Psychometric properties of university student form of student engagement scale in online learning : Çevrimiçi öğrenmede öğrenci bağlılığı ölçeği üniversite öğrencisi formunun psikometrik özellikleri

Murat Topal; Aslıhan İstanbullu; Özcan Erkan Akgün

doi:10.14687/jhs.v17i1.5698

Authors

Murat Topal Sakarya University http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5270-426X
Aslıhan İstanbullu Amasya University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1778-859X
Özcan Erkan Akgün İstanbul Medeniyet University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v17i1.5698

Keywords:

Student, engagement, online learning, scale adaptation, reliability, validity, Çevrimiçi öğrenme, öğrenci bağlılığı, ölçek uyarlama, güvenirlik, geçerlik

Abstract

Research Problem / Aim

The aim of this study was to introduce the psychometric properties of the Student Engagement Scale for Online Learning which was used to measure the engagement of students in online learning environment by using the validity and reliability study in the sample of university students who took lessons online.

Method

There were studies conducted with the scale in Turkey. However, this study carried out with a sample of students who meet the requirement of taking online course. Original scale consists of three sub-dimensions. Name of the sub-dimensions are “Behavioral Engagement”, “Emotional Engagement” and “Cognitive Engagement”. The psychometric properties of the instrument were presented by translation, linguistic equivalence, validity and reliability studies. Translation to Turkish of the scale was made by the researchers. A preliminary form was formed by taking the opinions of a total of six experts that one of them from the department of ELT (English language teaching), one of them from educational measurement & evaluation, one of them from Turkish language teaching, one of them from education psychology, and two of them were educational technology. For linguistic equivalence, the preliminary form was applied to 20 ELT students. The correlation analysis show that the linguistic equivalence of the scale had shown significant correlation between the Turkish and English forms. After the linguistic equivalence was provided, last form of the scale was applied to 587 university students enrolled at the Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Amasya University.

Results and Conclusions

As a result of the analyzes, confirmatory factor analysis fit indices was calculated as Χ²/sd: 2.827, GFI: .93, AGFI: .91, CFI: .98, NFI: .97, RMSEA: .05 and SRMR: .06. Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficients that calculated for the reliability of the sub-dimensions were between .71 and .86. The results obtained from confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analyses was indicated that the scale is reliable and valid. It is suggested to use the scale in determining the student's engagement in online learning environments research.

Extended English summary is in the end of Full Text PDF (TURKISH) file.

Özet

Araştırma Problemi/Amaç

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin öğrenme ortamına bağlılıklarını ölçmek için “Çevrimiçi Öğrenmede Öğrenci Bağlılığı Ölçeği”nin çevrimiçi ders almış üniversite öğrencileri örnekleminde geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasının yapılarak psikometrik özelliklerinin ortaya konulmasıdır.

Yöntem

Ölçekle ilgili Türkiye’de yapılmış çalışmalar bulunmaktadır fakat bu çalışmada çevrimiçi ders alma koşulunu sağlayan öğrencilerden oluşan bir örneklem üzerinde çalışılmıştır. Ölçeğin orijinali; davranışsal bağlılık, duyuşsal bağlılık ve bilişsel bağlılık şeklinde adlandırılan üç faktörden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin psikometrik özellikleri çeviri, dilsel eşdeğerlik, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları sonucunda ortaya konulmuştur. Ölçeğin çevirisi araştırmacılar tarafından yapıldıktan sonra bir İngilizce, bir ölçme değerlendirme, bir Türkçe, bir eğitim psikolojisi, iki eğitim teknolojisi uzmanı olmak üzere toplam altı uzmandan görüş alınmıştır. Görüşler doğrultusunda ön uygulama formu oluşturulmuştur. Oluşturulan form dilsel eşdeğerlik için İngilizce öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören 20 öğrenciye bir hafta ara ile uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin dilsel eşdeğerliğini ölçmek için yapılan korelasyon analizi ölçeğin Türkçe ve İngilizce formları arasında korelasyonun anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Dil eşdeğerliğinin sağlanmasının ardından ölçek formu Amasya Üniversitesi Teknik Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören 587 üniversite öğrencisine uygulanmıştır.

Sonuçlar ve Öneriler

Analizler sonucunda doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uyum katsayıları Χ²/sd: 2.827, GFI: .93, AGFI: .91, CFI: .98, NFI: .97, RMSEA: .05 ve SRMR: .06 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçeğin alt boyutlarının güvenirliği için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayıları .71 ile .86 aralında değişmektir. Ölçeğin doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve güvenirliğine yönelik bulgular, ölçeğin geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçeğin, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında gerçekleştirilen çalışmalarda öğrenci bağlılığını belirlemek üzere kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Murat Topal, Sakarya University

Ress. Assist., Sakarya University, Faculty of Education, Computer Education & Instructional Technologies

Aslıhan İstanbullu, Amasya University

Assist. Prof. Dr., Amasya University, Technical Sciences Vocational School, Department of Computer Technology

Özcan Erkan Akgün, İstanbul Medeniyet University

Assoc. Prof. Dr., İstanbul Medeniyet University, Faculty of Education, Curriculum and Instruction Program

References

Allen, I. ve Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the USA 2011. Wellesley MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L. ve Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303

Bentler, P. M. ve Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

Byrne, B. M. ve Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: a look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030005001

Bråten, I. ve Streømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1027–1042. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.026

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D. ve Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.

Doğan, U. (2014). Öğrenci bağlılık ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 390-403. Doi: https://doi.org/10.14686/BUEFAD.201428190

Ergün, E. ve Usluel, Y. K. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci bağlılık ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 20-33. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.64661

Finn, J. D. ve Zimmer, K. (2012). Student engagement: what is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-132). New York, NY: S

Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J. ve Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Ed), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305–321). New York: Springer.

Fredricks, J. A., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B. ve Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a description of 21 Instruments (Issues & Answers Rep. REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, IES.

Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk psikoloji yazıları, 19, 104-112.

Günüç, S. ve Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019

Halttunen, K. ve Jarvelin, K. (2005). Assessing learning outcomes in two information retrieval learning environments. Information Processing and Management, 41, 949–972. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2004.02.004

Hamane, A. C. (2014). Student engagement in an online course and its impact on student success (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University).

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. ve Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.

Junco, R. (2012). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162-171.

Klem , A. M. ve Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 262–273. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K. ve Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report (Vol. 32, No. 5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Kuh, G. D. ve Hu, S. (2001). The relationships between computer and information technology use, selected learning and personal development outcomes, and other college experiences. Journal of College Student Development, 42(3), 217-232.

Kumar, A., Kumar, P., Palvia, S. C. J. ve Verma, S. (2017). Online education worldwide: Current status and emerging trends. Journal of Informatıon Technology Case and Applıcatıon Research, 19(1), 3-9.

Law, B. (2005). Experiential learning in the context of educating for a sustainable future: is it an appropriate pedagogy for shifting teachers’ thinking and engaging learners. Set, 3, 15-20.

Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Assessment of student engagement in higher education: A synthesis of literature and assessment tools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 12(2), 1-14.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J. ve Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0604_1

Mazer, J. P. (2013). Validity of the student interest and engagement scales: associations with student learning outcomes. Communication Studies, 64, 125-140. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2012.727943

McMahon, B. ve Portelli, J. (2004). Engagement for what? beyond popular discourses of student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1). 59–76. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.3.1.59.27841

Miliszewska, I. ve Horwood, J. (2004). Engagement theory: a framework for supporting cultural differences in transnational education. Higher Education Research Society of Australasia.

Miyazoe, T. ve Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, andwiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38, 185-199. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006

Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G. ve 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). New York: Teachers College Press.

Parsad, B. ve Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–2007 (NCES 2009–044). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 521-558. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-90006-z

Reschly, A. L. ve Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabilities: a case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 276-292. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050301

Robinson, C. C. ve Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.101-109

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.

Schuetz, P. (2008). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 305–324. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701884349

Sun, J. C.-Y. ve Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x

Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 49(2), 414-422. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.002

Uğur, E. ve Akın, A. (2015). Öğrenci bağlılığı ölçeği Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1), 53-59.

Yorke, M. (2006). Student engagement: Deep, surface or strategic. In Keynote address to the 9th Pacific Rim Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, Griffith University, Australia (pp. 12-14).

Zhou, L. ve Zhang, D. (2008). Web 2.0 impact on student learning process. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 2880–2882). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.