SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2020 / Volume: 7 Issue: 4

Study of The Validity and Reliability of Nanotechnology Awareness Scale in Turkish Culture

Zeki Ipek(T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0002-8097-5849
Ali Derya Atik(KILIS 7 ARALIK UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-5841-6004
Şeref Tan(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-9892-3369
Figen Erkoç(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0003-0658-2243
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-12-20
🏛️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)

According to the findings, it was found that the scale, containing 14 items with two sub-dimensions, had sufficient goodness of fit indices such as χ2/sd =1.344, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.90 and AGFI = 0.83.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Nanotechnology Awareness Scale (NAI) in Turkish culture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study group consists of 624 biology, physics and chemistry teachers working in secondary schools in Antalya, Denizli, Burdur and Ankara.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the findings, it was found that the scale, containing 14 items with two sub-dimensions, had sufficient goodness of fit indices such as χ2/sd =1.344, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.90 and AGFI = 0.83.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Nanotechnology · nanotechnology awareness · nanotechnology exposure

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Nanotechnology Awareness Scale (NAI) in Turkish culture. The study group consists of 624 biology, physics and chemistry teachers working in secondary schools in Antalya, Denizli, Burdur and Ankara. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted in order to determine its structural validity. Cronbach-alpha and stratified-alpha coefficient values were calculated for the reliability of the sub-dimensions and the whole of the scale, respectively. In EFA, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was found to be 0.92 and the Bartlett Test result (912 91 = 6519.27, p <.00) was found significant. In addition, in original scale, a two-factor structure was found. This two factors solution explains 59.192% of the total variance. In CFA, factor structure of the scale was tested for two-factor solution as it was designed. According to the findings, it was found that the scale, containing 14 items with two sub-dimensions, had sufficient goodness of fit indices such as χ2/sd =1.344, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.90 and AGFI = 0.83. These goodness of fit indices shows that we have good model-data fit. The Stratified-alpha coefficient was found as 0.942 for the whole scale. Cronbach alpha coefficient was found as 0.935 and 0.805 for the awareness sub-dimension and exposure sub-dimension, respectively. As a result of the research, it was concluded that the Turkish version of the scale can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool.

Özet

The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Nanotechnology Awareness Scale (NAI) in Turkish culture. The study group consists of 624 biology, physics and chemistry teachers working in secondary schools in Antalya, Denizli, Burdur and Ankara. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted in order to determine its structural validity. Cronbach-alpha and stratified-alpha coefficient values were calculated for the reliability of the sub-dimensions and the whole of the scale, respectively. In EFA, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was found to be 0.92 and the Bartlett Test result (912 91 = 6519.27, p <.00) was found significant. In addition, in original scale, a two-factor structure was found. This two factors solution explains 59.192% of the total variance. In CFA, factor structure of the scale was tested for two-factor solution as it was designed. According to the findings, it was found that the scale, containing 14 items with two sub-dimensions, had sufficient goodness of fit indices such as χ2/sd =1.344, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.90 and AGFI = 0.83. These goodness of fit indices shows that we have good model-data fit. The Stratified-alpha coefficient was found as 0.942 for the whole scale. Cronbach alpha coefficient was found as 0.935 and 0.805 for the awareness sub-dimension and exposure sub-dimension, respectively. As a result of the research, it was concluded that the Turkish version of the scale can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ipek, Z., Atik, A. D., Tan, Ş., Erkoç, F. (2020). Study of The Validity and Reliability of Nanotechnology Awareness Scale in Turkish Culture. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 7 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.708169

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Andina, R. E., Rahmawati, Y. & Budi, S. (2019). Improved learning designs for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers applied in a nanoscience project. Issues in Educational Research, 29(4), 997-1015. http://www.iier.org.au/iier29/andina.pdf
  2. Bektaş, H. (2015). Factor analysis for binary variables: An application on the quality of working life. Doctoral dissertation, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkey. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
  3. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
  4. Chapman, D. W. & Carter, J. F. (1979) Translation procedures for the cross-cultural use of measurement instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(3), 71-76. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737001003071
  5. Costello, A. B.& Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  6. Çelik, H. E., & Yılmaz, V. (2013). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: temel kavramlar, uygulamalar, programlama (2nd ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
  7. Deniz, M. E., Özer, E., & Işık, E. (2013). Duygusal zekâ özelliği ölçeği–kısa formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form: Validity and reliability studies]. Education and Science, 38(169), 407-419.
  8. Dyehouse, M. A., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Bennett, D. E., Imbrie, Æ P. K. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure undergraduates’ nanotechnology awareness, exposure, motivation and knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol. 17, 500-510.
  9. European Commission (2019). Skills for Industry. High-Tech Skills: Scaling up best practices and re-focusing funding programmes and incentives, Final Report. Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), EASME/COSME/2018/016, 2019. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. PDF ISBN 978-92-9202-548-9. https://doi.org/10.2826/024306 EA-01-19-571-EN-N
  10. Hingant, B. & Albe, V. (2010). Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: A review of literature. Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504543
  11. Feldt, L. S., & Qualls, A. L. (1996). Bias in coefficient alpha arising from heterogeneity of test content. Applied Measurement in Education, 9(3), 277-286.
  12. Henson, R. K. & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
  13. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
  14. İpek, Z. (2017). Research on awareness levels of physics, chemistry, and biology teachers about nanoscience and nanotechnology. Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
  15. İpek, Z., Atik, A. D., Tan, Ş. & Erkoç, F. (2020). Awareness, exposure, and knowledge levels of science teachers about nanoscience and nanotechnology. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 134-155. http://www.iier.org.au/iier30/ipek.pdf
  16. Jackman, J. A., Cho, D. J., Lee, J., Chen, J. M., Besenbacher, F., Bonnell, D. A., … Cho, N. J. (2016). Nanotechnology education for the global world: Training the leaders of tomorrow. ACSNano, 10, 5595−5599. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.6b03872
  17. Jones, M. G., Blonder, R., Gardner, G. E., Albe, V., Falvo, M., & Chevrier, J. (2013). Nanotechnology and Nanoscale Science: Educational Challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1490-1512.
  18. Kalaycı, N. (2008). Yükseköğretimde uygulanan toplam kalite sürecinde göz ardı edilen unsurlardan “TKY merkezi” ve “eğitim programları”. Tekışık.
  19. Karataş, F. Ö., & Ülker, N. (2014). Undergraduate chemistry students’ understanding level of nano-science and nano-technology. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(3), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10121a
  20. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (second edition). Guilford Publications, Inc.
  21. Laherto, A. (2010). An Analysis of the Educational Significance of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Scientific and Technological Literacy. Science Education International, 21(3), 160-175.
  22. MoNE. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Doc Player. https://docplayer.biz.tr/1747250-Fen-bilimleri-dersi-3-4-5-6-7-ve-8-siniflar.html
  23. MoNE. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2018). Ortaöğretim Biyoloji, Fizik ve Kimya Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
  24. Lauterwasser, C. (Ed.) (2005). “Small sizes that matter: Opportunities and risks of Nanotechnologies”, Report in co-operation with the OECD International Futures Programme. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/1/44108334.pdf
  25. OECD (2018). Report on statistics and indicators of biotechnology and nanotechnology. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2018/06. Paris, France. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/3c70afa7-en
  26. Özdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Kaan.
  27. Pas, M., Vogrinc, J., Raspor, P., Knezevic, N. U. & Zajc, J. C. (2019). Biotechnology learning in Slovenian upper-secondary education: Gaining knowledge and forming attitudes. Research in Science & Technological Education, 37(1), 110 125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1491473
  28. Roco, M. C. & Bainbridge, W. (2003). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer.
  29. Roco, M. C., Mirkin, C. A. & Hersam, M. C. (2011). Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: Summary of international study. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(3), 897-919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0275-5
  30. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müler, 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. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.4258&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  31. Seçer, İ. (2013). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi. Anı.
  32. Sousa, V.D. & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. International Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 268 274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  33. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001) Using multivariate statistics (4th edn.). Allyn & Bacon.
  34. Tan, Ş. (1999). Psikolojik Test Geliştirmede Faktör Analizinin Kullanımı. Çağdaş Eğitim, 255, 32-38.
  35. Tan, Ş. (2009). Misuses of KR-20 and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. TED Education and Science, 34(152), 101-112.
  36. Tan, Ş. (2015). Uygulamalı temel istatistik-1. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  37. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
  38. Turgut, M. F. & Baykul, Y. (1992). Ölçekleme teknikleri. Ankara: ÖSYM Yayınları.
  39. Ural, A. & Kılıç, İ. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma süreci ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  40. Wansom, S., Mason, T. O., Hersam, M. C., Drane, D., Light, G., Cormia, R., Stevens, S., Bodner, G. M. (2009). A Rubric for Post-Secondary Degree Programs in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 615-627.
  41. Winkelmann, K. & Bhushan, B. (Eds.) (2016). Global perspectives of nanoscience and engineering education. Science Policy Reports. Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-31833-2
  42. Young, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
  43. Zwick, W.R. & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factor İnfluencing Five Rules for Determining the Number of Components to Retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
  44. Dyehouse, M. A., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Bennett, D. E., Imbrie, Æ P. K. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure undergraduates’ nanotechnology awareness, exposure, motivation and knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol. 17, 500-510.