SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / 2013 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Yaratıcı hayal gücü testi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Test of creative imagination: Validity and reliability study

AYSUN GÜNDOĞAN
Meziyet ARI
MÜBECCEL SARA GÖNEN
Pages
7–20
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)

In Elaboration and Transformativeness sub-scale of the test, it was found that the number of the shapes used gradually increased with the increasing age.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to investigate validity and reliability of the test of creative imagination.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study was conducted with the participation of 1000 children, aged between 9-14 and were studying in six primary schools in the city center of Denizli Province, chosen by cluster ratio sampling.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In Elaboration and Transformativeness sub-scale of the test, it was found that the number of the shapes used gradually increased with the increasing age.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate validity and reliability of the test of creative imagination. This study was conducted with the participation of 1000 children, aged between 9-14 and were studying in six primary schools in the city center of Denizli Province, chosen by cluster ratio sampling. In the study, it was revealed that the Pearson correlation coefficient between judges varied between 0.24-0.55. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was calculated as 0.44; the reliability coefficient, calculated by variance analysis is 0.76. As the result of applying the known-groups technique on the validity studies of the test measurements, while a significant difference was found between the first group comprised by the age group of 7-8-9 and second group comprised by the age group of 10-11 in Fluency sub-scale, no significant difference was found among the groups in Originality sub-scale. In Elaboration and Transformativeness sub-scale of the test, it was found that the number of the shapes used gradually increased with the increasing age. In this study, the validity and the reliability of the creative imagination test measurements were determined to be sufficient.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı yönetici ve öğretmenlerin rehber öğretmene (psikolojik danışman) ilişkin algılarının metafor analizi yöntemiyle incelenmesi olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırma ilişkisel tarama modellerinden karşılaştırma yolu izlenerek gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunun yanında toplanan verilerin analizinde ise nitel analiz tekniklerinden içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 2011-2012 öğretim yılında, Rize il merkezi ve ilçelerindeki ilköğretim okullarında görev yapmakta olan 181 yönetici, 209 öğretmen olmak üzere toplam 390 kişi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak hazırlanan formda Rehber Öğretmen (Psikolojik Danışman) kavramına ilişkin algıları ortaya çıkarmak için katılımcılardan “Rehber öğretmen (Psikolojik Danışman) gibidir, çünkü ” cümlesini tamamlamaları istenmiştir. Katılımcıların ifadelerinin değerlendirilmesinde içerik analizi tekniği ve Pearson X2 testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada katılımcıların ifadeleri analiz edildiğinde ürettikleri metaforlardan toplam sekiz adet kavramsal kategori oluşturulmuştur. Daha fazla metaforun üretildiği kategorilerin yöneticiler tarafından ortaya koyuluşu, sırasıyla Yol Gösteren, Problem Çözen, Geliştiren, Keşfeden, Dost, Lider, Koruyan ve Yararsız; öğretmenler tarafından ortaya koyuluşu ise sırasıyla Yol Gösteren, Geliştiren, Problem Çözen, Dost, Keşfeden, Yararsız, Lider ve Koruyan kategorisi şeklinde olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca kavramsal kategorilerin katılımcıların kadro türü (yönetici ve öğretmen) ve cinsiyet değişkenlerine göre anlamlı düzeyde farklılık göstermediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNDOĞAN, A., ARI, M., GÖNEN, M. S. (2013). Yaratıcı hayal gücü testi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 7–20. https://ajindex.com/articles/347040

References (13)

  1. Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing ımagination: Factors affecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (2), 174-187.
  2. Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4), 963-970.
  3. Barrow, R. (1988). Some observations on the concept of imagination. K. Egan & D. Nadaner (Ed.), Imagination and education (pp. 79-90). New York: Teachers College Press.
  4. Baykul, Y. (2000). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teorisi ve uygulaması. Ankara:
  5. ÖSYM Yayınları.
  6. Beetlestone, F. (1998). Creative children, ımaginative teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  7. Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and early years education: A lifewide foundation. London: Continuum. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial. Duffy, B. (2006). Supporting creativity and ımagination in the early years (2nd ed.). Berkshire, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education. Fernyhough, C., Bland, K., Meins, E., & Coltheart, M. (2007). Imaginary companions and young children’s responses to ambiguous auditory stimuli: Implications for typical and atypical development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48 (11), 1094-1101.
  8. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the social sciences (5th ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Froebel, F. (1970). The education of man (W. N. Hailmann, Trans.). New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.
  9. Goodwin, L. D. (2001). Interrater agreement and reliability. Measurement in Psychical Education and Exercises Science, 5 (1), 13-34.
  10. Guruzhapov, V. A. (2006). The role of the ımage in the actualization of sense-generating systems of children’s understanding of art. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 44 (5), 65-77.
  11. Harrington, D. M. (1999). Conditions and settings/environment. M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (v.1, pp. 323-340).
  12. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
  13. Hodgson, J., & Richards, E. (1966). Improvisation: Discovery and creativity in drama. London: Menthuen & Co Ltd. Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in psychology. Harlow: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, ımagination, and reason. Chicago, Lond