Buradasınız

Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri Dersine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik

Developing an Attitude Scale Related to Scientific Research Methods Course: Validity and Reliability

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.42.7
Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Qualified people are supposed to perceive and describe the problems they face and to establish various hypotheses as to the characteristics of these problems by defining probable variations in them, as well as by detecting and describing likely relations among the variations so that they could come up with virtual solutions to the problem by using a number of existing scientific search procedures related to the problem. On the other hand, the mission to impose the required knowledge and qualifications concerning the scientific process is supposed to be performed by educational institutions. The major aim of today's education system is training individuals who could generate knowledge by themselves and could share what they have obtained, as well as having and investigative point of view and scientific attitude and treatment (Büyüköztürk, 1999). That is why investigative education is largely placed on the front line, and higher education institutions have, in recent years, added ‚Scientific Research Methods‛ courses into their curricula in order to help their students overcome the problems which they are likely to come across in real life. However, a great many researchers have found that many higher education students, especially the ones in social sciences departments, exhibit negative attitudes towards that course. For instance, this attitude prevails in education (Lehtinen & Rui, 1995; Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 1998; Baloğlu, 2003), in psychology (Pretouis & Norman, 1992; Thompson, 1994; Hauff & Fogarty, 1996), in sociology (Filinson & Niklas, 1992), and generally in social sciences (Zeidner, 1991). While a great many students were observed to get lower proficiency grades in a researching course (Bishop & Bieschke, 1998; Bard, Bieschke, Herbert & Eber, 2000), they were found to have remarkably low motivation for research activities during research courses (Bauman et al., 2002; 1999, Papanastasiou, 2005), and such a low motivation in students invariably leads their productivity levels concerning prospective studies to be affected in a negative way (Deck, Cecil & Colpia, 1990; Gelso 1993; Bauman 2004). The aim of this study is developing a scale whose validity and reliability is high to clarify the attitudes of the students studying in Social Sciences Departments in the course ‚Scientific Research Methods‛. Method During the Literature scanning, it was found that there were nearly no attitude scales as to the course ‚Scientific Research Methods‛ for university students studying in social sciences departments. Judging from this fact, the information was gathered by putting 58 approach terms together as to scientific research methods, with the help of very few already existing studies. The draft was scanned by a language expert before it was introduced to pilot scheme. Then, the approach terms were individually submitted to nine academic members and were thoroughly approved in terms of the credibility of scientific research methods for their capacity in cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. The data obtained by the pilot scheme was initially analyzed by means of SPSS 20 program, then 20 approach terms were introduced to the study group. The study group was comprised of 430 students, 176 of whom were females (41 %) and 254 of whom were male ones (59 %) who had already taken the courses ‚Measure and Assessment‛ and ‚Scientific Research Methods‛ from different departments of Pamukkale University (Primary School Teaching Department, Pre-school Education Teaching Department, Psychological Consultancy and Guiding Department, Computer Technologies and Teaching and Fine Art Education Department). Results In this study, after the conclusive scale of 20 items was applied to the study group, the structural validity of the measure medium, the reliability of co-efficiency based on inner consistency, as well as matter-total correlation were calculated. In order to test the consistency of sampling availability and the data obtained with the factor analysis, KMO and Barlett's was used, and it was found that the value of KMO was .924, while the global value of Bartlett's was seen as 2  = 3256, 749 (p<.000), and these values clearly indicate that the measure values are consistent with the factor analysis along with the hypothesis of normalcy. Concerning the Structural Validity, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA) were used. According to the results of EFA, the scale had only one dimension and 4 sub-dimensions (factors). Meanwhile, results of the CFA have also approved this suggestion. The four sub-factors are ordered as follows: (1) The Vitality of the course ‚Scientific Research‛ ( = .834), (2) ‚Power for Achievement‛ (Cognitive Self- Confidence) ( = .814), (3) Positive Approach toward research ( = .799), and (4) Daily Life and Occupational Relations ( = .840). The four sub-factors groups make up 62.161 % of the total variance, and such a proficient description rate could be considered an acceptable value (Şencan, 2005). Discussion and Conclusion In this process, EFA and CFA were used. According to the factor analysis, the scale is likely to assist in building up an attitude towards the course ‚Scientific Research Methods‛, and it was also seen that the scale was of four sub-dimensions (factors), all of which are proficient in construction of psychological structure. Thus, the scale has the required structural validity. In other words, the scale explains the total variance as 62.161% concerning the psychological structure to be defined. This definition rate could also be considered a high level, and as such, it is considered an acceptable level in the social sciences in building up a scale (Şencan, 2005; Çokluk; Şekercioğlu & Büyüköztürk, 2010). According to the results of EFA, in order to reveal the attitudes of higher education students toward the course ‚Scientific Research Methods‛, it was found that the terms in the scale had suitable characteristics to be brought together under the four sub-factors. So as to test the validity of this structure, CFA was used, while the credibility of the psychological structure was approved by using the ‚maximum likelihood‛ method concerning the CFA. As follows, here are the convenience index values obtained from CFA results concerning this scale: RMSEA= .037; CFI= .99; RFI= .95; GFI= .92; AGFI= .96; NFI= .86; NNFI= .99; RMR= .18, and SRMR= .049. On the other hand, it was understood that these convenience index values were nearly perfect ones and higher than the criteria suggested by the field authorities (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Marsh et al., 1988; McCallum et al., 1996; Hair et al., 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sümer, 2000; Byrne, 2001; McDonald & Moon-Ho, 2002; Steiger, 2007; Çokluk, Şekercioğlu & Büyüköztürk, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidel, 2010). As the result of the analysis concerning the credibility of the measure medium, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was calculated as  =.917. This nearly perfect credibility of the co-efficiency in terms of inner consistency indicates that an attitude term in the measurement medium is closely related to each other. In other words, it shows that the measurement medium is comprised of only one psychological structure and is of high structural credibility. The attitude scale developed in this study concerning Scientific Research Methods are as follows: 1) The vitality of the course ‚Scientific Research‛, 2) Power for Achievement (Cognitive Self-Confidence), 3) Positive Approach toward research, and 4) Daily Life- Occupational Relations. For researchers wishing to hold a study in this matter, it is suggested that they should also develop scales containing different factors apart from the sub-factors mentioned in this scale. Besides, they could also work on the credibility of the scales based on the existing criteria or study credibility of criteria groups related to sex, success in numerical courses, and points of view of the students in different faculties or departments.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu araştırmanın amacı, Sosyal Bilimler alanında öğrenim gören öğrencilerin Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri Dersine Yönelik tutumlarını belirleyecek; geçerli ve güvenilir bir tutum ölçeği geliştirmektir. Ölçme aracının yapı geçerliği için Açımlayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi kullanılmıştır. Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi sonuçlarına göre, ölçek toplam 20 madde ve dört alt boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Alt boyutların faktör yük değerleri ile toplam varyansı açıklama oranları sırasıyla, birinci faktör, 7,848 özdeğer ve varyans açıklama oranı % 39,240, ikinci faktör öz değer 2,123 ve toplam varyans açıklama oranı % 10,614,üçüncü faktör öz değer 1,350 ve toplam varyans açıklama oran % 6,752, dördüncü faktör öz değer 1,111 ve toplam varyans açıklama oranı % 5,555’tir. Dört alt boyut ölçülmesi düşünülen psikolojik örtük yapıya ait varyansın % 62,161’ini açıklamaktadır. Öte yandan, açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucu ortaya çıkan yapıyı test etmek için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi kullanılmıştır. Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi sonucunda, 199,68/166=1.202; RMSEA=,037; CFI=,99; GFI=,92; AGFI=,86; NFI=,96; NNFI=,99; RMR=,18 ve SRMR=,049 bulgularına ulaşılmıştır. Ulaşılan bulgular ölçeğin tek yapılı dört alt boyutlu olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bulgulardan hareketle ölçeğin, Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemlerine yönelik tutumu ölçebilecek özellikte olduğu söylenebilir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılık anlamında güvenirlik katsayısı ⍺ = .917 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu değer ölçeğin çok yüksek düzeyde iç tutarlılığa sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.
108
129

REFERENCES

References: 

Astramovich, R. L., Okech, J. E. A. & Hoskins, W. J. (2004) Counselor educators’ perception
of their doctoral course work in research methods. Guidance ve Counseling, 19, 124-131.
Ayyıldız, H. & Cengiz, E. (2006). Pazarlama modellerinin testinde kullanılabilecek yapısal
modeli (YEM) üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F.
Dergisi, 11 (1), 63-84.
Aydın, R., Şahin, H. & Topal, T. (2008). Türkiye’de ilköğretime sınıf öğretmeni yetiştirmede
nitelik arayışları. TSA, 12 (2), 120-142.
Baloğlu, M. (2003). Individual differences in Statistics anxiety among college students. Journal
of Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 855-865.
Bard, C. C.,Bieschke, K. J., Herbert, J. T. & Eberz, A. B. (2000) Predicting research interest
among rehabilitation counseling students and faculty. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 44 (1), 48-55.
Bauman, S. (2004) School counselor and research revisited. Professional School Counseling, 7,
141-151.
Bauman, S., Siegel, J. T., Davis, A., Falco, L. D., Seabolt, K. & Szymanski, G. (2002) School
counselers’ interest in Professional literature and research. Professional School
Counseling, 5, 346-352.
Bentler, P. M. & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analyses of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 588-606.
Bishop, R. M. & Bieschke, K. J. (1998) Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research
among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. Journal of Couseling
Psychology, 45, 182-188.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (1996). Türk yüksek öğretiminde araştırma eğitimi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora
Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (1999). İlköğretim okullarındaki öğretmenlerin araştırma yeterlikleri. Kuram
ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 18, 257-269.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Cattell, R. B. (1996). The scree test fort the number of factors. Multivariate Behavorial Research,
1, 245-276
YAŞAR
Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri Dersine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik
124
Cronbach, L. J. (1990) Essentials of psychological testing. (5th Edition) New York: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli
istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Çepni, S. & Küçük, M. (2002). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin eğitim araştırmalarına ilişkin
görüşleri. V. Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi 16-18 Eylül 2002. Ankara: Orta
Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Kongre Kitabı. ss. 282-287
Deck, M. D., Cecil, J. H. & Cobia, D. C. (1990). School counselor research as perceived by
American School counselor Association leaders: Implications for the profession.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25 (1), 12-20.
Ekiz, D. (2006). Primary school teachers’ attitudes towards educational research. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 6 (2), 395-402.
Ellez, A. M., Gümüş, N. & Seferov, R. (2009). Coğrafya bölümü öğrencilerinin istatistik
dersine yönelik tutumları: Türkiye ve Azerbaycan örneği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21, 185-192.
Erkuş, A. (1999). Üç üniversitedeki lisansüstü tez çalışmalarının psikometrik açıdan durumu.
IV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi Bildirileri 4. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi
Yayınları. ss. 75-88.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London. SAGE Publication.
Geban, Ö., Çiçek, F. F., Başaran, S., Demirbaş, A. & Maden, C. (2001). 21. yüzyıla girerken Türk
eğitim sisteminin ihtiyaç duyduğu çağdaş öğretmen profili. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Hafdahl, A. R. (2004). Refinements for random-effects meta-analysis of Correlation matrices.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Monterey, CA.
Hauff, H. M. & Fogarty, G. J. (1996). Analyzing problem solving behavior of successful and
unsuccessful statistics students. Instructional Science, 24, 397-409.
Filinson, R. & Niklas, D. (1992). The research critique approach to educating sociology
students. Teaching Sociology, 20, 129-134.
Fong, M. L. & Malone, C. M (1994). Defeating ourselves: Common errors in counseling
research. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 33, 356-362.
Gelso, C. J. (1993). On the making of a scienst-practioner: A theory in research training and
professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Researchand Practice, 24, 468-476.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tahtam, R. L. & Black, C. W.(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th
Edition). New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999) Cut off criteria for fit index in covariance structure analysis.
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jöreskog, K. G & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Structural equation modeling with SIMPLIS
command language. Lincolnwood, IL Scientific Software International.
Kiley, M. & Mullins, G. (2005). Supervisors conceptions of research: What are they?
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49 (3), 245-262.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.
Korkmaz, Ö., Şahin, A. & Yeşil, R. (2011). Öğretmenlerin bilimsel araştırmalara ve
araştırmacılara ilişkin düşünceleri. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4 (2), 109-127
Lehtinen, E. & Rui, E. (1995) Computer–supported complex learning: An environment for
learning experimental methods and statistical inference. Machine-Mediated Learning, 5,
149-175.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodnes-of-fit index in confirmatory
factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi – Journal of Educational Sciences Research
125
McCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structural modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1 (2), 130-149.
McDonald, R. P. & Moon-Ho, R. H. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analysis. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 64-82.
Meyer, J. H. F., Shanahan, M. P. & Laugksch, R. C. (2005). Students’ conceptions of research.
I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
49 (3) 225-244.
Nartgün, Z., Uluman, M., Akın, Ç., Çelik, T. & Çevik, C. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının
bilimsel araştırma öz-yeterliklerinin incelenmesi. XVII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri
Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Sakarya.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2000). Academic procrastination and Statistics Anxiety. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 29, No. 1, February 2004
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Daley, C. E. (1998) Study skill of undergraduates as a function of
academic locus of control, self-perception and social interdependence. Psychological
Reports, 83, 595-598.
Özdamar, K. (2002). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi 1 SPSS-Minitab. Eskişehir: Kaan
Kitapevi.
Öztürk, M. A. (2010). An exploratory study on measuring educators’ attitudes toward
educational research. Educational Research and Reviews, 5 (12), 758-769.
Papanastasiou, E. C. (2005). Factor Structure of the attitudes toward research Scale. Statistic
Education Research Journal, 4 (1), 16-26.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Pres.
Pretorius, T. B. & Norman, A. M. (1992). Psychometric data on the statistics anxiety scale for
a sample of South African students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 933-
937.
Saracaloğlu, A. S., Varol, S. R. & Ercan, İ. E. (2005). Lisansüstü eğitim öğrencilerinin bilimsel
araştırma kaygıları araştırma ve istatistiğe yönelik tutumları ile araştırma yetenekleri
arasındaki ilişki. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 187-199.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Stieger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural
equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), 893-898.
Stieger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 25 (2), 173-180.
Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk
Psikoloji Yazıları, 3 (6), 49-79.
Şencan, H. (2005) Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin
Yayıncılık.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. (Forth Edition). MA: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc.
Taşdemir, M. & Taşdemir, A. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel araştırmaları inceleme
yeterlikleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26, 344-53.
Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın
Dağıtım.
YAŞAR
Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri Dersine Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik
126
Tay, B., Demirci-Güler, M. P. & Taşdemir, A. (2009). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğrencilerinin
bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri dersi başarı düzeyleri ve düşünceleri. VIII. Ulusal Sınıf
Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu’nda sunulan bildiri, Eskişehir.
Tatlıdil, H. (1992). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel analiz. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Yayınları
Ullman, J. B. (2007). Structural equation modeling. Using multivariate statistics (Eds: B.
Tabachnick & L. Fidell). USA: Ally and Bacon. pp. 676-780.
Yavuz, M. (2009). Eğitim araştırmaları ile ilgili öğretmen ve yönetici görüşlerinin analizi.
Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 143-158.
Zeidner, M. (1991). Statistics and mathematics anxiety in social science students some
interesting parallels. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 309-328.

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