Online First

A Comparative Analysis of Reading Self-Efficacy of Turkology Students

Önder Çangal & Umut Başar 

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 39, size: 0, date: 23.Jun.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.433

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.
Online First

Views of Nature of Science of Prospective Teachers from Different Majors

Nuri Balta & Derya Kaltakci-Gurel

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 21, size: 0, date: 08.Jun.2021

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to assess the nature of science (NOS) views of prospective teachers from different majors (sport, engineering, science, health, social sciences, math, and economy) and investigate whether these views were related to their gender and majors. 141 prospective teachers (58 males and 83 females) having pedagogical training course during the 2014-2015 academic year were participated in this study. Teacher candidates were administered a survey covering 18 translated Views on Science-Technology-Society items. Participant responses were categorized as “realistic, plausible and naïve” and the frequency variations for these answers were contrasted for gender and majors. The Chi-square ( 2) statistics tests results together with the
frequency distributions indicated that prospective teachers from different majors did not hold stable views through the target NOS characteristics and the male participants’ views were mostly similar to those of female participants. Moreover, participants’ views were not generally related to their majors. Findings of the study were also interpreted by taking into account the critiques to the consensus views of NOS.

Keywords: Consensus view of NOS; Nature of science; Science views of prospective teachers; Pedagogical training course.

Please Cite: Balta, N., & Kaltakci-Gurel, D. (2021). Views of Nature of Science of Prospective Teachers from Different Majors. The European Educational Researcher, 4(3), 291-309.                  DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer432

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman. N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–437.

Abd-El Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A., & Fleming, R. (1989). Views on science–technology–society (from CDN.mc.5). Saskatoon, Canada: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan.

Akerson, V.L., & Buzzelli, C.A. (2007). Relationships of preservice early childhood teachers’ cultural values, ethical and cognitive developmental levels, and views of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 15-24. 

Aslan, O., Yalçın N. & Taşar, M. F. (2009). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmenlerinin Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşleri. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 10(3), 1-8.

Aslan, O., & Taşar, M. F. (2013). How do Science Teachers View and Teach the Nature of Science? A Classroom Investigation. Education & Science/Egitim ve Bilim, 38(167).

Author, N., & Guvercin, S. (2016).

Bayir, E., Cakici, Y. & Ertas, O. (2014). Exploring natural and social scientists’ views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (8), 1286-1312.

Bazzul, J. (2017). From Orthodoxy to Plurality in the Nature of Science (NOS) and Science Education: A Metacommentary. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 66-71.

Berkovitz, J. (2017). Some Reflections on “Going Beyond the Consensus View” of the Nature of Science in K–12 Science Education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 37-45.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-culture research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.

Capps, DK, Crawford, BA, Constas, MA. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291–318

Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70(5), 366–376.

Chen, S. (2001). Prospective teachers' views on the nature of science and science teaching. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/docview/275714408

Dagher, Z. R.,&Erduran, S. (2017).Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 46–52.

Demirdöğen, B. (2012). Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science: an intervention study. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara: METU. 

Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish Grade 10 Students’ and Science Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A National Study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(10), 1083–1112.

Dogan, N, Cakiroglu, J., Bilican, K. & Cavus, S. (2013). What NOS teaching practices tell us: A case of two science teachers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12 (4), 424-439.

Eraslan, L., & Çakıcı, D. (2011). Pedagojik formasyon programı öğrencilerinin öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik tutumları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 19 (2), 427-438.

Glass G. & Hopkins, K. (1996). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Hacıeminoglu, E., Ertepınar, H., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. & Çakır, H. (2015). Students and school characteristics related to elementary school students’ views nature of science. Education, 43(6), 698-719.

Hacıeminoğlu, E., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. & Ertepınar, H. (2014). Development and validation of nature of science instrument for elementary school students. Education, 42(3), 258-283.

Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2017). Pedagogical reflections by secondary science teachers at different NOS implementation levels. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 161-184.

Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3-17.

Huang, C.M., Tsai, C.C. & Chang, C.Y. (2005). An investigation of Taiwanese early adolescents’views about the nature of science. Adolescence, 40(159),  645–54.

Kang, S., Scharmann, L.C. & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314–334.

Kaya, A., & Author, N. (2016). 

Kılıc, K., Sungur, S., & Cakıroglu, J. & Tekkaya, C. (2005). Ninth grade students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 28, 127–133.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman, (Editors), Handbook of research in science education (pp 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 555-576.

McDermott, M. A., & Palchanes, K. (1994). A literature review of critical elements in translation theory. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26(2), 113–117.

Mesci, G., & Renee’S, S. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 329-351.

National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Pres.

Osborne, J. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: A response. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 53–57.

Pallant, J. (2007).  SPSS survival manual. Open University Press: New York. USA 

Posnanski, T. J. (2010). Developing understanding of the nature of science within a professional development program for inservice elementary teachers: Project nature of elementary science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 589-621.

Wahbeh, N. & Abd-El Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the translation of nature of science understandings into instructional practice: teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425-466.

Yakmacı, B. (1998). Science (Biology, Chemistry and Physics) Teacher’s Views on the Nature of Science as a Dimension of Scientific Literacy. Master Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Turkey.

Yenice, N. & Saydam G. (2010). The views of the 8th grade students about nature of scientific knowledge. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5012–5017.
Online First

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

Matthias Stadler & Christoph J. Kemper & Samuel Greiff

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 34, 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
Online First