Online First

A Comparative Analysis of Reading Self-Efficacy of Turkology Students

Önder Çangal & Umut Başar 

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 10, 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: 19, 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: 29, 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

Students’ Difficulties in Applying the Law of Conservation of Mechanical Energy: Results of a Survey Research

Asila Halilović

 First Bosniak Gymnasium Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Vanes Mešić & Elvedin Hasović

University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dževdeta Dervić

Second Gymnasium Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 5, size: 0, date: 15.Jun.2021

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the conventional high school instruction about conservation of mechanical energy in Canton Sarajevo. To that end we tested 441 high school students from six different schools in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) for their competence to apply the law of conservation of mechanical energy. Concretely, students were expected to solve 5 open-ended tasks that covered conceptually different situations. In each task we asked a set of sub-questions to check whether the students possess all the prerequisite sub-competencies for systematic reasoning about conservation of mechanical energy. In addition, we investigated how students’ ideas about conservation of mechanical energy were affected by the choice of the physical system, as well as by the choice of the observed time interval. Data analysis was performed on the level of individual tasks. The students’ written answers were analyzed and the frequencies of most prominent student responses were reported. Generally, it has been shown that most high school students from Sarajevo fail to identify and distinguish internal, external, conservative and non-conservative forces. Also, many students think that applicability of the conservation law does not depend on the chosen physical system and its evolution over time. We could conclude that high school students’ use of the conservation law is mostly based on remembering similar problem solving experiences, rather than on relevant strategic knowledge.

Keywords: Conservation of mechanical energy; Energy analysis; Systems approach; Survey research.

Please Cite: Halilović, A., Mešić, V., Hasović, E. and Dervić, D. (2021). Students’ Difficulties in Applying the Law of Conservation of Mechanical Energy: Results of a Survey Research. The European Educational Researcher, 4(2), 171-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.423


References

Abasbegović, N., & Musemić, R. (1998). Fizika za 1. razred gimnazije [Physics textbook for the 1st year of secondary school]. Svjetlost.

Aviani, I., Erceg, N., & Mešić, V. (2015). Drawing and using free body diagrams: Why it may be better not to decompose forces. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research11(2), Article 020137. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020137

Bryce, T. G. K., & MacMillan, K. (2009). Momentum and kinetic energy: Confusable concepts in secondary school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching46(7), 739-761. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20274

Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

Čolić, A. (2001). Fizika za 1. razred srednjih škola [Physics textbook for the 1st year of secondary school]. Harfo-graf.

Crundell, M, Goodwin, G., & Mee, C. (2014). Cambridge International AS and A Level Physics. Hodder Education.

Duit, R., & Häußler, P. (1994). Learning and teaching energy. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science (pp. 185–200). The Falmer Press.

Etkina, E., Gentile, M., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2013). College physics. London: Pearson Higher Ed.

Giordano, N. (2009). College Physics: Reasoning and Relationships. Cengage.

Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students' difficulties with energy and related concepts. Physics education29(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/29/1/006

Grimellini-Tomasini, N., Pecori-Balandi, B., Pacca, J. L., & Villani, A. (1993). Understanding conservation laws in mechanics: Students' conceptual change in learning about collisions. Science Education, 77, 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770206

Halilović, A., Mešić, V., Hasović, E., & Vidak, A. (2021). Teaching upper-secondary students about conservation of mechanical energy: Two variants of the system approach to energy analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.223

Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Investigating students’ understanding of energy transformation, energy transfer, and conservation of energy using standards-based assessment tasks. In NARST Annual Conference/Orlando,FL. Retrieved from:                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265148820_Investigating_Students%27_Understanding_of_Energy_Transformation_Energy_Transfer_and_Conservation_of_Energy_Using_Standards-Based_Assessment_Items

Hertel, I. V., & Großmann, S. (2016). Physik in der Schule: Hauptteil mit Anlage Basiskonzepte. Bad Honnef: Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft.

Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008). Energy and the confused student II: Systems. The Physics Teacher46(2), 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2834527

Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008). Energy and the confused student IV: A global approach to energy. The Physics Teacher46(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2895670

Kim, E., & Pak, S. J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1484151

Krause, E. (2013). Das Erhaltungsprinzip in der Physik und seine Anwendung im Physikunterricht (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitaet Siegen, Siegen, Germany.

Lawson, R. A., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). Student understanding of the work‐energy and impulse‐momentum theorems. American Journal of Physics55(9), 811-817. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14994

Lindsey, B. A., Heron, P. R., & Shaffer, P. S. (2009). Student ability to apply the concepts of work and energy to extended systems. American Journal of Physics77(11), 999-1009. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3183889

Lindsey, B. A., Heron, P. R., & Shaffer, P. S. (2012). Student understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems. American Journal of Physics80(2), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3660661

Muratović, H., & Gabela, N. (2011). Fizika VIII: za osmi razred osnovne škole [Physics textbook for the 8th grade of elementary school]. Grafex.

Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of research in science teaching50(2), 162-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21061

Papadouris, N., Hadjigeorgiou, A., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Pre-service elementary school teachers’ ability to account for the operation of simple physical systems using the energy conservation law. Journal of Science Teacher Education25(8), 911-933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9407-y

Pride, T. O. B., Vokos, S., & McDermott, L. C. (1998). The challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems. American Journal of Physics66(2), 147-157. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18836

Sang, D., Jones, G., Woodside, R., Chadha, G. (2012). Cambridge International AS and A level Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Seeley, L., Vokos, S., & Etkina, E. (2019). Examining physics teacher understanding of systems and the role it plays in supporting student energy reasoning. American Journal of Physics87(7), 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5110663

Van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of work–energy processes. American Journal of Physics69(2), 184-194. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1286662

Van Huis, C., & Van den Berg, E. (1993). Teaching energy: a systems approach. Physics Education28(3), 146-153. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/28/3/003

Vidak, A., Erceg, N., Hasović, E., Odžak, S., & Mešić, V. (2018). Teaching About Rolling Motion: Exploring The Effectiveness Of An Extreme Case Reasoning Approach. Journal of Baltic Science Education17(3), 511. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/18.17.511

Wiesner, H., Schecker, H., & Hopf, M. (2015). Physikdidaktik kompakt. Hallbergmoos: Aulis.
Online First, Vol. 4 Iss. 2

Distributed Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database (1981-2020)

García-Carreño, I.V.

University Pablo Olavide, Spain

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 5, size: 0, date: 15.Jun.2021

Abstract: Distributed Leadership is a conceptual and analytical approach to understanding leadership that is focused on interactions between leaders and those they lead with the goal of driving instructional improvement and improving student outcomes by developing high-quality teaching and an educational culture that enables all students to thrive. This article provides an overview of the state-of-the-art research available on distributed leadership. As new social and educational demands emerge, leadership responses need to be reformed at all school levels to ensure a school’s ability to provide a high-quality education. These transformations must be promoted from within each school center. The author describes and covers a deep review of the literature between 1981 and 2020. The source data for this research, (321articles), is derived from SCOPUS, Biblometrix Studio, and VOSviewer. The terms and their clusters were illustrated on graphs, and density maps were utilized. General recommendations are provided and challenges are identified for the incorporation of DL changes into the management of schools. The findings show that the literature refers explicitly to DL, wherein there are a number of interesting insights provided by theoretical articles. A conclusion is givenwith recommendations for further multidisciplinary research at the intersection of the fields in order to show the holistic landscape of this field.

Keywords:  Bibliometric review; Bibliometrix analyzes R; Co-authorship; Distributed leadership; Keywords analyses; Science mapping; VOSviewer.

Please Cite: García-Carreño, I., V. (2021). Distributed Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Scopus Database (1981-2020).  The European Educational Researcher, 2(6), 227-249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.426

References

Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Rodríguez, V., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2018). Assessing the origins, evolution and prospects of the literature on dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis, European Research on Management and Business Economics (ERMBE), 24(1), 42-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.06.004

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: A R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019

Barnard, C. (1968). The functions of the executive. Harvard UniversityPress.

Beck, A. P., & Peters, L. (1981). The research evidence for distributed leadership in therapy groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy31(1), 43-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1981.11492045

Becker, H., & Useem, R. H. (1942). Sociological analysis of the dyad. American Sociological Review, 7(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086253

Benne, K. & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members, Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1948.tb01783.x

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. & Harvey, J. (2003). Distributed Leadership. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.

Beaudry, C., & Lariviere, V. (2016). Which gender-gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy, 45(9), 1790–1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

Bradford, S. (1985). Sources of information on specific subjects. Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555158501000407

Brown, M., & Hosking, D. (1986). Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements. Human Relations39(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872678603900104

Camburn, E., Rowan, B. & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 25(4), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F01623737025004347

Cobo, M., López-Herrera, A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525

Dahl, R. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

De la Cruz del Río-Rama, M., Maldonado-Erazo, C., Álvarez-García, J., & Durán-Sánchez, A (2020). Cultural and natural resources in tourism Island: Bibliometric mapping. Sustainability 12(2), 724-744. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020724

Derviş, H. (2019). Bibliometric Analysis using Bibliometrix an R Package, Journal of Scientometric Res, 8(3), 156-160. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.8.3.32

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R.L. (eds), Perspectives on Activity Theory, (pp. 19–38) y. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003

Etzioni, A. (1965). Dual leadership in complex organizations, American Sociological Review, 30(2), 688-698.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2091137

Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social Pressure in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing, Harper, New York.

Follett, M. (1942/2003). Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, Routledge, London.

French, J., & Snyder, R. (1959). Leadership and interpersonal power. In: D.  Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in Social Power. (pp. 118-149). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

García, I. (2020). e-Leadership: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) 13(1), 19-34 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v13i1.12341

Gibb, C. (1954). Leadership (Vol. 2). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

González-Álvarez, J., & Cervera-Crespo, T. (2017). Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.007

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, Leadership Quarterly 13(4), 423-451. http://doi:org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)

Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in an Era of School Reform, Paul Chapman, London.

Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership, Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863235

Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M., Gümüş, E., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping research on educational leadership and management in Turkey: a bibliometric review of international publications. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1578737

Hallinger, P. & Kantamara, P. (2013). Leading at the confluence of tradition and globalisation: the challenge of change in Thai schools. Asia Pacific journal of education, 20(2), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2000.10600182

Hallinger, P., & Suriyankietkaew, S. (2018). Science Mapping of the Knowledge Base on Sustainable Leadership, 1990–2018. Sustainability, 10(12), 4846-4866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124846

Hallinger, P., & Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development, 1998–2018. Sustainability, 11(8), 2401- 2430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082401

Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2021). Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(1), 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143219859002

Hallinger, P., & Vien-Thong, N (2020). Mapping the Landscape and Structure of Research on Education for Sustainable Development: A Bibliometric Review, Sustainability, 12(5), 1947-1953, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051947

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000112801

Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253

Harris A. (2009). Distributed Leadership: What We Know. In: Harris A. (eds) Distributed Leadership. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht, The Nederlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_2

Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616656734

Harris, A., & Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863235

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-007-9048-4

Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9

Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659-689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042

Heinicke, C., & Bales, R. F. (1953). Developmental trends in the structure of small groups. Sociometry, 16(1), 7-38. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785953

Herrera-Franco, G., Montalván-Burbano, N., Carrión-Mero, P., Apolo-Masache, B., & Jaya-Montalvo, M. (2020). Research Trends in Geotourism: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Scopus Database. Geosciences, 10(10), 379-399. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100379

Hoogendoorn, G. (2008). Scopus: The continuing development of an abstract and citation database. The Serials Librarian, 55(1-2), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801970899

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, Social Forces, 57(4), 1413–1415, https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/57.4.1413

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes  for  leadership: Their  meaning  and  measurement, Organizational  Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5

Louis, K., & Marks, H. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American journal of education, 106(4), 532-575. https://doi.org/10.1086/444197

Mao, G., Huang, N., Chen, L., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on biomass energy and environment from the past to the future: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol, 51(13), 7599-7605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.173

Manz, C., & Sims, H. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585-600. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306232

Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robert-son, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly 17(3), 232-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003

Moed, H., & Glänzel, W. (2005). Citation analysis of scientific journals and journal impact measures. Current Science, 89(12), 1990-1996. Retrieved May 4, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24111059

Mohamed, A., Abdul Razak, A., & Abdullah, Z. (2020). Most-Cited Research Publications on Educational Leadership and Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 4(2), 33-50. https://doi.org/1186/2046-4053-4-1

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., & Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Western Michigan University: Sage.

Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Becoming metric-wise: A bibliometric guide for researchers. Chandos Publishig.Cambridge, MA, United States.

Samul, J. (2020). The Research Topics of Leadership: Bibliometric Analysis from 1923 to 2019. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 8(2), 116-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2020.5036

Schein, E. (1988). Organizational Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Scopus (2020). Content Coverage Guide, Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Segura-Robles, A., Parra-González, M. E., & Gallardo-Vigil, M. (2020). Bibliometric and Collaborative Network Analysis on Active Methodologies in Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(2), 259-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2020.7.575

Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping, International Marketing Review, 33(3),327-350. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2014-0341

Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. Educational Forum 69(2), 143-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating School Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher30(3), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030003023

Spillane, J., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. (2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, 31(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726

Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500038545

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review Introduction: The need for an evidence- informed approach. Br. J. Manag, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Todeschini, R., & Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527681969

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly Review of Leadership, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

van Dinter, R., Tekinerdogan, B., & Catal, C. (2021). Automation of Systematic Literature Reviews: A Systematic Literature Review. Information and Software Technology, 136(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106589

van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice (pp. 285-320). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13

van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111, 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7

van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2019). Manual for VOSviewer. University of Leiden, The Nederland.

VOSviewer. (2020). https://www.vosviewer.com/

Waltman L., & van Eck N. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12). 2378– 2392. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

 

 

Online First, Vol. 4 Iss. 2