ارزیابی ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی نسخه فارسی پرسشنامه نگرش‌ها درباره یادگیری علوم با بهره‌گیری از مدل سوال پاسخ چند ارزشی

نویسندگان
مجتبی جهانی فر
حجت اله درفش
دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران
چکیده
پژوهشگران حوزه آموزش علوم بر این باور هستند که نگرش افراد درباره یادگیری در آینده درسی آن‌ها تأثیر چشمگیری دارد و آنچه که از علوم خواهند آموخت بی‌ارتباط با این نگرش‌ها نخواهد بود. ابزارهایی ‌برای اندازه‌گیری نگرش نسبت به علوم توسعه ارائه شده‌است. یکی از جدیدترین آن‌ها پرسشنامه نگرش‌ها نسبت به یادگیری علوم کلرادو مشهور به CLASS است. که در کشور ما برای استفاده پژوهشگران حوزه آموزش و روانشناسی، استانداردسازی نشده است. پژوهش از نوع توصیفی است که مبتنی بر طرح‌های ابزارسازی و بررسی ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی ابزار است. در این پژوهش از 476 دانش‌آموز مقطع متوسطه دوم در رشته‌های تحصیلی تجربی و ریاضی برای بررسی ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی پرسشنامه مذکور استفاده شده است. از تحلیل عاملی تاییدی به منظور بررسی ساختار عاملی پرسشنامه و از مدل پاسخ مدرج در نظریه سوال پاسخ برای تحلیل گویه‌ها استفاده شد. تحلیل عاملی تاییدی، همه 8 عامل پرسشنامه را مورد تایید قرار داده ضریب آلفای کرونباخ برای همه عامل‌ها مقادیری از 701/0 تا 891/0 را شامل می‌شدند. گویه‌های پرسشنامه ضمن داشتن برازش مناسب با مدل چند ارزشی پاسخ مدرج دارای پارامترهای تشخیص و پارامتر آستانه مطلوبی بودند. به لحاظ شاخص‌های کلاسیک اندازه‌گیری همچون پایایی و روایی سازه و همچنین پارامترهای برآورد شده در نظریه سوال پاسخ، گویه‌ها و ساختار این پرسشنامه مطلوب ارزیابی می‌شود و پژوهشگران کاربرد نسخه فارسی این پرسشنامه را برای بررسی نگرش‌ها درباره علوم به خصوص فیزیک مناسب می‌دانند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
آموزش فیزیک
نگرش درباره فیزیک
پرسشنامه CLASS
مدل پاسخ مدرج

عنوان مقاله English

The Evaluation of Psychometric Characteristics of Persian Version of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Using the Polytomous Item Response Theory Models

نویسندگان English

Mojtaba Jahanifar
Hojatola Darafsh
shahid chamran university of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran
چکیده English

Researchers in the field of science education believe that people's attitudes about learning will have a significant impact on their future learning and what they learn from science will not be irrelevant to their views and attitudes. Accordingly, most questionnaires have been developed to measure attitudes towards science. One of the newest questionnaires is the Colorado Learning Attitudes about science, known as CLASS. This questionnaire has not been standardised in Iran for the use of researchers in the field of education and psychology. The current descriptive research has been based on instrument designs and examined their psychometric properties. In this study, 476 high school students in science and mathematics courses were recruited to evaluate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to investigate the questionnaire structures and a graded response model in Polytomous Item Response Theory (IRT) was used to analyse items. The Cronbach’s alpha for all eight factors of the questionnaire ranged from 0.701 to 0.891. All the eight factors perfectly fitted into the Polytomous IRT models, in addition to having diagnosis and threshold parameters. In terms of classical measurement, indicators such as reliability and validity of the structure as well as the estimated parameters in the Polytomous IRT model, the items and structure of this questionnaire could be considered as desirable. Therefore, the authours would recommend using the Persian version of this questionnaire to examine attitudes about science, especially physics, appropriately.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Physics Education
Physics Attitude
CLASS Questionnaire
Graded Response Model
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. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 2(1), 1-14.
Caramaza, A., McCloskey, M., Green B. (1981). Naive beliefs in ‘sophisticated’ subjects: Misconceptions about trajectories of objects. Cognition 9(2), 117-123.
Cai, L., Du Toit, S. H. C., & Thissen, D. (2011). IRTPRO: User guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Chen, W.-H., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indices for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 265-289.
Colton, D., Covert, R.W. (2007). Designing and Constructing Instruments for Social Research and Evaluation (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98-104.
De Ayala, R. J. (2009). The Theory and Practice of Item Response Theory. New York: Guilford Press.
Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics, 69 (7), 54-64
Embertson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Multivariate Applications Books Series. Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Finch, H. & Habing, B. (2005). Comparison of NOHARM and DETECT in item cluster recovery: Counting dimensions and allocating items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 42 (2), 149-170.
Gray, K. E., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., & Perkins, K. K. (2008). Students know what physicists believe, but they don’t agree: A study using the CLASS survey. Physical Review Special Topics— Physics Education Research, 4(2), 1-10.
Haladyna, T. (1999). Developing and Validating multiple-choice test items. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Halek, M., Holle, D. & Bartholomeyczik, S. (2017). Development and evaluation of the content validity, practicability and feasibility of the Innovative dementia-oriented Assessment system for challenging behavior in residents with dementia. BMC Health Service Researches, 17, 554.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1998). Interpreting VASS dimensions and profiles for physics students, Science & Education, 7, 553-577.
Hammer D. (2000). Student resources for learning introductory physics, American Journal of Physics. 68, S52.
Hu, D. and Zwickl, B. M. (2018). Examining students' views about validity of experiments: From introductory to Ph.D. students, Physical Review Physics Education Research. 14(1).
Kane, M. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Korte Meyer, G. (2007a). Correlations between student discussion behavior, attitudes, and learning. Physical Review Special Topics— Physics Education Research, 3(1), 1-8.
Korte Meyer, G. (2007b). The challenge of teaching introductory physics to premedical students. The Physics Teacher, 45, 552-557.
Kritsadatan, N., & Wattanakasiwich, P. (2014). First year students’ and physics teachers’ expectations in learning physics: Case study in Thailand. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(1), 32–42.
Lacasse Y., Godbout C., Series F. (2002). Health-related quality of life in obstructive sleep apnoea. European Respiratory Journal; 19(3), 499-503.
Lindstrom, C. & Sharma, M. D. (2011). Self-efficacy of first year university physics students: Do gender and prior formal instruction in physics matter? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 1-9.
May D. B., Etkina E. (2002). College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning, American Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1503377.
McDermott L. C. (1980). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. American Journal of Physics. 48, 1020-1028. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12298.
McDermott L. C. (1991). What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap. American Journal of Physics. 59, 301-315.https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16539.
McDonald, R. P. (1997). Normal-ogive multidimensional model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Ed.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 258-269). New York: Springer Verlag.
Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum Sample Size Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168.
Omasits C.J., & Wagner, J. D. (2006). Investigating the validity of the MPEX survey. Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Conference Proceedings, 818, 145–148, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., & Steinberg, R. N. (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224.
Redish, E. F. (2010). Introducing students to the culture of physics: Explicating elements of the hidden curriculum, AIP Conference Proceedings, USA. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515245.
Sahin, M. (2009). Correlations of students' grades, expectations, epistemological beliefs and demographics in a problem-based introductory physics course. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(2), 169-184.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504.
Semsar, K., Knight, J.K., Birol, G. & Smith, M. K. (2011). The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey (CLASS) for use in biology, CBE Life Science Education 10(3), 231-327.
Sharma, S., Ahluwalia P. K., & Sharma, S. K. (2011). Students’ epistemological beliefs, expectations, and learning physics: An international comparison, Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010117.
Shi. J, Mo. X, Sun. Z. (2012). Content validity index in scale development. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences 37. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7347.2012.02.007.
Smith, E. M., Stein, M. M., and Holmes, N. G. (2020). How expectations of confirmation influence students' experimentation decisions in introductory labs, Physical Review Physics Education Research. 16(1). DOI:10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010113.
Thacker, B. A. (2003). Recent advances in classroom physics. Reports on progress in physics, 66(10): 1833-1864.
Viennot L. (1979). Spontaneous Reasoning in Elementary Dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1(2): 205-221.
Wutchana, U., Emarat, N., Arayathanitkul, K., Soankwan, C. & Chitaree, R. (2007). Student expectations in general, physics course. Retrieved from http://www.sc.mahidol.ac.th/scpy/PENthai/research/paper_SPCEN2007/SPCEN_peak.pdf. April 10 2012.
Wutchana, U. & Emarat, N. Student effort expectations and their learning in first-year introductory. Physics: A case study in Thailand, Physical Review Special Topics— Physics Education Research. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.010111.
Zaman Zadeh V., Ghahramanian A., Rassouli M., Abbas Zadeh A., Alavi H. (2015). Design and implementation content validity Study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Science. 4(5):165–178.