SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1

Online Self-regulation Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability Study of Turkish Translation

Selcan KİLİS
Zahide YILDIRIM
Pages
233–245
Publication Date
2018-04-22
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)

Therefore, Turkish OLSQ could be used to measure learners’ self-regulated skills in any kind of online learning settings since it provided its validity and reliability issues and fits with the original version.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Öz This study aims to translate online self-regulated learning questionnaire (OLSQ) into Turkish and administer its validity and reliability issues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the questionnaire, 24 items were translated into Turkish separately by nine experts, and then back-translation was conducted by two language experts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, Turkish OLSQ could be used to measure learners’ self-regulated skills in any kind of online learning settings since it provided its validity and reliability issues and fits with the original version.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Anahtar Kelimeler Self-regulation questionnaire · Validity · Reliability

Özet

Öz This study aims to translate online self-regulated learning questionnaire (OLSQ) into Turkish and administer its validity and reliability issues. In the questionnaire, 24 items were translated into Turkish separately by nine experts, and then back-translation was conducted by two language experts. Pilot test was conducted with 321 students enrolled in fully online associate degree programs in a well-known public university in Adana, Turkey. In terms of validity issue, confirmatory factor analysis indicated that Turkish OLSQ was valid with acceptable worth of fit values: χ2/df = 2.45, RMSEA = .06, RMR =.08, SRMR = .06, TLI = .89, CFI = .90, GFI = .86, AGFI = .84, and NFI = .80. Regarding with reliability, Cronbach’s alpha values indicating internal consistency varied between .67 and .87 for three sub-factors, and .95 for the whole instrument which yields high reliability. Therefore, Turkish OLSQ could be used to measure learners’ self-regulated skills in any kind of online learning settings since it provided its validity and reliability issues and fits with the original version.

🔖

Cite This Article

KİLİS, S., YILDIRIM, Z. (2018). Online Self-regulation Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability Study of Turkish Translation. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1, 233–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/6152

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Assessing metacognition in an online community of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 183-190.
  2. Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. (2012). The development of a metacognition questionnaire for online and blended communities of inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, April. Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3), 146-151.
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1-6.
  4. Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online self-regulatory learning behaviors as a mediator in the relationship between online course perceptions with achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(2). Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications. Cattell, R. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara,
  5. Pegem Yayıncılık. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered Web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 40–47.
  6. English, H.B., & English, A.C. (1958). A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. NewYork: McKay. Everitt, B. (1975). Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. BritishJournal of Psychiatry, 126, 237-240.
  7. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th Ed.). London: Sage. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3): 87-105.
  8. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2th Ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Tatham, R.L., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor an