The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study

Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 122 - 131 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173

The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study

Öz:
In this study, The Math and Science Engagement Scales developed by Wang et al. (2016) was adapted to Turkish in the context of science course and, the validity and reliability studies were conducted. The original version of the scale consists of 4 dimensions and 33 items. These dimensions are; cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and social engagement. During the adaptation phase, the items were translated into Turkish by three experts. The Turkish forms were examined and the draft form of the scale was obtained by the researchers. Then, the two experts of the two languages were examined through the language equivalence expert form for word usage and cultural suitability. The participants of the study consisted of 519 students in 6., 7., and 8. grades studied at two secondary schools in a small scale city in the south east of Turkey during the 2019–2020 academic year. The convenience sampling method was used to determine the participants. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to the data obtained after the implementation. The fit index values obtained as a result of CFA (χ2 / df = 1.75; RMSEA = 0.038; SRMR = 0.049; RMR = 0.072; CFI = 0.98; NFI = 0.96) show that the 4-factor structure of the scale is acceptable. As a result of the reliability analysis, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the Turkish form of the scale was 0.90 and the Guttman Split-half coefficient was 0.81. Finally, it can be said that the validity and reliability of the 33-item and 4- dimensional Turkish form of the scale adapted with this study can be used to determine student engagement in science classes. Add your abstract here.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular:
Sosyal > Sosyal > Tarih
Sosyal > Sosyal > Eğitim, Özel
Sosyal > Sosyal > Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Sosyal > Sosyal > Psikoloji
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Adeboye, N. O., Fagoyinbo, I. S., & Olatayo, T. O. (2014). Estimation of the effect of multicollinearity on the standard error for regression coefficients. Journal of Mathematics, 10(4), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.9790/5728-10411620
  • Alin, A. (2010). Multicollinearity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Computational Statistics, 2(3), 370-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.84
  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AmosTM 6.0 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation.
  • Aydın, G., Saka, M., & Guzey, S. (2017). Science, technology, engineering, mathematic (STEM) attitude levels in grades 4th- 8th. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 787 – 802. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.290319
  • Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.655711
  • Ceylan, Ö., Ermis, G. & Yıldız, G. (2018, November 2- November 4). Attitudes of special talented students towards science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education [Paper Presentation]. International Conference on Gifted and Talented Education, Malatya, Turkey.
  • Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In Norman G. Lederman, & Sandra K. Abell (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (2nd ed., p.537-559). Routledge.
  • Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications] (Vol. 2). Pegem.
  • Damar, A., Durmaz, C., & Önder, İ. (2017). Middle school students’ attitudes towards STEM applications and their opinions about these applications. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 1(1), 47-65. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jmse/issue/35452/415256
  • Eryılmaz, A. (2014). Üniversite öğrencileri için derse katılım ölçeklerinin geliştirilmesi (The Development of the Scales of Classroom Engagement for University Students). Usak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 203-214. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/usaksosbil/issue/21638/232562
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw Hall.
  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  • Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics (3 rd ed.), McGraw-Hill.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6 th ed.). Pearson University Press.
  • Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(95)90050-0
  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7R
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: a three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
  • Kahraman, N. (2014). Cross-grade comparison of relationship between students’ engagement and TIMSS 2011 science achievement. Education and Science (Large-ScaleAssessment Special Issue), 39 (172), 95-107.
  • Kezar, A., & Elrod, S. (2012). Facilitating interdisciplinary learning: lessons from project kaleidoscope. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.635999
  • Kim, J. H. (2019). Multicollinearity and misleading statistical results. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 72(6), 558. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19087
  • Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  • Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., & Nelson, T. H. (2017). Jumping on the STEM bandwagon: How middle grades students and teachers can benefit from STEM experiences. Middle School Journal, 48(3), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2017.1297663
  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı [Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Training Science Course Curriculum], Ankara.
  • Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Özdemir, A., Yaman, C., & Vural, R. A. (2018). Development of the teacher self-efficacy scale for STEM practices: A validity and reliability study. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 5(2), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.30803/adusobed.427718
  • Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257– 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
  • Shaughnessy, J. M. (2013). Mathematics in a STEM context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle school, 18(6), 324-324. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacmiddscho.18.6.0324
  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & 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.
  • Suhr, D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. SAS Users Group International Conference (p 1- 17). Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
  • Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Fulmer, S. M., & Trucano, M. (2018). The development of professional learning communities and their teacher leaders: An activity systems analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 49-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381962
  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child development perspectives, 8(3), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12073
  • Wang, M. T., Fredricks, J. A., Ye, F., Hofkens, T. L., & Linn, J. S. (2016). The math and science engagement scales: Scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learning and Instruction, 43, 16- 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.008
  • Wang, M. T., Willett, J. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance across gender and race/ ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 465-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.04.001
  • Willms, J. D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic and intellectual engagement. (First National Report). Canadian Education Association.
  • Yerdelen-Damar, S., Korur, F., & Sağlam, H. The Adaptation of the Math and Science Engagement Scale into Turkish in the Context of Physics Course Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 7(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.661339
  • Yıldırım, İ., Başaran, M., Cücük, E., Yokuş, E. (2018). Development of inquiry-based teaching self-efficacy scale for STEM+S education: Validity and reliability study. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(3), 40-55. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2018.03.003
  • Yıldırım, G., Sökmen, Y., Yasemin, T. A. Ş., & Dilekmen, M. (2017). The adaptation of student engagement scale to Turkish: The validity and reliability study. Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, 8(1), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.364039
  • You, H. S. (2017). Why Teach Science with an Interdisciplinary Approach: History, Trends, and Conceptual Frameworks. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p66
APA GÜRBÜZ G, FIRAT E, AYDIN M (2020). The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 122 - 131. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173
Chicago GÜRBÜZ Gizem TURAN,FIRAT Esra AÇIKGÜL,AYDIN Murat The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 10, no.2 (2020): 122 - 131. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173
MLA GÜRBÜZ Gizem TURAN,FIRAT Esra AÇIKGÜL,AYDIN Murat The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.10, no.2, 2020, ss.122 - 131. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173
AMA GÜRBÜZ G,FIRAT E,AYDIN M The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 10(2): 122 - 131. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173
Vancouver GÜRBÜZ G,FIRAT E,AYDIN M The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 10(2): 122 - 131. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173
IEEE GÜRBÜZ G,FIRAT E,AYDIN M "The Adaptation of Math and Science Engagement Scales in the Context of Science Course: A Validation and Reliability Study." Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10, ss.122 - 131, 2020. 10.17984/adyuebd. 670173