75 % of whose variance was
explained. The dimensions of the scale were “to display behavior at present”, “to think about past problems”,
“to think about meeting future needs”, “to think about past hedonic experience”, to think about developmental
task whether or not to achieve”, and “to lose control”. The reliability and validity values of the scale were
found to be satisfactory. The scale that resulted was given the title “Scale for Primary School Children’ Time
Orientation during Classroom Disengagement”. This instrument may be used in various studies in the future,
thus contributing to the development of the field.

Anahtar Kelimeler

primary school children, classroom, disengagement, time orientation, scale.

Kaynakça

• Akbaba, S. ( 2004). Çocuk Eğitimcileri ve Sağlıklı Psikolojik Gelişim. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4,73-92.
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271.
• Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1998). Intrinsic need satisfaction." A motivational basis of performance and well-being in work settings. Unpublished manuscript, Fordham University.
• Barton, P. E. (2004).One-third of a nation: Rising dropout rates and declining opportunities.
• Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
• Bembenutty, H. ve Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychological Review, 16, 35-57.
• Brophy, J. (1987). Socializing students' motivation to learn. In M. L. Maehr and D. A. Kleiber (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 5 (pp. 123-148). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press, Inc.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
• Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Lehr, C. A., & Hurley, C. M. (2000). Promoting successful school completion. In D. Minke & G. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work (pp. 377 – 420). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
• Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to importing Japanese lesson study: Concerns, misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 520–525.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The undermining effect is a reality after all: Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 692-700.
• Doğan, Y.(2007). İlköğretim Çağındaki 10-14 Yaş Grubu Öğrencilerinin Gelişim Özellikleri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen- Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13, 155-185.
• Eryılmaz, A.(2007). Okulda Motivasyon ve Amotivasyon: Sevgili Öğretmenim Derse katıl, Derse Katıl Diyorsun. Ama Bir Sor Bakalım; Mutlu muyum ve Seni seviyor muyum? Ulusal Teknik Eğitim, Mühendislik ve Eğitim Bilimleri Genç Araştırmacılar Sempozyumu Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı, 20-22 Haziran. Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Kocaeli, Türkiye.
• Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Okulda Motivasyon ve Mmotivasyon Ölçeklerinin Geliştirilmesi. XVI. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi. Mersin Üniversitesi, Mersin.
• Eryılmaz, A., Yıldız, İ. & Akın, S. (2011). Investigating of relationships between attitudes towards physics laboratories, motivation and amotivation for the class engagement. Eurasian Journal. Physics Chemistry Education (Special Issue), 59-64.
• Erikson, E. (1968). Childhood and society. New York: Norton Press.
• Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117 – 142.
• Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–234.
• Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of he concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59 – 109.
• Gagne´, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223.
• Gjesme, T. (1979). Future time orientation as a function of achievement motives, ability, delay of gratification, and sex. The Journal of Psychology, 101, 173-188.
• Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York: Peter H. Wyden
• Hale C. S. (1993). Time dimensions and subjective experience of time. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. 33, 88–105.
• Hellsten, L. M. & Todd Rogers, W. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of the time management for exercise scale. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, 13(1), 13-33.
• Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E.,& Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7 – 27.
• Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guildford Press.
• Kushman, J.W., Sieber, C., & Heariold-Kinney, P. (2000). This isn't the place for me: School dropout. In D. Capuzzi & D.R. Gross (Eds.), Youth at risk: A prevention resource for counselors, teachers, and parents (3rd ed., pp. 471-507). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
• Lens, W. (1988). The motivational significance of future time perspective: The homecoming of a concept. Psychologica, 1, 27-46.
• Martin, A. J. (2001) The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.
• Martin, A. J. (2002) Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 47, 88-106.
• Martin, A. J. (2003) How to motivate your child for school and beyond. Sydney: Bantam.
• McCombs, B.L., & Whisler, J.S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Miller, R.B., & Brickman, S. J. (2004). A model of future oriented motivation and self regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 9-33.
• Miller, E.K., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
• Morris, M. and Pullen, C. (2007). Disengagement and Re-engagement of Young People in Learning at Key Stage 3. Totnes: Research in Practice.
• Mouton, S. & Hawkins, J. (1996). School attachment: Perspectives of low-attached high school students. Educational Psychology, 16 (3), pp. 297-305.
• Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student from secondary schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 17, 14 – 24.
• Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11 – 39). NewYork: Teachers College Press.
• Phalet, K., Andriessen, I., Lens W. (2004). How future goals enhance motivation and learning in multicultural classrooms. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 59-89.
• Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Research leading to a predictive model of dropout and completion among students with mild disabilities and the role of student engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 276 – 292.
• Ryan, M.R. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, 1, 68-78.
• Skinner, E.A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, & coping. London: Sage Publications.
• Skinner, E.A. (1996). A guide to consructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Pscyhology, 71, 549- 570.
• Strong, R., Silver, H.F., & Robinson, A. (1995). What do students want? Educational Leadership, 53(1), 8-12.
• Şimşek, Ö. F., (2007). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş. Ankara: Ekinoks.
• Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation, and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 127 –138.
• Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with school. American Journal of Education, 105, 295 –319.
• Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
• Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271 -1288.
• Zimmerman, B., & Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 284-290.