Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi
ISSN (Online): 2687-5314

Araştırma Makalesi    |    Açık Erişim
Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi 2026, Clt. 8(1) 60-77

Dört Boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması

Büşra İlgör Kalkan, Hülya Güvenç

ss. 60 - 77   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.4

Yayın Tarihi: Haziran 29, 2026  |   Görüntüleme Sayısı: 17/19   |   İndirilme Sayısı: 59/41

PDF İndir Download PDF

Özet

Öğrencilerin akademik başarısında belirleyici bir faktör olan etkin katılım, öğrenme çıktılarını ve sınıf deneyimlerini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Eğitim alan yazınındaki önemi göz önüne alınarak, bu çalışmada, etkin katılımın davranışsal, bilişsel, duyuşsal ve yapıcı yönlerini ele alan dört boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin (Reeve, 2013) güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizleri yapılarak Türkçeye uyarlanması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda, öncelike çeviri-tekrar çeviri yoluyla ölçeğin dil uyarlaması yapılmış ve dil eşdeğerliğinin sağlandığı görülmüştür. Ardından ölçek 400 lise öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Yapı geçerliğini doğrulamak için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapılmış ve modelin uyum indekslerinin veri ile uyumlu olduğu ve Türkçeye uyarlanan ölçeğin orijinal yapıyı yansıttığı belirlenmiştir. Ölçekte yer alan maddelerin ayırt edicilik özelliklerini değerlendirmek amacıyla madde analizi yapılmış ve madde çıkarılmasına gerek olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Cronbach Alpha güvenilirlik katsayıları hesaplanarak ölçeğin güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu bulunmuştur. Ölçüt geçerliği Güvenç’in (2015) ölçeğinden elde edilen puanlarla korelasyonu yapılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliğini ve güvenirliğini desteklemek için, öğrencilerin etkin katılımının cinsiyet, sınıf düzeyi ve akademik başarı değişkenlerine göre farklılık gösterip göstermediği incelenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, 17 maddelik, dört boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu; lise öğrencilerinin etkin katılımlarının cinsiyete göre farklılık göstermediği, ancak sınıf düzeyi ve akademik başarıya göre farklılık gösterdiği ve başarılı öğrencilerin etkin katılım ortalamalarının daha yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar kelimeler: Etkin katılım, duyuşsal etkin katılım, bilişsel etkin katılım, davranışsal etkin katılım, yapıcı etkin katılım

Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır

APA 7th edition
Kalkan, B.I., & Guvenc, H. (2026). Dört Boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), 60-77. https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.4

Harvard
Kalkan, B. and Guvenc, H. (2026). Dört Boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi, 8(1), pp. 60-77.

Chicago 16th edition
Kalkan, Busra Ilgor and Hulya Guvenc (2026). "Dört Boyutlu Etkin Katılım Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması". Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi 8 (1):60-77. https://doi.org/10.29329/ated.2026.1415.4

Kaynakça
  1. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Black, W. C., & Babin, B. J. (2019). Multivariate data analysis: Its approach, evolution, and impact. In B. J. Babin & M. Sarstedt (Eds.), The great facilitator (pp. 121-130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06031-2_16 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Khaneh, M. P. A. (2021). Gender differences in engagement and self-regulation in an online constructivist learning design and learning analytics environment. In S. Jackowicz & O. T. Ozturk (Eds.), Proceedings of ICSES 2021—International Conference on Studies in Education and Social Sciences (pp. 171-176). ISTES Organization. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bond, M. (2020). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103819 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through educational technology: Towards a conceptual framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chala, L. (2025). Grade level differences in school engagement among public secondary school students. Journal of Social Science & Humanities Research, 1(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.20372/JSSHR.V1.i1.02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). A cyclical self-regulatory account of student engagement: Theoretical foundations and applications. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 237-257). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 61-97). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çelik, S., Örenoğlu Toraman, S., & Çelik, K. (2018). Öğrenci başarısının derse katılım ve öğretmen yakınlığıyla ilişkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(1), 209-217. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.378129 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Demir, M., & Gençdoğan, B. (2017). Okul tükenmişliğini yordamada sınav kaygısı ve akademik başarının etkisi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 8(20), 180-194. [Google Scholar]
  12. Derakhshan, A., Fathi, J., Pawlak, M., & Kruk, M. (2022). Classroom social climate, growth language mindset, and student engagement: The mediating role of boredom in learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45(8), 3415-3433. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2099407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Diniyah, U., Hidayah, N., & Hotifah, Y. (2025). Adaptation of the Student Engagement Questionnaire (SEQ) into Indonesian version for secondary school students. Indonesian Journal of Counseling and Development, 7(2), 160-173. https://doi.org/10.32939/ijcd.v7i2.5755 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Doğan, U. (2014). Öğrenci bağlılık ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Validity and reliability of student engagement scale]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 3(2), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.14686/BUEFAD.201428190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Eren, A. (2013). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of instrumentality, boredom coping strategies, and four aspects of engagement. Teaching Education, 24(3), 302-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2012.724053 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Fredricks, J. A. (2023). Getting students engaged in learning. State Education Standard, 23(3), 6-12. https://www.nasbe.org/getting-students-engaged-in-learning/ [Google Scholar]
  18. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. Fredricks, J. A., Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813413-9.00008-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Günüç, S. (2014). The relationships between student engagement and their academic achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education and their implications, 5(4), 216-231. [Google Scholar]
  23. Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587-610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Güvenç, H. (2015). Etkin katılım ölçeği geliştirme ve uyarlama çalışması [Development and adaptation study of engagement and disaffection scale]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 255-267. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hartono, F. P., Umamah, N., Sumarno, R. P. N. P., & Puji, P. N. (2019). The level of student engagement based on gender and grade on history subject of senior high school students in Jember Regency. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(8), 21-26. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hıdıroğlu, F. M. (2014). The role of perceived classroom goal structures, self-efficacy, and the student engagement in seventh grade students’ science achievement [Yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi]. [Google Scholar]
  28. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Jang, H. R., Basarkod, G., Reeve, J., Marsh, H. W., Cheon, S. H., & Guo, J. (2023). Longitudinal reciprocal effects of agentic engagement and autonomy support: Between- and within-person perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(6), 841-862. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000815 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Lam, S.-F., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P. H., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F. H., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F., Cefai, C., Negovan, V., Stanculescu, E., Yang, H., Liu, Y., Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P., Nelson, B., & Zollneritsch, J. (2014). Understanding and measuring student engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(2), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 517-528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Li, S. (2021). Measuring cognitive engagement: An overview of measurement instruments and techniques. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(3), 63-76. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.3.239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Li, S., & Lajoie, S. P. (2022). Cognitive engagement in self-regulated learning: An integrative model. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 37(3), 833-852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-021-00565-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 498-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Lin, X. P., Li, B. B., Yao, Z. N., Yang, Z., & Zhang, M. (2024). The impact of virtual reality on student engagement in the classroom-a critical review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1360574 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Student engagement in mathematics flipped classrooms: Implications of journal publications from 2011 to 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672610 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Maričić, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2024). Enhancing student engagement through emerging technology integration in STEAM learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 29(17), 23361-23389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12710-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students' agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 579-596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Montenegro, A., & Schmidt, M. (2023). Achievement goals, student engagement, and the mediatory role of autonomy support in lecture-based courses. Education Sciences, 13(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090912 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Naibert, N., Vaughan, E., Brevick, K. M., & Barbera, J. (2022). Exploring student perceptions of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement at the activity level in general chemistry. Chemistry Faculty Publications and Presentations, 437. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/chem_fac/437 [Google Scholar]
  41. Natriello, G. (1984). Problems in the evaluation of students and student disengagement from secondary schools. Journal of research and development in education, 17(4), 14-24. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220359 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  44. Olivier, E., Archambault, I., De Clercq, M., & Galand, B. (2019). Student self-efficacy, classroom engagement, and academic achievement: Comparing three theoretical frameworks. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 326-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0952-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Patall, E. A., Pituch, K. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Yates, N., & Kennedy, A. A. U. (2019). Agency and high school science students’ motivation, engagement, and classroom support experiences. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 62, 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.01.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Pohl, A. J. (2020). Strategies and interventions for promoting cognitive engagement. In A. L. Reschly, A. J. Pohl, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Student engagement: Effective academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective interventions at school (pp. 253-280). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37285-9_14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Reeve, J., Basarkod, G., Jang, H. R., Gargurevich, R., Jang, H., & Cheon, S. H. (2025). Specialized purpose of each type of student engagement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Reeve, J., Cheon, S. H., & Jang, H. (2020). How and why students make academic progress: Reconceptualizing the student engagement construct to increase its explanatory power. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101899 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2022). Agentic engagement. In A. L. Reschly & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed., pp. 95-107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 150-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Shogren, K. A., Raley, S. K., Wehmeyer, M. L., Grandfield, E., Jones, J., & Shaw, L. A. (2019). Exploring the relationships among basic psychological needs satisfaction and frustration, agentic engagement, motivation, and self-determination in adolescents with disabilities. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 3, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252018-0093-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. Sökmen, Y. (2021). The role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the learning environment and student engagement. Educational Studies, 47(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Şeker, G., & Yavuzer, Y. (2017). Ergenlerde Okul Tükenmişliğinin Yordayıcısı Olarak Akademik Kontrol Odağı. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 919-935. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.299266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Trowler, V., Allan, R. L., Bryk, J., & Din, R. R. (2022). Pathways to student engagement: beyond triggers and mechanisms at the engagement interface. Higher Education, 84(4), 761-777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00798-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Uçar, F. M., & Sungur, S. (2018). Adaptation of engagement questionnaire to Turkish for science classes: Validity and reliability study. İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1691-1705. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466419 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Uzun, K., & Kemerli, Ş. (2019). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin devamsızlık nedenleri: Fethiye ilçesi örneği. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 1-19. [Google Scholar]
  62. Veiga, F. H. (2016). Assessing student engagement in school: Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 813-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.153 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3), 877-895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Wong, Z. Y., & Liem, G. A. D. (2022). Student engagement: Current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 107-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09628-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  66. Yüksel, S., Dursun, İ. E., & Özgenel, M. (2023). Öğrenciler için Yükseköğretim Kurumları Sınavı ne anlama geliyor? Metaforik bir inceleme. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 13(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1083036 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  67. Zambrano, J., Kennedy, A. A. U., Aguilera, C., Yates, N., & Patall, E. A. (2022). Students’ beliefs about agentic engagement: A phenomenological study in urban high school physical science and engineering classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(5), 1028-1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Meta
Clt. 8 (1)
İndir
Benzer

Cilt 8 Sayı 1

Haziran 2026

Tüm makaleleler

Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi

Copyright © 2026 Anadolu Türk Eğitim Dergisi.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website have been created using the BOQ™ - eJournal Management System.