SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

Science Engagement Scale: Adaptation, Validation and Reliability Study

Gizem TURAN GÜRBÜZ
Esra AÇIKGÜL FIRAT
Murat AYDIN
Pages
122–131
Publication Date
2020-12-31
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)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, The Science Engagement Scale developed by Wang et al. (2016) was adapted to Turkish and the validity / reliability studies were conducted.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The original version of the scale consists of 4 dimensions and 33 items.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Science education · Student engagement · Scale adaptation

Abstract

In this study, The Science Engagement Scale developed by Wang et al. (2016) was adapted to Turkish and the validity / 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 south east of Turkey during the 2019–2020 academic year. 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 analyzes, 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.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRBÜZ, G. T., FIRAT, E. A., AYDIN, M. (2020). Science Engagement Scale: Adaptation, Validation and Reliability Study. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 122–131. https://ajindex.com/articles/450905

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). AmosTM 6.0 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation, USA. Aydın, G., Saka, M., & Guzey, S. (2017).
  2. Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematic (STEM) Attitude Levels In Grades 4th - 8 th. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2). Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: Rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 759–772.
  3. Ceylan, Ö., Ermis, G. & Yıldız, G. (2018). Attitudes of Special Talented Students towards Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) Education. International Conference on Gifted and Talented Education, İnönü University, Malatya. Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2007). Interdisciplinary science teaching. Handbook of research on science education, 537-559.
  4. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Vol. 2). Ankara:
  5. Pegem Akademi. 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.
  6. Eryılmaz, A. (2014). Üniversite öğrencileri için derse katılım ölçeklerinin geliştirilmesi. Usak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 203-214.
  7. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: 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.
  8. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis 6th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of management, 21(5), 967-988.
  9. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Kahraman, N. (2014).