You are here

İLKÖĞRETİM ÖĞRENCİLERİ İÇİN GÖRSEL MATEMATİK OKURYAZARLIĞI ÖZ YETERLİK ALGI ÖLÇEĞİ (GMOYÖYAÖ)'NİN GELİŞTİRİLMESİ

DEVELOPMENT OF A VISUAL MATH LITERACY SELF EFFICACY PERCEPTION SCALE (VMLSEPS) FOR ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
: There are several descriptions of literacy including, “the ability to read written texts by using alphabet” (Reinking, 1994); “students’ awareness of quantitative, logical, and mathematical operations in addition to the activities related to read-write” (NRC, 1989); and “individual’s ability to find, evaluate, and use the necessary written resources with the aim of improving his knowledge as well as potential to participate to the society effectively” (Akyüz & Pala, 2010). With reference to these different descriptions it is seen that literacy can differ according to tools used and acquired knowledge; what is more, there will be the need to describe more different literacy descriptions in parallel with the developments in daily life, science, and technology (Sanalan, Sülün & Çoban, 2007). For example, there are different types of literacy such as computer literacy, art literacy, media literacy (Altun, 2003), visual literacy (Anderson, 2002), and math literacy (Ersoy, 2003). In fact in information societies it becomes a mandatory feature to define new literacy types like artistic math or visual math literacy, which were emerged through the intersection of these different types of literacy. On the other hand, it is of vital importance to remember that other literacy types like visual and math literacy are not alternatives of the general literacy, but parts or supportive elements of it (Chauvin, 2003; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo & Kieffer, 1998; Sims, O’Leary, Cook & Butland, 2002). In addition, Visual Literacy (VL), which is defined as the ability to read and evaluate information presented in the forms of table, picture, and graphic; and the skill to create new visual images (Debes, 1968; Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smaldino, 1996; Hortin, 1980; Wileman, 1993); is in close relation with other types of literacy in terms of being a supporter or a part of them (Kellner, 1998). This relationship is even closer to Math Literacy (ML) due to its opportunities for individuals such as supporting them to better understand abstract thoughts by presenting these thoughts in a living and familiar way and bringing the experience to process the same thought in different ways (Feinstein & Hagerty, 1994; İpek, 2003). This close relationship reveals a new concept of literacy, “Visual Math Literacy (VML)”. VML can be described as, “the proficiency to perceive, signify, interpret, evaluate, and use the problems encountered in daily life within visual or spatial frameworks; and, to perceive, signify, interpret, evaluate, and use visual or spatial information in mathematical terms”. In Turkey there is no scientific research about VML, which is described as mentioned above, conducted at the elementary school level; hence, this study is very important for being the first to cover VML and integrate types of literacy. The purpose of this study is to develop a valid, reliable, easy to apply and easy to evaluate scale that can measure the self-efficacy of elementary students concerning their visual math literacy. This is a general survey study in which it is aimed to develop a scale. Participants of study are composed of 151 6th grade, 142 7th grade, and 135 8th grade students. Totally 428 students (220 girls and 208 boys) were selected randomly from two elementary schools in the Eastern Anatolian region of Turkey, and one elementary school from the Black Sea region. For the VMLSEPS first of all, 15 open ended questions were formed with reference to expert opinions, and these questions were asked to 6th, 7th, and 8th grade students (103 students in total) from two elementary schools in a large city in Eastern Anatolian region for the first semester of 2009-2010 academic year. Researchers created an item pool composed of 159 items by using students’ answers to these questions and considering the Elementary Education Mathematic Program 2005. With reference to the pool and based on the elementary school students’ successes on mathematics, an 58-item draft scale that can measure the self-efficacy of elementary students concerning their visual math literacy was prepared by a group of six experts, among which four were elementary school math teachers and two were faculty members at department of mathematics, by taking into account the majority of votes; and it was decided to entitle the scale as the Visual Math Literacy Self-efficacy Perception Scale, and abbreviated as VMLSEPS. Researchers decided to prepare a Likert type scale because it is a direct and the easiest way to determine VMLSEPS’ self-efficacy perceptions of visual math literacy, and in order to make it more sensitive and useful 5 point scale was developed. Out of the 58 items, 19 were stated as negative and the rest, 39 items, were stated as positive. Having obtained necessary permissions, the scale was tested on 428 students at 6th, 7th, and 8th grades in related schools. The test took a course hour. It was revealed that students can answer the scale generally between 15 to 25 minutes. VMLSEPS scale was basically analyzed regarding its extent and structural validity. Considering the structural validity of the VMLSEPS, experts were consulted if visual math literacy of each statement is related to its self-efficacy perceptions or sub-dimensions, and if elementary education mathematic program and students’ levels are congruent; and related corrections were made in accordance with experts’ opinions. Factor analysis was done for the structural validity of scale. For the adequacy of the sample, KMO value was calculated as 0. 959 and this value showed that the adequacy of the selected sample is perfect. Bartlett-Sphericity test was conducted in order to determine if the sample provides a normal range, and the value of significance was found as .000. The value of significance showed that the sample provides a normal range within the population. At the end of the factor analysis the items were clustered around three factors, “Field Content”, “Process”, and “The Places of Use”; and, it was showed that the total variance explained by these three factors was 41.81 %. On the other hand, for the sake of reliability, Cronbach Alpha was calculated as the criteria of the internal consistency of both the scale and each factor; and the Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency score of the scale was calculated as 0.943. According to this analysis results, the VMLSEPS, which was designed as a 5 point Likert Scale with 38 items (36 positive and 2 negative), was finalized. The lowest score of the scale is 38 points, while the highest is 190 points. High scores indicate high level of self-efficacy perceptions of visual math literacy and low scores indicate low level of self-efficacy perceptions. Last but not least, cluster analysis was conducted in order to determine how to group the scores obtained through the scale. Accordingly, groups and the scores after the analysis are; good or good group (GG) (between 190 and 148 points), Average or Average Group (AG) (between 147 and 84 points), and Bad or Bad Group (BG) (between 83 and 38 points). As a consequence, it can be argued that VMLSEPS is a valid, reliable, easy to use and easy to answer scale that can determine elementary students’ self-efficacy perceptions of visual math literacy either individually or in group. Also, it is thought that this scale can easily be used on 6th and 8th grade elementary school students so as to determine their levels of visual math literacy
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı; ilköğretim öğrencilerinin görsel matematik okuryazarlığı hakkındaki öz-yeterlilik algılarını ölçebilen geçerli, güvenilir, uygulaması ve değerlendirmesi kolay bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Bu amaçla konu ile ilgili kaynaklardan, öğrenci ve uzman görüşlerinden faydalanılarak 5’li Likert tipinde 58 maddelik taslak ölçek hazırlanmıştır. Bu taslak ölçek, 2009-2010 Eğitim-Öğretim yılının ikinci döneminde Doğu Anadolu bölgesinin iki, Karadeniz bölgesinin de bir ilindeki tesadüfi olarak seçilmiş ilköğretim okullarından toplam 428 öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin analizleri sonucunda 5 li Likert tipinde 38 maddelik ve GMOYÖYAÖ olarak adlandırılan nihai ölçek elde edilmiştir. Yine bu nihai ölçekteki 38 maddenin üç faktör altında toplandığı ve bu faktörlerin açıkladığı toplam varyans oranının %41.81 olduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca GMOYÖYAÖ’nün Cronbach-Alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı 0.943 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak GMOYÖYAÖ’nün ilköğretim öğrencilerinin görsel matematik okuryazarlığı hakkındaki öz yeterlik algılarını tespit edebilecek geçerliği-güvenirliği sağlanmış bir ölçek olduğu söylenebilir.
89-115

REFERENCES

References: 

AKYÜZ G., ve PALA N. M. (2010). PISA 2003 Sonuçlarına Göre Öğrenci Ve
Sınıf Özelliklerinin Matematik Okuryazarlığına ve Problem Çözme
Becerilerine Etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 667-678.
ALPAN G. (2008). “Görsel Okuryazarlık ve Öğretim Teknolojisi, Yüzüncü
Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 74-102.
ALTUNA. (2003). E-okuryazarlık. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 158.
ANDERSON E. (2002). Enhancing Visual Literacy Through Cognitive
Activities, Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE/SEF/TUB Colloquium Carnegie
Mellon University, American Society for Engineering Education.
AŞKAR P., ve UMAY A. (2001). “İlköğretim Matematik Öğretmenliği
Öğrencilerinin Bilgisayarla İlgili Özyeterlik Algısı”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi BANDURA A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
BEKDEMİR M. ve IŞIK A. (2007). “İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Cebir
Öğrenme Alanında Kavram ve İşlem Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi”, The
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 28, 9-18.
BRADEN R. (1996). “Visual Literacy”, Journal of Visual Literacy, 16(2), 1-
83.
BROWN T. A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis: For Applied
Research, New York: Guilford Pres.
BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK Ş. (2005). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı,
Ankara: Pegem-A Yayıncılık.
BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK Ş., KILIÇ ÇAKMAK E., AKGÜN Ö.E., KARADENİZ Ş.
ve DEMİREL F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri (Geliştirilmiş
üçüncü baskı), Ankara: Pegem-A Yayıncılık.
CHAUVIN B. A. (2003). “Visual Or Media Literacy”, Journal of Visual
Literacy, 23(2), 119-128.
COHEN L., MANION L., and MORRISON K. (2007). Research Methods In
Education (6th Ed.), New York: Routledge.
ÇOKLUK Ö., ŞEKERCİOĞLU G. ve BÜYÜKÖZTÜRK Ş. (2010). Çok
Değişkenli İstatistik SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları, Ankara: Pegem
Akademi Yayınları.
DEBES, J.L. (1968). “Some Foundations For Visual Literacy,. Audiovisual
Instruction. 13(9), 961-964.
DEMİREL Ö., SEFEROĞLU S., ve YAĞCI, E. (2001). Öğretim teknolojileri ve
materyal geliştirme. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık.
EARGED. (2005). Pisa 2003 projesi ulusal nihai rapor. from the World Wide
Web:
http://earged.meb.gov.tr/pisa/dokuman/2003/rapor/PISA_RAPOR_2003.pdf
(31.03.2010 da alındı). EARGED. (2008). PISA’da okuma becerileri, PISA’da matematik okuryazarlığı.
from the World Wide Web:
http://earged.meb.gov.tr/pisa/dokuman/2009/2009pisa.pdf (31.03.2010 da
alındı).
EARGED. (2010). PISA 2009 Ulusal Ön Raporu. from
http://earged.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/pisa/pisa2009rapor.pdf (22.06.2011 da
alındı).
ERSOY Y. (2003). Matematik okuryazarlığı-II: Hedefler, geliştirilecek yetiler ve
beceriler. Matematikçiler Derneği. from the World Wide Web:
http://matder.org.tr (31.03.2010 da alındı).
FEINSTEIN H., and HAGERTY R. (1994). Visual literacy in general education
at the University of Cincinnati. In Visual literacy in the digital age: Selected
readings from the [25th] Annual Conference of the International Visual
Literacy Association. Rochester, New York, October 13-17, 1993; (ERIC
Document No. ED 370 602 ).
HEINICH R., MOLENDA M., and RUSSELL, J. (1989). Instructional media
and technologies of instruction. (3rd.Ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
HEINICH R., MOLENDA M., RUSSELL J., and SMALDINO S. E. (1996).
Instructional media and technologies for learning. (5th.Ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
HORTIN J. A. (1980). Visual literacy and visual thinking. (ERIC Document No:
ED 214 522). IVLA.(2004). What is “visual literacy”?.from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ivla.org/org_what_vis_lit.htm (31.03.2010 da alındı)
İPEK İ. (2003). Bilgisayarlar, görsel tasarım ve görsel öğrenme stratejileri.
The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2(3).
İŞLER A. Ş. (2002). “Günümüzde Görsel Okuryazarlık Ve Görsel
Okuryazarlık Eğitimi”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
15(1), 153-161.
KARASAR N. (2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın
Dağıtım.
KELLNER D. (1998). Multiple literacies and critical pedagogy in a
multicultural society. Educational Theory. 48(1), 103-122. LEVIE, W. H. (1987). Research on pictures: a guide to the literature. The
Psychology of Illustration: Basic Research. I. Newyork: Springer- Verlag.
MEB. (2005). Matematik dersi öğretim programı ve kılavuzu (9-12.sınıflar).
Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston/VA.
NRC (National Research Council). (1989). A report to the nation of the future of
mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy, A
Framework for PISA 2006. from the World Wide Web:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org (31.03.2010 da alındı)
ÖZGEN K., ve BİNDAK R. (2008). “Matematik okuryazarlığı öz-yeterlik
ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi”. Kastamonu Üniversitesi Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi.
16(2), 517-528.
ÖZGÜN-KOCA S. A., ve ŞEN A. İ. (2002). “3. uluslararası matematik ve fen
bilgisi çalışması- tekrar sonuçlarının Türkiye için değerlendirilmesi.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 23, 145-154.
PAJARES F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578
REINKING D. (1994). Electronic literacy. perspectives in reading research.
National Reading Research Center, College Park, MD. (ERIC Document No:
ED 371 324).
REINKING D., MCKENNA M. C., LABBO L.D., and KİEFFER R. D. (1998).
Handbook of technology and literacy: transformations in a post-typographic world.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
SANALAN V. A., SÜLÜN A., ve ÇOBAN A. (2007). “Görsel Okuryazarlık”.
Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9 (2), 33-47.
SENEMOĞLU N., (2009). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim – Kuramdan
uygulamaya. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
SIMS E., O’LEARY R., COOK J. and BUTLAND G. (2002). “Visual literacy:
what is it and do we need it to use learning technologies effectively?”, Proceedings of the Annual ASCILITE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand,
December 1-6.
STOKES S. (2001). Visual literacy in teaching and learning: A literatüre
perspective. Electronic Journal for The Integration of Technology in Education.
1(1), 10-19.
TAVŞANCIL E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara:
Nobel Yayıncılık.
TEKİN B., ve TEKİN S. (2004). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının matematiksel
okuryazarlık düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Matematikçiler Derneği. from the
World Wide Web: http://matder.org.tr (31.03.2010 da alındı).
TIMSS. (2000). TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report: Findings from
IEA’s Repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the
Eight Grade. from the World Wide Web: http://www.nces.ed.gov/timss
(31.03.2010 da alındı)
WILEMAN R. E. (1993). Visual communications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Educational Technology Publications.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com