SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İlköğretim Online / 2008 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Öğrencilerin Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği Faktör Yapılarının İncelenmesi: Türkiye Örneği

Halil YURDUGÜL
Petek AŞKAR
Pages
288–309
Publication Date
2008-06-26
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)

According to the results, the factor structures of PATT-USA and PATT-TR show no correspondence; on the other hand PATT-TR yields similar structures with PATT-SA (South Africa).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the factorial structures of the Turkish version of Pupils’ Attitude towards Technology (PATT-TR).
📊
Key Findings & Data:For the reliability and validity of PATT-TR data, hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis was used on a sample of 3028 pupils.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, the factor structures of PATT-USA and PATT-TR show no correspondence; on the other hand PATT-TR yields similar structures with PATT-SA (South Africa).
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:PATT · PATT-TR · Geçerlik

Abstract

This study investigates the factorial structures of the Turkish version of Pupils’ Attitude towards Technology (PATT-TR). For the reliability and validity of PATT-TR data, hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis was used on a sample of 3028 pupils. Original PATT-USA questionnaire includes four components: a) open ended question about description of technology, b) demographic section, c) affective component, and d) cognitive component. In this study only the affective component was taken into consideration. According to the results, the factor structures of PATT-USA and PATT-TR show no correspondence; on the other hand PATT-TR yields similar structures with PATT-SA (South Africa). In addition it was observed that the two sub-constructs “technology & gender” and “personal prerequisites” didn’t predict the general attitude.

Özet

Bu araştırmada öğrenciler için geliştirilen Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutum (ÖTYT) Ölçeği'nin Türkçe ÖTYT-TR ölçeğinin güvenirlik ve faktöriyel geçerlik çalışması yapılmış ve ölçmekin faktöriyel Yapı incelenmiştir. Araştırmada kullanılan kümeye Türkiye'de ilk ve ortaöğretimde öğrenim gören 3308 öğrencinin yanıtlarından elde edildi. Eski ölçek olarak Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde Dugger ve Blame tarafından yapılandırılan ve 58 maddeden oluşan ÖTYT-ABD ölçeği temel alınmıştır. Yapılan inceleme Sonuçunda ÖTYT-TR'de yer alan 35 maddenin 6 alt boyut ölçtüğü ortaya konulmuştur. Öbürle ölçmek sonuçlarının faktöriyel geçerliliği için kurulan ikinci sıralı faktör modeline göre 2 boyutun öğrencilerin teknolojiye yönelik genel tutum boyutunu yordamadığı gözlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlara göre ÖTYT-TR ölçeği 4'ü alt boyutundan oluştuğu rapor edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YURDUGÜL, H., AŞKAR, P. (2008). Öğrencilerin Teknolojiye Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği Faktör Yapılarının İncelenmesi: Türkiye Örneği. İlköğretim Online, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 288–309. https://ajindex.com/articles/999341

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
  2. Bame, E., & Dugger, W., Jr. (1989). "Pupils' attitude toward technology - PATT-USA Report Findings." Personal copy obtained from authors. Becker, K. H. & Maunsaiyat, S. (2002). Thai students´ attitudes and concepts of technology. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 1-11. Béland, F. & Maheux, B. (1989). Construct validity and second-order factorial model. Quality and Quantity, 23(2). 143-159.
  3. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., & Van Heerden (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111, 1061-1071.
  4. Byrne, B. M. (1998) Structural Equation Modelling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297-312.
  5. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
  6. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
  7. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. C. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. de Klerk Wolters, F. (1989a).
  8. The PATT-Project, An Overview of an International Project in Technological Education, PATT-4 Conference Proceedings, pp. 290–308. de Klerk Wolters, F. (1989b). A PATT study among 10 to 12-year old students in the Netherlands. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1). http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v1n1/falco.jte-v1n1.html
  9. Deniz, S., Görgen,. ve eker, H. (2006). Tezsiz yüksek lisans ö retmen adaylarının teknolojiye yönelik tutumları. E itim Ara tırmaları Dergisi, 23, 62-71.
  10. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I.(1973).
  11. Attitudes and opinions, Annual Review of Psychology 24, 487–544.
  12. Goodwin, L. D. (1999). The role of factor analysis in the estimation of construct validity. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 3(2), 85-100.
  13. Jeffrey, T. J. (1993). Adaptation and validation of a technology attitude scalefor use by American teachers at the middle school level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Kapiyo, R. & Otieno, F. (1986). Some aspects in the measurement of Pupils’ Attitude to Technology in a third world context: Highlights from Kenya, PATT-1 Conference Proceed