Vol. 4 Iss. 3

Assessing subjective university success with the Subjective Academic Achievement Scale (SAAS)

Matthias Stadler & Christoph J. Kemper & Samuel Greiff

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 90, size: 0, date: 29.May.2021

Abstract: University achievement is a highly relevant educational outcome with implications for students’ academic and professional futures. As the majority of students that drop out of university do so due to subjective reasons in contrast to a lack of capability to handle the workload, a measure of subjective university achievement (complementing grade point average) is helpful to enhance educational research on causes, correlates, and consequences of university success. This study aims to introduce a short scale for assessing subjective academic achievement – the SAAS – and provide first results on its psychometric properties. Based on two independent samples of university students, the internal consistency, factorial validity, and construct validity of the SAAS
are corroborated, suggesting the measure’s administration in educational research on university success and related issues.

Keywords: GPA; higher education; short scale; university achievement; university success.

Please Cite: Stadler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Greiff, S. (2021). Assessing subjective university success with the Subjective Academic Achievement Scale (SAAS). The European Educational Researcher, 4(1), 283-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.431

References

Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). How do objective and subjective career success interrelate over time? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 803–824. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X470924

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Tan, H. H. (1994). An Examination of the Antecedents of Subjective Career Success Among a Managerial Sample in Singapore. Human Relations, 47(5), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700502

Bacon, D. R., & Bean, B. (2006). GPA in Research Studies: An Invaluable but Neglected Opportunity. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475305284638

Beauducel, A [Andre], & Wittmann, W. W. (2005). Simulation Study on Fit Indexes in CFA Based on Data With Slightly Distorted Simple Structure. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(1), 41–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. Academic Press.

Dai, L., & Song, F. (2016). Subjective Career Success: A Literature Review and Prospect. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 04(03), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2016.43026

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008). Career success: Constructing a multidimensional model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.05.005

George, D., Dixon, S., Stansal, E., Gelb, S. L., & Pheri, T. (2008). Time diary and questionnaire assessment of factors associated with academic and personal success among university undergraduates. Journal of American College Health : J of ACH, 56(6), 706–715. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.56.6.706-715

Hu, L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. Springer.

Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A [A.], Brocke, B., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2012). IST-Screening: Intelligenz-Struktur-Test ; Screening ; Manual. Hogrefe.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

Mould, T., & DeLoach, S. B. (2017). Moving beyond GPA: Alternative Measures of Success and Predictive Factors in Honors Programs. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 18(1), 149–168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej1172622

Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2018). Mplus. In W. J. van der Linden (Ed.), Chapman & Hall/CRC Statistics in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Handbook of Item Response Theory (pp. 507–518). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315117430-28

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sornesen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self‐report Measures of Intelligence: Are They Useful as Proxy IQ Tests? Journal of Personality, 66(4), 525–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00023

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838

Stauffer, J. M., & Mendoza, J. L. (2001). The proper sequence for correcting correlation coefficients for range restriction and unreliability. Psychometrika, 66(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295732

Ulriksen, L., Madsen, L. M., & Holmegaard, H. T. (2010). What do we know about explanations for drop out/opt out among young people from STM higher education programmes? Studies in Science Education, 46(2), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2010.504549

Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J., & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short Scales – Five Misunderstandings and Ways to Overcome Them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000148
Vol. 4 Iss. 3

A Comparative Analysis of Reading Self-Efficacy of Turkology Students

Önder Çangal & Umut Başar 

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 48, size: 0, date: 18.Sep.2021

Abstract: The Turkology Departments in countries other than Turkey fulfill two functions. First, they aim to equip their students with sufficient Turkish language proficiency. Second, they offer students a university degree from the Language, History and Literature program. Therefore, regarding the students who are studying in these departments, their competence in Turkish language
skills on an academic level is significant. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine the reading skills self-efficacy of Turkology students studying in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Algeria. The study explored if the students’ reading self-accicay changed in line with any of the variables of country origin, gender, and student achievement level. The research data were collected by adopting the “Reading self-efficacy scale of those who learn Turkish as a foreign language” prepared by Güngör and Kan (2020), and the data obtained was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.0 package program. According to the results of the study, it was seen that the reading self-efficacy of Bosnia and Herzegovinian students was higher than the Algerians. Additionally, it was found out that as the achievement scores and language proficiency levels of the students increased their reading self-efficacy scores also increased. Next, the self-efficacy scores of the graduate students were found to be higher than those of the undergraduate students. In addition, there was no significant difference between the self-efficacy level of the students participating in the study according to their gender. Finally, based on the findings, suggestions were given to increase the reading self-efficacy of the students at the end of the study.

Keywords: Algeria; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Department of Turkology; Reading self-efficacy; Turkish teaching.

Please Cite: Cangal, O., & Başar, U. (2021). A Comparative Analysis of Reading Self-Efficacy of Turkology Students. The European Educational Researcher, 4(4), 311-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.432

References

Altunkaya, H., & Ateş, A. (2017). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenenlerin yazma özyeterlikleri ile yazılı anlatım becerileri arasındaki ilişki [The Relationship between Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Skills of Turkish Learners as a Foreign Language]. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 19(3), 86-103, 338356. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.338356

Aydın, G., Şahin, A., Yağmur Şahin, E., Emre, K., & Salı, M. K. (2017). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenenlerin konuşma öz yeterliliklerinin belirlenmesi (ÇOMÜ TÖMER örneği) [Determining the speaking self-efficacy of those who learn Turkish as a foreign language (ÇOMÜ TÖMER sample)]. Journal of Awareness, 2(3S), 549-564.

Bakır, S. (2015). Yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin öğrenme yaklaşımlarının, yazma becerisi öz yeterliklerinin ve Türkçe yazma becerilerinin incelenmesi [An investigation of foreign students' learning approaches, self-efficacies in writing skills and their writing skills in Turkish]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ataturk University, Erzurum. 

Başar, U. (2018). Afganistan’da yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi üzerine güncel bir değerlendirme [A Recent Evaluation on Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language ın Afghanistan]. Aydın Tömer Dil Dergisi / Journal of Aydın TOMER Language, 3(1), 1-20. 

Büyükikiz, K. (2011). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin yazma becerileri ile öz yeterlilik algıları arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir araştırma [The Effect of Creative Writing Activities on The Writing Self-Efficacy of Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University, Ankara.

Çangal, Ö. (2021). Cezayir’de yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi üzerine bir değerlendirme [An Evaluation on Teaching Turkish as a Foreign Language in Algeria]. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 16(special issue), 210-227, 850772. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.850772

Çelik, M. E. (2016). Bulgaristan’daki Türkçe öğretmenlerinin Türkçenin eğitimi-öğretimine ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi [The Analyze of the Opinions of Turkish Language Teachers about the TeachingLearning of Turkish in Bulgaria]. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 35(2), 69-81.

Çelik, M. E. (2021). Bosna Hersek’te Türkçe öğretiminin güncel durumu [Current Status of Turkish Teaching in Bosnia-Herzegovina]. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty, 16(special issue), 108-128.  

Erdem, C. (2015). Polonya’daki Türkoloji bölümlerinde Türk dili ve edebiyatı eğitimi ve öğrencilerin Türkçe becerileri [Teaching Turkish Language and Literature and Turkish Language Proficiency Level of Students At Turkic Studies Departments ın Poland]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi University, Ankara.

Erdem, İ., Altunkaya, H., & Ateş, A. (2017). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin okur özyeterlikleri ile okuduğunu anlama becerileri arasındaki ilişki [Relation Between The Literacy Self-Efficacy and The Ability of Reading Comprehension of Those Who Learn Turkish as a Foreign Language]. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(4), 74-86.

Gül, B. (2006). Moğolistan’da Türkolojinin gelişimi ve Moğolistan’da yapılması gerekli Türkoloji çalışmaları üzerine [On the development of Turkology in Mongolia and the necessary Turkology Studies in Mongolia I]. Y. Koç, S. Sağlam ve C. Gelekci (Ed.), I. Türkiyat Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildirileri [I. Proceedings Of The Symposium On Turkic Studies] (pp. 203-217). Hacettepe University Institute of Turkish Studies.

Güngör, H. ve Kan, A. (2020). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin okuma öz yeterliklerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması [A Scale Development Study for the Determination of Reading Self Efficacy of Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language]. International Journal of Language Academy, 8(3), 49-62.

Karadağ, N. (2018). Lübnan Üniversitesi Türkoloji Bölümü ve Lübnan Yunus Emre Enstitüsünde Türkçe öğrenen öğrencilerin dil öğrenmedeki ihtiyaç ve nedenleri [The needs and reasons of Turkish students in language learning at Lebanon University Turkology Department and Lebanon Yunus Emre Institute]. A. Uysal (Ed.), Uluslararası Türk Kültürü ve Medeniyeti Kongresi Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı [International Congress of Turkish Culture and civilization full text paper book] (pp. 459-468). Balıkesir University.

Karakaya, İ. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. A. Tanrıögen (Ed.), Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri içinde [In Scientific research methods] (pp. 57-86). Anı Publishing.

Kotaman, H. (2008). Özyeterlilik inancı ve öğrenme performansının geliştirilmesine ilişkin yazın taraması [Self-Efficay Belif and Enhancement of Learning Performance]. Journal of Uludağ University Faculty of Education, 21(1), 111-133.

Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Güngör, H. (2017). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenenlerin konuşma öz yeterliklerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [The Study of Speaking Skills Self-Efficacy of Turkish Learners as a Foreigng Language ın Terms of Various Parameters]. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 6(2), 1105-1121.

Melanlıoğlu, D. ve Demir Atalay, T. (2016). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğrenenlerin yazma öz yeterlı̇klerı̇nde yaratıcı yazma uygulamalarının etkisi̇ [The Effect of Creative Writing Activities on The Writing Self-Efficacy of Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language]. Turkish Journal of Social Research, 20(3), 697-721.

Moralı, G. (2019). Examination of the reading self-efficacy of learners of Turkish as a foreign language regarding some variables. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1445-1458.

Özdemir, C., Temizyürek, F. & İltar, L. (2015). Presence of Turks and Turkish Teaching in Lebanon. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 3(3), 131-143.

Sallabaş, M. E. (2012). Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenenlerin konuşma öz yeterliliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [Assessment of Self-Efficacies of Learners of Turkish as a Foreign Language]. Türkiye Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi /Turkish Journal of Social Research, 16(2), 269-290.

Ustabulut, M. Y., & Kara, K. (2016). Romanya’da Türk dili tarihi ve Dobruca’daki (Köstence) Türkoloji eğitimi [Education of History of Turkish Language in Romania and Turkology in Dobruja (Constanta)]. Aydın Tömer Dil Dergisi / Journal of Aydın TOMER Language, 1(2), 1-16.

Ülper, H., Yaylı, D., & Karakaya, İ. (2013). Okur öz yeterlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi [Developing the Reader Self-Efficacy Scale]. Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 14(1), 85-100.
Vol. 4 Iss. 3

Unpacking The Relation Between Spatial Abilities and Creativity in Geometry

Panagiotis Gridos & Evgenios Avgerinos & Eleni Deliyianni & Iliada Elia & Athanasios Gagatsis & Zoi Geitona

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 39, size: 0, date: 29.Sep.2021

Abstract: This study aims to examine the relation between spatial ability and creativity in Geometry. Data was collected from 94 ninth graders. Three spatial abilities were investigated: spatial visualization, spatial relations and closure flexibility. As for students’ creativity, it was examined through a multiple solution problem in Geometry focusing on three components of creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality. The results revealed that spatial visualization predicted flexibility and originality while closure flexibility predicted all creativity components. Additionally, it was deduced that auxiliary constructions played an essential role in the problem-solution process. Finally, further study opportunities for the teaching and learning of Geometry are discussed.

Keywords: Creativity; Geometry; Geometrical Figure Apprehension; Multiple-solution Tasks; Spatial Abilities

Please Cite: Gridos, P., Avgerinos, E., Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., Geitona, Z. (2021). Unpacking The Relation Between Spatial Abilities and Creativity in Geometry. The European Educational Researcher, 4(3), 307-328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.433

References

Bingolbali, E. (2020). An analysis of questions with multiple solution methods and multiple outcomes in mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(5), 669-687, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2019.1606949

Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object-spatialverbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 638–663. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/acp.1473

Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2018). A heuristic framework of spatial ability: A review and synthesis of spatial factor literature to support its translation into STEM education. Educational Psychology Review.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9432-z.

Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. E., & Wolfe, L. C. B. (2011). Mathematical learned by young children in an intervention based on learning trajectories: a large-scale cluster randomized trial. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 42(2), 127–166. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0127.

Dindyal, J. (2015). Geometry in the early years: a commentary. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(3), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0700-9

Duval, R. (1999). Representations, vision and visualization: Cognitive functions in mathematical thinking. Basic issues for learning. In F. Hitt & M. Santos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (Vol. 1, pp. 3–26). Morelos, Mexico.

Duval, R. (2005). Les conditions cognitives de l’apprentissage de la géométrie : Développement de la visualisation, différenciation des raisonnements et coordination de leurs fonctionnements. Annales de Didactique et de Sciences Cognitives, 10, 5–53.

Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103–131.

Duval, R. (2014). The first crucial point in geometry learning: Visualization. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13(1-2), 1-28.

Ekstrom, R. B., French. J. W., Harman, H. H., and Derman, D. (1976). Manual for Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Elia, I., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Gagatsis, A. (2018). Geometry learning in the early years: Developing understanding of shapes and space with a focus on visualization. In V. Kinnear, M. –Y. Lai and T. Muir (Eds.), Forging Connections in Early Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Early Mathematics Learning and Development (pp. 73-94). Singapore: Springer.

Elliot, J. & Smith, I.M. (1983). An international dictionary of spatial tests. Windsor, United Kingdom: The NFERNelson Publishing Company, Ltd.

Ervynck, G. (1991). Mathematical creativity. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 42–53). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

European Parliament and the Council (2006). Recommendation of European Parliament and of Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EL/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006H0962&from=EN

Fujita, T., Kondo, Y., Kumakura, H., Kunimune, S., & Jones, K. (2020). Spatial reasoning skills about 2D representations of 3D geometrical shapes in grades 4 to 9. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 285– 305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00335-w.

Gagatsis, A., Monoyiou, A., Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., Michael, P., Kalogirou, P., Panaoura, A., & Philippou, A. (2010).

One way of assessing the understanding of a geometrical figure. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae – Mathematics, 10, 35-50.

Gagatsis, A. (2011). How can we evaluate the apprehension of a geometrical figure? In S. Sbaragli (Ed.) La mathematica e la sua didattica, quarant’ anni di impegno (Mathematics and its didactics, forty years of commitment) (pp. 97-100). Bologna: Pitagora Editrice Bologna.

Gagatsis, A. (2012). The Structure of Primary and Secondary School Students’ Geometrical Figure Apprehension. In E. Avgerinos & A. Gagatsis (Eds.), Research on Mathematical Education and Mathematics Applications (pp. 11-20).  Rhodes: University of the Aegean.  

Gagatsis, A. (2015). Explorando el rol de las figuras geométricas en el pensamiento geométrico. In B. D’Amore & M.I. Fandiño Pinilla (Eds) Didáctica de la Matemática - Una mirada internacional, empírica y teórica (pp. 231248). Chia: Universidad de la Sabana.

 Gagatsis, A., Michael – Chrysanthou, P., Deliyianni, E., Panaoura, A., & Papagiannis, C. (2015). An insight to students’ geometrical figure apprehension through the context of the fundamental educational thought. Communication & Cognition, 48 (3-4), 89-128.

Gagatsis, A., & Geitona Z. (2021). A multidimensional approach to students’ creativity in geometry: spatial ability, geometrical figure apprehension and multiple solutions in geometrical problems. Mediterranean Journal for Reseach in Mathematics Education, Vol. 18, 5-16, 2021.

Gridos, P., Avgerinos, E., Mamona-Downs, J. & Vlachou, R.  (2021). Geometrical Figure Apprehension, Construction of Auxiliary Lines, and Multiple Solutions in Problem Solving: Aspects of Mathematical Creativity in School Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763021-10155-4.

Gridos, P., Gagatsis, A., Deliyianni, E., Elia, I., & Samartzis, P.  (2018). The relation between spatial ability and ability to solve with multiple ways in geometry. Paper presented in: ISSC 2018 - International Conference on Logics of image: Visual Learning, Logic and Philosophy of Form in East and West, Crete, Greece. Research Gate.

Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. A. (2005). Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities. In P. Shah (Ed.) & A. Miyake, The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking (p. 121–169). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610448.005

Herbst, P. G. (2002). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-column proof in the early twentieth century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 283 - 312.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020264906740

Hsu H. (2007). Geometric calculations are more than calculations. In J.H Woo, H.C Lew, K.S Park, D.Y Seo (Eds.) Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64). Seoul, Korea.  

Kalogirou, P., Elia, I., & Gagatsis A. (2009). Spatial Ability and Geometrical Figure Understanding. In Gagatsis, A., Kuzniak, A., Deliyianni, E., & Vivier, L. (Eds). Cyprus and France Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 105-118). Lefkosia: University of Cyprus.

Kalogirou, P. & Gagatsis, A. (2011). A first insight of the relationship between students’ spatial ability and geometrical figure apprehension. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae – Mathematics, 11, 25 –38.  

Kalogirou, P. & Gagatsis, A. (2012). The relationship between students’spatial ability and geometrical figure apprehension. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(1-2), 133-146.

Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831–1836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613478615

Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29, 745–756. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200477

Leikin, R., Levav-Waynberg, A., Gurevich, I, & Mednikov, L. (2006). Implementation of multiple solution connecting

tasks: Do students’ attitudes support teachers’ reluctance? Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 28, 1-

22.

Leikin, R., & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 349-371.

Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In R. Leikin, A. Berman and B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publisher.

Leikin, R. (2011). Multiple-solution tasks: From a teacher education course to teacher practice. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education. 43(6), 993-1006.

Leikin, R., & Elgrabli, H. (2015). Creativity and expertise: The chicken or the egg? Discovering properties of geometry figures in DGE. In K. Krainer, & N. Vondrova (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 1024–1031). Prague, Czech Republic: ERME.

Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012a). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. Journal of Mathematics Behavior, 31, 73-90.

Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012b). Using multiple solutions tasks for the evaluation of students’ problemsolving performance in geometry. Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(4), 311-333.

Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A metaanalysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467

Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Stenverg (Ed.). Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181-248). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004.

Michael, P., Gagatsis, A, Avgerinos, E., & Kuzniak, A., (2011). Middle and High school students’ operative apprehension of geometrical figures. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae – Mathematics, 11, 45 –55.  

Michael, P, Gagatsis, A., Avgerinos, E., & Kuzniak, A. (2012). Approaching the Operative Apprehension of a Geometrical Figure. In E. Avgerinos & A. Gagatsis (Eds.), Research on Mathematical Education and Mathematics Applications (pp. 69-84).  Rhodes: University of the Aegean.  

Michael – Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2013). Geometrical figures in task solving: an obstacle or a heuristic tool? Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae – Mathematics, 13, 17-30.

Michael – Chrysanthou, P., & Gagatsis, A. (2014). Ambiguity in the way of looking at a geometrical figure. Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa – Relime, 17(4-I), 165-180.

Michael – Chrysanthou, P., Gagatsis, A. (2015). The influence of the nature of geometrical figures on geometric proofs and the role of geometrical figure apprehension. In J.C. Régnier, Y. Slimani, R. Gras, I.B. Tarbout & A. Dhioubi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International conference Implicative Statistic Analysis (pp. 356-368). Radès – Tunisie : A.S.I.

Mulligan, J., Woolcott, G., Mitchelmore, M., Busatto, S., Lai, J., & Davis, B. (2020). Evaluating the impact of a Spatial Reasoning Mathematics Program (SRMP) intervention in the primary school. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32, 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00324-z.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and NCTM Standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Palatnik, A., & Dreyfus, T. (2018). Students’ reasons for introducing auxiliary lines in proving situations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2018.10.004

Palatnik, A. & Sigler, A. (2019) Focusing attention on auxiliary lines when introduced into geometric problems.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50 (2), 202-215, DOI:10.1080/0020739X.2018.1489076

Pitta-Pantazi, D., Sophocleous, P., & Christou, C. (2013). Spatial visualizers, object visualizers and verbalizers: Their mathematical creative abilities. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 199 – 213. doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0475-1

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2017). Dynamic visuospatial ability and learning from dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization – Innovations in research and application. Berlin: Springer.

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 3, 75–80.

Soury-Lavergne, S., & Maschietto, M. (2015). Articulation of spatial and geometrical knowledge in problem solving with technology at primary school. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education Mathematics Education, 47(3), 435–449.

Stupel, M., & Ben-Chaim, D. (2017). Using multiple solutions to mathematical problems to develop pedagogical and mathematical thinking: A case study in a teacher education program. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 9(2), 86-108.

Taber, K.S (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

Torrance, E.P. (1994). Creativity: Just wanting to know. Pretoria, South Africa: Benedic books.

Tyagi, T. K. (2016). Is there a causal relation between mathematical creativity and mathematical problem-solving performance? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47(3), 388-394, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2015.1075612

Ünlü,      M., & Ertekin,     E. (2017).  A structural equation model for factors affecting eighth graders’ geometry achievement.       Educational         Sciences:              Theory   &            Practice,               17,          815–1846. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.5.0545  

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 352–402.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Buys, K. (Eds.). (2008). Young children learn measurement and geometry. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Van Harpen, X. Y., & Presmeg, N. C. (2013). An investigation of relationships between students’ mathematical problem-posing abilities and their mathematical content knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83(1), 117–132.

Velez, M., Silver, D., & Tremaine, M. (2005). Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences. VIS 05. IEEE Visualization (pp. 511-518), DOI: 10.1109/VISUAL.2005.1532836

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817– 835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127

Xie, F., Zhang, L., Chen, X., & Xin, Z. (2020). Is Spatial Ability Related to Mathematical Ability: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 113–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09496-y

Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. doi:10.2307/749877

Yilmaz, H. B. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial ability. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(2), 83–96 http://www.iejee.com/1_2_2009/yilmaz.pdf.
Vol. 4 Iss. 3

Teachers’ Attitudes to Use of Advanced Technological Tools as Teaching and Learning Aids: From an Inter-Generational Perspective

Nitza Davidovitch & Roman Yavich

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 27, size: 0, date: 06.Oct.2021

Abstract: This study examines the perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards tablets as pedagogical aids from an intergenerational perspective. It is based on sociological theories and definitions that emphasize the disparities and the uniqueness of each “generation” as well as customary teaching and learning methods. The study compares teachers from Generation Y and
Generation X and it was carried out about one year from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when all teachers regardless of “generation” were required to teach digitally. We focused on a common digital tool, the tablet, which enables diverse learning methods. A questionnaire was administered to teachers in the Israeli educational system (N = 154). The research findings showed
that teachers from Generation Y (aged 26-42) have more positive general attitudes towards the use of tablets as an integral part of the study program and identify more advantages and less disadvantages than their Generation X colleagues (ages 43-65). The current research findings were compatible with research findings regarding the general attitudes of teachers towards innovative technologies and their integration in study programs in educational systems worldwide. The practical meaning of the study is that it is important to continue leading programs for integrating advanced technological appliances, and not only tablets, in the curriculum, as the generation of teachers who will be responsible for educating the younger generations and for leading these programs in particular is from the age group that has the most positive attitudes towards the subject.

Keywords: Educational System, Generation X, Generation Y, “Smart” Cellular Technology, Use of Tablets, Teacher Attitudes

Please Cite: Davidovitch, N., Yavich, R. (2021). Teachers’ Attitudes to Use of Advanced Technological Tools as Teaching and Learning Aids: From an Inter-Generational Perspective. The European Educational Researcher, 4(3), 329-354. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.434

References
Albert, M., Hurrelmann, K., Leven, I., Quenzel, G., & Schneekloth, U. (2019). The utility of the term ‘generation’ in sociology and youth research: A reply to Martin Schroder's thesis on the "Generation Myth". Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 71(3), 457-469.

Almog, T. & Almog, O. (2016). Generation Y – as if there is no tomorrow.

Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Beth Simon, Steven A. Wolfman, Tammy VanDeGrift, and Ken Yasuhara. 2004.

Experiences with a Tablet PC Based Lecture Presentation System in Computer Science Courses. In 

Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 56–60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/971300.971323

Business as unusual: How COVID-19 could change the future of work, UN News, May 27, 2020, https://news. un.org/en/story/2020/05/1064802 [accessed June 2020].

Chai, S. & Lukash, A. (2016, August 31). Beginning the year with the new teachers: Women have an absolute majority. Ynet. https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4848298,00.html [Hebrew]

Chien, S.E., Chu, L., Lee, H.H., Yang, C.C., Lin, F.H., Yang, P.L., ... & Yeh, S.L. (2019). Age difference in perceived ease of use, curiosity, and implicit negative attitude toward robots. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (THRI), 8(2), 1-19.

Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers' private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 251-254.

Clark, B. (2019). Fourth turning clash of inter-civilization cultures (Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University).

Connolly, S.L., Miller, C.J., Koenig, C.J., Zamora, K.A., Wright, P.B., Stanley, R.L., & Pyne, J.M. (2018). Veterans’ attitudes toward smartphone App use for mental health care: Qualitative study of rurality and age differences. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6(8), e10748.

Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2015). Technology-related involvement: The effect of the MASHOV system on parent involvement in Israeli junior highs. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 11(4), 243-252.

Davidovitch, N., & Yavich, R. (2018). The impact of mobile tablet use on students' perception of learning processes. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(1), 29.

Davidovitch, N., & Wadmany, R. (2021). E-Learning in times of crisis: An incidental or facilitative event? In Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science in Higher Education (pp. 453-479). Springer, Cham.

Fernández-López, Á., Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M.J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M.L., & Martínez-Segura, M.J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77-90.

Garcia Perez, A., Gil Mediavilla, M., Álvarez, I. & Casares, M. (2020). The influence of social networks within educational and social fields: A comparative study between two generations of online students. Sustainability, 12, 9941. 10.3390/su12239941

Joordens, M. (2020). Teaching with a tablet PC. In: Mobile devices in education: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 721-736).

Karsenti, T., & Fievez, A. (2013). The iPad in education: Uses, benefits, and challenges – A survey of 6,057 students and 302 teachers in Quebec, Canada. CRIFPE.

Larrington, C. (2017). Family and friends: Generation in medieval romance. Medium Aevum, 86(2), 375-376.

Lee, C. C., Czaja, S. J., Moxley, J. H., Sharit, J., Boot, W.R., Charness, N., & Rogers, W.A. (2019). Attitudes toward computers across adulthood from 1994 to 2013. The Gerontologist, 59(1), 22-33.

Liberman, O., Gal, N. & Amzalag, M. (2019). Attitudes of special education teachers toward the integration of ipads in teaching pupils of the autistic spectrum. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman & S. Etgar (Eds.), Learning in the technological era XIV: Proceedings of the 14th Chais Conference for the study of innovation and learning technologies (pp. 149-154). The Open University. [Hebrew]

Little, B., & Winch, A. (2017). Generation: The politics of patriarchy and social change. Soundings, 66(16), 129-144.

Lorah, E. R., Parnell, A., Whitby, P. S., & Hantula, D. (2015). A systematic review of tablet computers and portable media players as speech generating devices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3792-3804.

Manny-Ikan, E., Berger-Tikochinski, T., & Bashan, Z. (2015). The tablet project of “Kadima Mada” in a Jerusalemregion school, 2014/15. Henrietta Szold Institute. [Hebrew]

Manny-Ikan, E., Berger Tikochinski, T., Bashan, Z. & Wolf, I. (2015). Using tablets in the classroom – Implications for teaching and learning. In Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & V. Silber-Varod, Learning in the technological era: Proceedings of the 10th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies. The Open University. [Hebrew]

McCrindle, M. & Fell, A. (2020). Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on the emerging generations.

Meishar-Tal, H., Shonfeld, M. & Ran, H. (2016). Students’ writing and reading preferences in a “paperless” classroom. In Y. Eshet-Alkalay, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & V. Silber-Varod (Eds.), Learning in the technological era XI: Proceedings of the 11th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and learning Technologies. The Open University. [Hebrew]

Perloff, R. M. (2017). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. In The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the Twenty-First Century. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315657714

Reisenwitz, T.H., & Fowler, J.G. (2019). Information sources and the tourism decision-making process: An examination of Generation X and Generation Y consumers. Global Business Review, 20(6), 1372-1392.

Salant, A. (2013). Tablets in the schools – state of affairs, April 2013. Knowledge and digital inquisitiveness. http://amisalant.com/?p=4890  [Hebrew]

Seifert, A., Reinwand, D.A., & Schlomann, A. (2019). Designing and using digital mental health interventions for older adults: Being aware of digital inequality. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 568. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00568  

Shepherd, I.J., & Reeves, B. (2011). iPad or iFad – The reality of a paperless classroom. Mobility Conference. Abilene Christian University. 

Ting, H., Lim, T.Y., de Run, E.C., Koh, H., & Sahdan, M. (2018). Are we baby boomers, gen X and gen Y? A qualitative inquiry into generation cohorts in Malaysia. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 39(1), 109-115.

UNESCO  (2020). With over 63 million teachers impacted by the COVID-19 crisis, on World Teachers' Day, UNESCO urges increased investment in teachers for Learning Recovery. https://en.unesco.org/news/over63-million-teachers-impacted-covid-19-crisis-world-teachers-day-unesco-urges-increased, May 2020. 

Zilka, C.G. (2011). Digital environment in kindergartens. In D. Chen & G. Kurtz (Eds.), ICT, learning and teaching (pp. 207-230). The Center for Academic Studies. [Hebrew]
Vol. 4 Iss. 3

Turkish Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes About Science Survey (CLASS) in Physics

Derya Kaltakci-Gurel

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 54, size: 0, date: 11.Oct.2021

Abstract: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) is an instrument to measure student beliefs about physics and learning physics. In this research, Turkish adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the CLASS is discussed. In the first stage, the translation process, which included examination of six experts (four experts in physics education and two experts in
English and Turkish languages) for content validity and 13 student interviews for face validity, was described. In the second stage, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis results obtained from 1391 freshman students were discussed for construct validty. The EFA yielded three factors that consisted of 20 items, which explained 39.61 % of the total variance. These
factors were named as: Problem Solving Effort, Conceptual Understanding, and Personal Interest and Real-World Connection. Based on the CFA results, the three-factor 20-item instrument showed acceptable fit statistics. Compared to the original CLASS, the proposed version with 20-item model was shorter, easier to administer and easier to score, valid and reliable survey, so feasible to use. The overlapping of the constructs (i.e., violation of the unidimensionality) in the original CLASS was a problem, while in the proposed model none of the items were included in more than one construct.

Keywords: Attitudes; Beliefs; CLASS; Physics Education.

Please Cite: Kaltakci-Gurel, D. (2021). Turkish Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes About Science Survey (CLASS) in Physics. The European Educational Researcher, 4(3), 355 -372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.435

References

Adams, W., Perkins, K., Podolefsky, N., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., & Wieman, C. (2006). New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado      Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education   Research, 52(1), 1-14.

Alhadlaq, H., Alshaya, F., Alabdulkereem, S., Perkins, K. K., Adams, W.K., & Wieman, C. E. (2009). Measuring students’ beliefs about physics in Saudi Arabia. AIP Conference Proceedings 1179, 69-72. Bates, S. P., Galloway, R. K., Lopston, C., & Slaughter, K. A. (2011). How attitudes and beliefs about         physics change from high school to faculty. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research,  

7, 020114, 1-8.

Bayar, A. & Karamustafaoglu, O. (2015). The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS): The Study of Validity and Reliability. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 2(1), 40-57. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Philadelphia: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Douglas, K. A., Yale, M. S., Bennett, D. E., Haugan, M. P., & Bryan, L. A. (2014). Evaluation of Colorado Learning Attitude about Science Survey. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics           Education Research, 10, 020128, 1-10.

Downing, S. M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In S.M. Downing, & T. M. Haladayna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3-25), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Elby, A., Fredriksen, J., Schwarz, C., White, B. (2006). The Epistemological Beliefs Assessment About

Physical Science (EBAPS), http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/EBAPS_items.htm Frankel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.).

 US: McGraw-Hill Comp.

Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1998). Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students.

Science Education, 7, 553-.577.

Hambelton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. Merenda, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting    Educational and Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment (pp.3-38), Matwah, NJ:

 Erlbaum.  

Heredia, K., & Lewis, J. E. (2012). A psychometric evaluation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for use in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 436-441.   

İlhan, M. & Çetin, B. (2014). Development of clasroom assessment environment Scale (CAES):

Validity and reliability study. Education and Science, 39(176), 31-50.

Kane, M. (2006). Content-related validity evidence in test development. In S.M. Downing, & T. M.

 Haladayna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 131-154), New Jersey: Lawrence  Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd Ed.). NY: The

 Guilford Press.

Kontro, I., & Buschhüter, D. (2020). Validity of Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for a high-achieving, Finnish population. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16, 020104, 1-11. Kost, L. E., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Characterizing the gender gap in introductory    physics. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 5, 010101, 1-14. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwatz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science                  questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of       science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-501.   

Lindsey, B. A., Hsu, L., Sadaghiani, H., Taylor, J. W., & Cummings, K. (2012). Positive attitudinal, shifts with

  Physics by Inquiry curriculum across multiple implementations. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 8, 010102, 1-8.

Linn, R. L. (2006). The standards for educational and psychological testing: guidance in test development.  In S.M. Downing, & T. M. Haladayna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 27-38), New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Marusic, M. & Slisko, J. (2012). Effects of two types of physics learning on the results of CLASS test.

 Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 8, 010107- 1-12.

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: a conceptual introduction. NY: Longman. Milner-Bolotin, M., Antimirova, T., Noack, A., & Petrov, A. (2011). Attitudes about science and conceptual physics                 learning in university introductory physics courses. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education            Research, 7, 020107, 1-9.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual. (2nd Ed.). NY: Open University Press.

Pawl, A., Barrantes, A. & Pritchard, D. E. (2012). What do seniors remember from freshman physics?   Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 8, 020118, 1-12.

Perkins, K. K., Adams, W. K., Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Wieman, C. E. (2004).  Correlating student beliefs with student learning using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science

Survey, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, 

California.  

Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics.

American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224.

Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. (2009). Validation study of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science

Survey at a Hispanic-serving institution. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 5, 023101, 1-5.

Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Using multivariate statistics. (6th Ed.). NY:HarperCollins.

Zhang, P. & Ding, L. (2013). Large-scale survey of Chinese precollege students’ epistemological beliefs about physics: A progression or a regression? Physical Review Special Topics- Physics             Education Research, 9, 010110, 1-9.

 

Vol. 4 Iss. 3