SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 24

Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulation Towards Technology Learning Scale (MSRTL) to Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study

Teknoloji Öğrenimine Karşı Motivasyon ve Öz-düzenleme Ölçeği’nin (TÖMÖD) Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Ali Rıza Şekerci
Pages
487–514
Publication Date
2017-12-29
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The internal consistency coefficient which was calculated for each factor on the scale and varied between .76 and .84 was an important result in terms of the scale’s reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was carried out in order to adapt “The Motivation and Self-regulation towards Technology Learning (MSRTL) scale which was developed by Liou and Kuo (2014).
📊
Key Findings & Data:One thousand three hundred and ninety-four students including 759 girls and 635 boys participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The internal consistency coefficient which was calculated for each factor on the scale and varied between .76 and .84 was an important result in terms of the scale’s reliability.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Teknolojiye karşı motivasyon · teknolojiye karşı öz-düzenleme · 8.sınıf

Abstract

This study was carried out in order to adapt “The Motivation and Self-regulation towards Technology Learning (MSRTL) scale which was developed by Liou and Kuo (2014). One thousand three hundred and ninety-four students including 759 girls and 635 boys participated in the study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, dependent t-test and Pearson correlation analysis was performed during the data-analysis. As a result the reliability and validity studies of the Turkish version of MSRTL which was developed by Liou and Kuo (2014) and consisted of seven factors and 39 items were conducted. It was stated that the seven factors, 37 items version of the scale was valid and reliable and it can be used in Turkey in cultural aspect. The internal consistency coefficient which was calculated for each factor on the scale and varied between .76 and .84 was an important result in terms of the scale’s reliability.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Liou ve Kuo (2014) tarafından geliştirilen “Teknoloji Öğrenimine Karşı Motivasyon ve Öz-düzenleme (TÖMÖD)” ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya 1394 öğrenci (759 kız ve 635 erkek) katılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, bağımlı t-testi ve pearson korelasyon analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak Liou ve Kuo (2014) tarafından yedi faktör 39 madde olarak geliştirilen “TÖMÖD” ün Türkçeye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması yapılmış, ölçeğin yedi faktör 37 maddelik halinin kültürel açıdan Türkiye’de kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir. AFA analizi sonucu ölçeğin toplam varyansın %57.66’sını açıkladığını göstermiştir. Ölçekteki her bir faktör için hesaplanan ve .76 ile.84 aralığında değişen iç tutarlılık katsayıları ölçeğin güvenilir olduğunu göstermesi açısından önemli sonuçlardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şekerci, A. R. (2017). Adaptation of Motivation and Self-Regulation Towards Technology Learning Scale (MSRTL) to Turkish: Validity and Reliability Study. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 24, 487–514. https://ajindex.com/articles/1123625

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (63)

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm
  2. Alamin, A. A., Shaoqing, G., & Le, Z. (2015). The Development of Educational Technology Policies (1996-2012) Lessons from China and the USA, International Education Studies, 8(6),142-150.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n6p142
  3. Al-Alwan, A. F. (2008). Self-regulated learning in high and low achieving students at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University (AHU) in Jordan. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 1(1), 1-13.
  4. Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). IBM AMOS 21 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Retrieved fromftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/amos/21.0/en/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Amos_Users_Guide.pdf
  5. Atkinson, J. W. (1966). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. In J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp. l-31). New York: Wiley.
  6. Baloğlu, M. (2005). Matematik kaygısı derecelendirme ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, dil geçerliği ve ön psikometri incelemesi [Adaptation of the mathematics anxiety rating scale to Turkish, language validity and preliminar psychometric properties]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi[Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice], 5(1), 7-30.
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2),191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  8. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
  9. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
  10. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Eds.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Company.
  12. Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş amos uygulamaları [Structural Equation Modeling Introduction: AMOS Applications]. İstanbul: Ezgi Kitabevi.
  13. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231.
  14. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation. An introductory overview. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds). Handbook of Self-regulation (pp.1-9). San Diego: Academic Press.
  15. Bong, M. (2004). Academic motivation in self-efficacy, task value, achievement goal orientations, and attributional beliefs, The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 287-298. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.6.287-298
  16. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445–455.
  17. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelingwith AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Madison, NY: Routledge.
  18. CEO Forum on Education and Technology. (2001). Education Technology Must Be Included in Comprehensive Education Legislation. Policy Paper. Retrieved from http://www.hscdsb.on.ca/pdf/publications/5/55/CEO%20Forum%202001%20Policy%20Paper.pdf
  19. Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, selfregulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263.
  20. Çokluk, O., Şekercİoğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL Uygulamaları[Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL Applications] (2nd ed.). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
  21. Dermitzaki, I., Stavroussi, P., Vavougios, D., & Kotsis, K.T. (2012). Adaptation of the students' motivation towards science learning (SMTSL) questionnaire in the Greek language. European Journal of Psychology Education, 28, 747-766. doi: 10.1007/s10212-012-0138-1
  22. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children's self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64(3), 830-847. doi: 10.2307/1131221
  23. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
  24. Hu, L., & 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. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
  25. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575
  26. Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: an overwiew of their current status (pp.386-434). Hillsdate, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  27. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). NY: Guilford Press.
  28. Liou, P. Y., & Kuo, P. J. (2014). Validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation towards technology learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(2), 79-96. doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.893235.
  29. Malpass, J. R., O'Neil, H. F., & Hocevar, D. (1999). Self‐regulation, goal orientation, self‐efficacy, worry, and high‐stakes math achievement for mathematically gifted high school students, Roeper Review, 21(4), 281-288, doi: 10.1080/02783199909553976
  30. Martin, B. L., & Brigg, L. J. (1986). Other dimensions of the effective domain: emotional development and feelings, interest and motivation, social develpment and group Dynamics, attributions. In B. L. M. Martin & L. J. Brigg (Eds.). The Affective and Cognitive Domains: Integration for Instruction and Research (pp.191-222). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications Englewood Cliffs, Academic Press.
  31. Meece, J. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles to middle school education, Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 109-116, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4202_4
  32. Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
  33. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18, 30-38.
  34. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. [Adobe Digital Edtions version]. doi: 10.17226/4962
  35. Öncü, H. (2006). Motivasyon (Güdüleme) [Motivation]. In L. Küçükahmet (Ed.), Sınıf Yönetimi [Classroom Management] (pp. 167-189). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  36. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  37. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199. doi:10.3102/00346543063002167
  38. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (1996) Motivation in education: theory, research and application. Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/PS.html#history
  39. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Rese¬arch, 45(3), 269-286.
  40. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
  41. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning, In Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (pp.3-19). New York: Plenum Press.
  42. Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with LD: Results of a programmatic research effort. In Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective (pp.22-46). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  43. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspsctive on achivement behavior. Educational Psychologist, 19,48-58. doi: 10.1080/00461528409529281
  44. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-208.
  45. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation, Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
  46. Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337-354.
  47. Stolk, J., & Harari, J. (2014). Student motivations as predictors of high-level cognitions in project-based classrooms. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(3), 231-247. doi: 10.1177/1469787414554873
  48. Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000323737
  49. Tosun, C., & Şekerci, A. R. (2015). The role of motivation in self regulation skills in eight grade students’ science classess. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 17(1), 1-29. doi: 10.17556/jef.97746
  50. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995-1015. doi: 10.1177/0013164497057006009
  51. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2159-2179. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.541529
  52. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: a multi-group structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10(6), 1347-1368. doi:10.1007/s10763-012-9339-y
  53. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265-310. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P
  54. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C, & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children's competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 451-469. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.451
  55. Yılmaz, H., & Huyugüzel-Cavaş, P. (2007). Reliability and validity study of the students’ motivation toward science learning questionnaire (in Turkish). Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 430-440.
  56. Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. (2000). Self-regulation. Directions and challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 749-768). New York: Academic Press.
  57. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339.
  58. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3),73-86. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1998.9653292
  59. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
  60. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312909
  61. Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning-strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628. doi: 10.3102/00028312023004614
  62. Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51-59. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.51
  63. Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 105-125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.