Abstract: The aim of this study was to develop a student engagement scale (SES) and determine its validity and reliability. Factor analysis and reliability studies were conducted using data on 400 high-school and middle-school adolescent students (239 females, 161 males). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the structural validity of the scale accounted for 46.74% of the total variance, with 31 items clustered in 3 factors. In the process of naming three subscales, the content of the items and the literature were taken into consideration. Following a review of the literature, the explored factors were emotional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement. To test the validity of the instrument, a school climate scale was used and correlation of .51 (p<.001) was concluded. The Cronbach's alpha were .88 for emotional, behavioral and .83 for cognitive subscales-ranged alpha values. After an interval of three weeks, a result of the test-retest correlation coefficient was found to be .77 (p<.001). There were a significant difference in the upper 27% and lower 27% groups in the SES
Keywords: Student engagement, validity, reliability
Ögrenci Baglilik Ölçeginin Geçerlik ve Güvenirligi
Özet: Bu çalismanin amaci, Ögrenci baglilik ölçegini gelistirmek, geçerlik ve güvenirlige iliskin kamtlar elde etmeye çalismaktir. Ölçek gelistirme çalismasi için 400 lise ve ortaokul ögrencisi ergenden veri toplanmistir (239 kiz, 161 erkek). Ölçegin yapi geçerligi için açimlayici faktör analizi yapilmis, ölçegin toplam varyansinin %46,74'ünü açiklayan bir yapi elde edilmistir. Yapilan analiz sonucunda ölçek maddelerinin toplam 31 madde 3 faktörde toplandigi görülmektedir. Faktörler literatüre bagli kalarak duygusal, davramçsal ve bilissel baglilik olarak isimlendirilmistir. Ölçüt geçerligine kamt olmasi için, okul iklimi ölçegi kullamlmi?, ölçümler arasinda .51 (p< .001) iliski bulunmustur. iç tutarlilik düzeyine iliskin hesaplanan cronbach a katsayilari, ölçegin tümü ve alt boyutlarinin sirasi ile, .91, .88, .88 ve .83 olarak bulunmustur. Ölçegin 3 hafta ara ile yapilan test-tekrar test güvenirlik çalismasinda puanlar arasinda .77 (p< .001) korelasyon bulunmustur. Ögrenci baglilik ölçeginin tüm maddeleri açisindan %27'lik alt ve üst gruplar arasinda anlamli fark elde edilmistir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ögrenci baglilik, geçerlik, güvenirlik.
1. INTRODUCTION
A review of the literature illustrates that the terms school engagement and student engagement are used interchangeably. The term school engagement can easily be confused with school attachment. Student engagement can be considered an individual quality, which can change according to how the term is interpreted, (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006). School engagement includes the school curriculum, management, and teachers. Arastaman (2006) developed a scale that included the school administration, teachers, school curriculum, school environment, and inner engagement. The research preferred the term student engagement to be used. Another concept of student engagement includes student motivation, bonding with the school, and self-awareness with regard to learning.
Educators and researchers have long been interested in students' attitude to schools, as their school experiences may dictate later success in life and possibly their attendance at school. Researchers have conceptualized students' attitudes and experiences and used various concepts to explain these. When explaining students' attitudes, Marks (2000) applied the concept of engagement and defined this as a psychological process, emphasizing the student's interest, investment, and effort in the path of learning. McCarthy and Kuh (2006) focused on the term engagement by defining it as the investment by a student in learning, comprehending, and mastering knowledge and skills. Rotermund (2011) defined engagement as active participation in the school and considered it a key concept to understand U.S. highschool failures, leading to negative individual social side effects (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004) and drop-outs. Kortering and Christenson (2009) considered absenteeism as the most important indicator of disengagement and unhappiness in school and as an important precursor of dropping out of school. Student engagement also benefits disadvantaged students. As noted by Connell, Spencer, and Aber (1994), an increase in student engagement diminishes the success gap between disadvantaged and successful students.
The strong relationship between student engagement and academic success has highlighted the need to understand the complex relationship between students' thoughts, behaviors, and emotions (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Marks, 2000). Finn (1989) considered engagement in a multidimensional model made up of behavioral (being part of a class and school) and emotional components (belonging to school and learning school values). Fredricks et al. (2004) used a similar model but added cognitive engagement, which refers to taking part in school life and developing complex reasoning skills. Appleton et al. (2006) also developed multidimensional classifications of engagement, with academic, behavioral, cognitive, and psychological components. As Fredricks et al. (2004) mentions, the dimensions of engagement are highly related dynamically to each other but nonetheless are isolated processes. The dimensions aid understanding of the engagement structure as a whole and make it easier for researchers to investigate the subdimensions of engagement. Each dimension has its own subdimensions, and the student's performance in each dimension has implications for the student and the school. Low school attendance has been linked to a lack of behavioral engagement, academic failure has been associated with low cognitive engagement, and school infelicity has been suggested to the be result t of low emotional engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Behavioral engagement focuses on specific student behaviors. Generally, students are considered to show a high level of behavioral engagement if they attend school regularly, do not get into trouble, and come to class prepared and ready to learn (Finn & Rock, 1997). According to various studies, there appear to be a positive relationship between a high level of behavioral engagement and academic success (Connell et al., 1994; Marks, 2000; Skinner, Wellborn, & Connell, 1990). In contrast, absenteeism, being late for classes, and truancy are indicators that the student is not really engaged in school and most probably will drop out (Rotermund, 2011).
Cognitive engagement refers to the student's dedication to learning and strategic decision making regarding learning. Cognitively engaged students are those who can make choices when they encounter a difficulty and who desire personal efficient more than its requirement for success (Newmann, Wehlage, & Lamborn, 1992). Students with high cognitive engagement implement the requirements and show high academic success (Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Akey, 2004).
Emotional engagement includes the student's interest and peppy in school. Emotional engagement is accepted as including the student's reactions in the classroom and the student's level of interest, boredom, unhappiness, happiness, and anxiety (Skinner et al., 1990). At the same time, it encompasses the student's feelings about academic success, with emotionally engaged students having feelings of satisfaction and pride when they are successful. Students with high emotional engagement demonstrate high cognitive engagement, and the level of emotional engagement is strongly associated with academic success and drop-out rates (Rotermund, 2011).
Paying attention, volunteering for class activities, and taking part in extracurricular activities are elements of the subdimensions of behavioral engagement. The subdimensions of cognitive and psychological engagement are less easy to observe. With regard to cognitive engagement, they include self-regulation, learning values, personal objectives, and selfdetermination. Psychological engagement elements include a feeling of belonging and relationships with teachers and peers.
A review of the student engagement literature clearly illustrates that among the many scales measuring different dimensions of engagement (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredricks et al., 2004; Sharkey, You, & Schnoebelen, 2008; Stafford, 2011) and scales measuring engagement in two factors (Finn, 1989; Marks, 2000; Newmann et al., 1992), the three-dimensional structure is the most popular (i.e., scales consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral, measurement tools) (Appleton et al., 2006; Fredricks et al., 2004; Jimerson, Campos, & Greif, 2003). Appleton et al. (2006) did not include academic engagement in their subdimensions of student engagement. Although there are various measurement tools in the literature, there was no evidence of measurement tools for mentioned dimensions (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional.
1.1. Aim of Study
The aim of the present study was to develop a scale consisting of three dimensions of student engagement (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional) and test the scale in middle- and high-school adolescent students.
2. METHOD
In this part of the research were given research process, working group, data collection tool and information about the analysis of the data.
2.1. Process
To develop the student engagement scale (SES), the literature was reviewed. A pilot scale, including emotional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement subdimensions, was then prepared the pilot scale was evaluated by six academicians and two assessment and evaluation specialists. To determine the items' grammatical acceptance and the understandability of the items, it was also assessed by four Turkish language and literature specialists. Inexpedient items were dropped. Finally, 60 items were retained and incorporated in the draft form of the scale. The draft form was again applied to a measurement tool similar to the research group and according to the reactions to the scale; new editions were applied to the scale. Sixteen of the items were negative statements, and 44 were positive statements. Every item in the draft form was marked on a 5-point Likert scale, with "strongly agree = 5 points," "agree = 4 points," "not sure = 3 points," "disagree = 2 points," and "strongly disagree = 1 point." The answers to the positive statements started with "strongly agree," whereas those to the negative questions commenced with strongly disagree. High points on the scale denoted high engagement.
2.2. Analysis of Data
After gathering the data, the validity and reliability studies of the SES were assessed. To test its structural validity, EFA and item factor loading values were calculated. In the reliability studies, Cronbach Alpha was used for determine the internal consistency coefficients and the test-retest correlation coefficients was used. A t-test was also used to determine whether it was capable of detecting the source of the differences between the upper 27% group and lower 27% group. The SPSS 11.5 package software was used for the analysis of the data.
2.3. Study Group
In this research, factor analysis and reliability studies were conducted with 400 students, 239 females (60%) and 161 males (40%), from various high schools (9th, 10th, and 11th graders) (N=220) and middle schools (7th, 8th graders) (N=180) in Mugla, Bolu, Manisa, and Istanbul. Data were collected from another 62 high-school (30) and middle-school students (32) to test-retest the scale.
2.4. Data Collection Tools
The study used the school climate scale developed by Çalik and Kurt (2010). This scale consists of 22 items with the subdimensions "supportive teacher behaviors", "focus on success," and "safe learning environment." The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the scale, which was tested in 462 students, showed that accounted for 44.78% of the total variance. In the reliability study, the coefficient of internal consistency for supportive teacher behaviors, focus on success, and a safe learning environment was .79, .77, and .85, respectively.
3. FINDING AND
3.1. Validity Study
3.1.1. Exploratory factor analysis: The results of the EFA test results of the structural validity of the SES were analyzed to determine whether a meaningful correlation existed between the items. Prior to performing a factor analysis of the data, sampling adequacy and Bartlett's sphericity tests were conducted. As mentioned by Büyüköztürk (2007), for the results of Bartlett's sphericity test to be meaningful, the KMO score should be higher than .60. In this study, the KMO sample adequacy coefficients of all the groups were .919 (>.60), and Bartlett's sphericity test (multivariate normal distribution indicator) was calculated as χ2=5004,522 (p<.001). These findings confirmed that the data were suitable for factor analysis. A maximum factor loading value of .32 is often cited in the literature. Flowever, it is up to the researcher to determine the cut-off point for factor loading values (Büyüköztürk, Sekercioglu, & Çokluk, 2010). In the present study, to ensure high factor loading values, the scale items were given a factor loading value of .50. Prior to the factorizing process, a factor analysis was performed with the factors identified in the EFA and principal components analysis. The item elimination started with those that were identical in more than two factors and continued until none of the items were the same. The analysis yielded three factors, with 31 items. Twenty-nine items having a factor loading value lower than .50 or comorbid were omitted from the scale. The three-factor scale with 31 items accounted for 46.74% of the total variance. Items 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, and 38 were reverse-scored items. Table 1 explains each of the item's factor loading values, the total correlation of the items in the whole scale and the subdimensions of the scale, and Cronbach's a coefficient of internal consistency.
As noted in the literature, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement terms are used when creating pools before factor and after analysis.
3.1.2. Criterion validity
To test the validity of the items in the SES, the school climate scale develop by Çalik and Kurt (2010) was used. The criterion validity revealed a correlation of .51 (p<.001) between the results of the school climate scale and the SES. Thus, there seems to be a moderate correlation between these two scales.
3.2. Reliability Studies
3.2.1. Test-retest reliability: To test the reliability of the SES, it was retested in 3-week gaps with 32 middle-school and 30 high-school students, the target population in the study. The correlation between the values of the first and second application was .77 (p<.001, N=62). According to Tavsancil (2010), the reliability coefficient should be positive and at least .70. Therefore, the SES can be said to be reliable.
3.2.2. Reliability of Cronbach's α: Cronbach's a values were checked to determine the consistency of the scale. The results were as follows: .91 for the whole scale, .88 for the emotional and cognitive engagement subdimensions, and .82 for the behavioral subdimension (Table 1). As Özdamar (2004) pointed out, an internal consistency coefficient higher than .80 can be considered "good," and higher than .90 can be considered "very good." These findings show that the internal consistency of the scale is good.
3.2.3. Upper-lower group reliability: Another method in reliability studies is to compare upper 27%-lower 27% points. To test whether there was a significant difference between the groups, the t-test results of the upper 27% (A/:108) and lower 27% (A/:108) of the target population groups (middle-school, high-school students) of the study were checked. The t-test results suggested that there was a significant (p<.001) difference between the two groups (Table 1).
3.2.4. Correlation analysis of total items: To evaluate the correlation between the whole scale and its subdimensions, item total correlation analysis was done. Table 1 presents Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients for the items. When the item total correlation efficiency analysis table is assessed, it can be seen that the correlation between the item and its factor varies between .43 and .69 (p<.001). When we assess each item's correlation with the whole scale point, the correlation values vary between .31 and .62 (p<.001). Overall, the results of the analyses of the validity and reliability of the scale suggest that the instrument has satisfactory psychometric values.
4. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In this study, we aimed to develop an SES for middle- and high-school students. The study included 400 middle- and high-schools, and the scale was retested in 62 of these students. We performed a series of statistical procedures to determine the validity and reliability of the SES. We developed a scale with three factors and 60 items. Based on the results of EFA, 31 items explained 46.74% of the total variance. According to Büyüköztürk et al. (2010), total variance between 40% and 60% is sufficient for an evaluation instrument. To determine the validity of the scale, we used the school climate scale developed by Çalik and Kurt (2010). High scores in the school climate scale suggest a positive school climate. The analyses revealed a positive moderate correlation (r=51, p<.001) between the school climate scale and SES. According to the literature, a correlation of .30 is adequate for a scale to be considered valid Büyüköztürk (2007). Flowever, it also notes that the correlation should not be too high (Büyüköztürk, 2007). The findings of the correlation analyses in the present study were adequate. Thus, the scale can be considered valid.
In the reliability studies, Cronbach's a coefficient of internal consistency was .88 for emotional engagement, .88 for cognitive engagement, .81 for behavioral engagement, and .91 for the whole scale. The correlation between the first and second measurement was .77 in the test-retest conducted in 3-week gaps with 62 students from the target population of the study (32 middle-school and 30 high-school students). The results of the t-test of the upper 27% and lower 27% groups showed that there was a significant (p<.001) difference between the two groups. Finally, item total correlation analysis was done. The results revealed that the correlation between the items and their factors varied between .43 and .69. As clearly shown in Table 1, the values in the item analysis were far above .30. The presence of an item total correlation of 0.20 and above suggests that the item made a significant contribution to the total score and that it has high distinctiveness (Büyüköztürk, Kiliç-Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz, & Demirel, 2008; Sencan, 2005).
Item analysis is used to determine the predictive power of the item on the total score. The results are considered suggestive of the structural validity of the scale (Flovardoglu, 2007) and as proof for the scale's reliability (Sencan, 2005). In the present study, based on the findings, we can assume that the structural validity of the SES is adequate and that the distinctiveness of its items is high.
In conclusion, the results of the analysis indicate that the SES is a valid and reliable tool to assess student's engagement levels in Turkish schools. As the study consisted of a broad sample, included middle- and high-school students, and was conducted in various cities and schools, the SES is likely applicable to other middle and high-school students.
GENIS ÖZET
Ögrenci baglilik kavrami egitim alanyazininda daha yeni bir kavram olarak görülmesine karsin, ögrenci motivasyonu, okulla bag kurma, ögrenmede öz-düzenleme kavramlari ile birlikte çogu zaman ele alinmistir. Egitimcilerin ve egitim arastirmacilari çok uzun bir zamandir ögrencilerin okula karsi tutumlarina, okulda basariya götüren deneyimlerine ve okula katilimlarina ilgi göstermektedirler. Arastirmacilar bu tutumlari açiklarken baglilik kavraminin kullanmis ve bagliligi; psikolojik bir süreç, özellikle, ögrencilerin ögrenme yolunda sarf ettikleri dikkat, ilgi, yatirim ve çabalar olarak tanimlanirken, bagliligi okulda aktif katilim olarak tanimlarken Birlesik Devletler liselerindeki olumsuz bireysel sosyal yan etkilere neden olan okul basarisizliklarinin ve okul terkini anlamadaki anahtar kavram olarak görmektedir. Benzer sekilde baglanamamanin ve okul hosnutsuzlugunun en önemli göstergeleri olan devamsizlik, okulda basarisizlik ve okulu sevmeme ile okul terkinin önemli yordayicisi olarak görmektedir. Bunun yaninda ögrenci bagliliginin risk altindaki ögrenciler için koruyucu bir faktör oldugu ve ögrenci bagliligindaki artisin dezavantajli ve basarili gençlerin arasindaki basari araligini azalttigi görülmektedir.
Ögrenci bagliligi ve akademik basari arasindaki güçlü iliski ögrencilerin düsünceleri, davranislari ve duygulari arasindaki karmasik iliskiyi anlama ihtiyacini ortaya çikartmisken, ögrenci bagliligi çok boyutlu bir model olarak ele almistir (sinifin ve okulun bir parçasi olmayi içeren davranissal, okul kimligi, okula aidiyet ve okul degerlerini ögrenmeyi içeren duygusal boyut). Boyutlar yalnizca, çok boyutlu olan baglilik yapisini bir bütün olarak anlamaya yardimci olurken, bagliligi çok boyutlu olarak ele almak bagliligin alt boyutlari ile diger alanyazin arastirmalari arasinda iliski kurulmasi için arastirmacilara kolaylik saglar.
Ögrenci bagliliginin degerlendirilmesi ile ilgili çalismalar incelendiginde genellikle bagliligin farkli boyutlarini ele alan ölçekler gelistirildigi gibi, ögrenci bagliligini iki faktörlü olarak ele alan görüsler olmasina karsi en çok kabul edilen yapi üç boyutlu yani bilissel, duygusal ve davranissal boyutlari ele alan yapi ve ölçme araçlaridir. Alanyazinda çesitli ölçme araçlari olmasina karsin, bahsedilen boyutlari içeren bir ölçme aracina rastlanilmamistir. Bu sebepten dolayi arastirmanin amaci ögrenci bagliliginin üç alt boyutu olan bilissel, davranissal ve duygusal boyutlari kapsayan, ortaokul ve lise ögrencilerine yönelik bir ölçme araci gelistirmektir.
Bu amaçtan hareketle ölçek gelistirme çalismasi için Türkiye'nin çesitli illerindeki bulunan farkli liselerin 9., 10., 11.siniflari (220 ögrenci) ile ortaokullarin 7. ve 8. siniflarinda (180 ögrenci) ögrenim gören 239'u kiz (%60), 161'i erkek (%40) 400 ögrenci ile gerçeklestirilmistir. Ölçme aracini hazirlamak üzere alan yazini incelenmis ve yapilan inceleme sonucunda duygusal, davranissal ve bilissel baglilik alt boyutlarini kapsayan bir 60 maddelik taslak form hazirlanmistir. Elde edilen taslak formunun anlasilirliginin test etmek için arastirma grubuna benzer bir gruba ölçme araci uygulanmis ve gelen tepkiler dogrultusunda yeni düzeltmeler yapilmistir. Maddelerden 16'si olumsuz, 44'ü ise olumlu ifadeden olusmaktadir. Taslak formda yer alan her bir madde, "Kesinlikle katiliyorum", "Biraz Katiliyorum", "Emin degilim", "Pek Katilmiyorum" ve "Kesinlikle Katilmiyorum" seklinde adlandirilan ve 5'li Likert tipi dereceleme ölçegi yardimiyla derecelendirilmistir. Olumlu ifadelerde cevaplar "Kesinlikle Katiliyorum"dan baslayarak 5'den 1'e dogru; olumsuz ifadelerde ise tersi kodlama ile puanlanmistir. Ölçekten alinan yüksek puanlar bagliligi ifade etmektedir.
Yapi geçerligini test etmek için yapilan açimlayici faktör analizi uygulanmis, verilere faktör analizi uygulanabilmesi için örneklem uygunlugu ve Barlett Sphericity testleri yapilmistir. Bu çalismada tüm grupta KMO örneklem uygunluk katsayisi .919 (>.60), Barlett Sphericity testi χ2=5004,522 (p< .001) olarak elde edilmistir. Analiz çalismasi için .50 faktör yük degeri benimsenmistir. Yapilan analiz sonucunda 31 maddelik 3 faktörlü bir yapi ortaya çikmistir. Sonuç olarak toplam varyansin %46,74'ünü açiklayan 3 faktörlü bir yapidan olusan 31 maddelik bir ölçek elde edilmistir. Ölçekteki 7 madde ters olarak kodlanmaktadir.
Güvenirlik çalismalarinda ise "Cronbach Alfa Iç Tutarlik" katsayilarina bakilmis ve "davranissal baglilik" boyutu için .88, "bilissel baglilik" boyutu için .88 , "davranissal baglilik" boyutu için .81 ve ölçegin tamamindaki alfa degeri ise .91 bulunmustur. Çalisma grubundan alinan 62 ögrenciyle üç hafta arayla yapilan test-tekrar-test yöntemiyle ilk ölçüm ile son ölçüm arasinda .77'lik bir korelasyon hesaplanmistir. Kullanilan bir diger güvenirlik yöntemi olarak "%27'lik Alt-Üst Grup Karsilastirmasinda" alt grupla üst grup arasinda anlamli (p< .001) bir farklilik bulunmustur. Son olarak güvenirlik çalismasi olarak "Madde Toplam Korelasyon" analizi yapilmistir. Analizde maddelerin bulunduklari faktörlerle arasindaki iliski .43 ile .69 arasinda degistigi bulunmustur. Bu durumda, Ögrenci Baglilik Ölçeginin yapi geçerliginin uygun olmasinin yani sira maddelerinin ayirt edicilik düzeyinin de yüksek oldugu söylenebilir.
Yapilan analizler neticesinde Ögrenci Baglilik Ölçeginin ortaokul ve lise ergenlerinin "Ögrenci Baglilik Düzeylerini" ölçmede kullanilabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç oldugu görülmüstür. Bütün bunlarin yani sira, bu çalismada Ögrenci Baglilik Ölçegine iliskin elde edilen geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik bulgulari, arastirmanin yürütüldügü örneklemler çerçevesinde düsünüldügünde ortaokul ve lise ögrencileri gibi genis bir örneklemi kapsamasi, birden çok ilde ve okul türünde yürütülmüs olmasi, hem ortaokul ögrencileri hem de lise ögrencileri ile kullanilabilecek bir ölçme araci özelligi tasidigini göstermektedir.
REFERENCES
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L, & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student Engagement with School: Critical Conceptual and Methodological Issues of the Construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L, Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring Cognitive and Psychological Engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427-445.
Arastaman, G. (2006). Ankara Ili Lise Birinci Sinif Ögrencilerinin Okula Baglilik Durumlarina Hi§kin Ögrenci, Ögretmen ve Yöneticilerin Görüsleri. (Yayinlanmamis Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Büyüköztürk, S. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabi (7. Baski). Ankara: PegemA.
Büyüköztürk, S., Kiliç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel Arastirma Yöntemleri (2. baski). Ankara: PegemA.
Büyüköztürk, S., Sekercioglu, G., & Çokluk, Ö. (2010). Sosyal Bilimler için Çokdegiskenli IStatistik. Ankara: PegemA.
Christenson, S. L, & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School Dropouts Prevention Considerations, Interventions, and Challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36-39.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational Risk and Resilience in African-American Youth: Context, Self, Action, and Outcomes in School. Child Development, 65(2), 493-506.
Çalik, T., & Kurt, T. (2010). Okul Iklimi Ölçeginin Gelistirilmesi. Egitim ve Bilim, 35(157), 167-180.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing From School. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142. doi: 10.3102/00346543059002117
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic Success Among Students at Risk for School Failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 221.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C, & Paris, A. FI. (2004). School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, Fl. M., Duke, B. L, & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting High School Students' Cognitive Engagement and Achievement: Contributions of Classroom Perceptions and Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 462-482.
Hovardoglu, S. (2007). Davranis Bilimleri için Arastirma Teknikleri (2. baski). Ankara: Hatiboglu Basim Yayin.
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an Understanding of Definitions and Measures of School Engagement and Related Terms. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 7-27.
Kortering, L. J., & Christenson, S. (2009). Engaging Students in School and Learning: The Real Deal for School Completion. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 17(1), 5-15.
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in The Elementary, Middle, and High School Years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184.
McCarthy, M., & Kuh, G. (2006). Are Students Ready for College? What Student Engagement Data Say. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 664-669.
Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). The Significance and Sources of Student Engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.), Student Engagement and Achievement In American Secondary Schools (pp. 11-39). New York: Teachers College Press.
Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket Programlar He Istatistiksel Veri Analizi Cilt 2. Eskisehir: Kaan Kitabevi.
Rotermund, S. L. (2011). The Role of Psychological Precursors and Student Engagement in a Process Model of High School Dropout. Santa Barbara: University of California.
Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. (2008). Relations Among School Assets, Individual Resilience, and Student Engagement for Youth Grouped by Level of Family Functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 402-418.
Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What It Takes To Do Well in School and Whether I've Got It: A Process Model of Perceived Control and Children's Engagement and Achievement In School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 22.
Stafford, R. E. (2011). Evaluation of The Student Engagement Instrument: Measurement Invariance Across Economic Status and Association with Academic Achievement. (Unpublished Master Thesis), Southeastern Louisiana University, Ann Arbor.
Sencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve Davranissal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin.
Tavsancil, E. (2010). Tutumlarin Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi (4. Baski). Ankara: Nobel.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Bartin University, Faculty of Education Winter 2014
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop a student engagement scale (SES) and determine its validity and reliability. Factor analysis and reliability studies were conducted using data on 400 high-school and middle-school adolescent students (239 females, 161 males). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the structural validity of the scale accounted for 46.74% of the total variance, with 31 items clustered in 3 factors. In the process of naming three subscales, the content of the items and the literature were taken into consideration. Following a review of the literature, the explored factors were emotional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement. To test the validity of the instrument, a school climate scale was used and correlation of .51 (p<.001) was concluded. The Cronbach's alpha were .88 for emotional, behavioral and .83 for cognitive subscales-ranged alpha values. After an interval of three weeks, a result of the test-retest correlation coefficient was found to be .77 (p<.001). There were a significant difference in the upper 27% and lower 27% groups in the SES
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer