Developing the evaluation scale to determine the impact of body language in an argument: reliability & validity analysis.In this research, it is aimed to develop a scale to observe the body language which is used during an argument. A sample group of 266 teacher candidates study at the departments of Class, Turkish or Social Sciences at the Faculty of Education was used in this study. A logical and statistical approach was pursued during the development of scale. An expert's view was taken into consideration for the logical validity of scale. Thus, draft of the scale has become of 60 clauses. Clauses were written in the form of graduation scale of five-step likert type. Three different methods were applied throughout the application conducted with 266 students for the validity of scale. These methods included; (i) Factor analysis, (ii) total matter correlation, (iii) matter distinctiveness quality. As a result, the scale of body language used during an argument can be accepted as a reliable and valid tool to determine the impact levels of body languages of managers and arguers. ********** To think, to express, to criticize and to examine are primary behaviors of human-being. It can be stated that human--being performs these acts as a result of his basic needs. It is hard to pronounce the normality of human being who lacks of thinking, examining, criticizing, or creating new ideas. An argument is a comprehensive activity which contains all these behaviors (Yesil, 2005, p.220). For man as an individual who asks, criticizes, challenges, thinks, objects and has crucial desires (Aydin, 1996, p. 167); an argument is an individualistic need and a natural result of a human being. For this reason, in an environment where there is a group of people which is in a state of interaction, it is regular and even necessary to have arguments (Yesil, 2004, p.22). An argument is a crucial activity because of its contributions to individuals and to the community. Argument as an activity would be a great benefit in these areas: Providing effectiveness in the skills for thinking and teaching knowledge (Sanders & Wiseman 1994, p.27; Moore, 1999, p.211), maturing, sharing and publicizing existing ideas (Tozlu, 1998),diagnosing and curing mental illnesses (Parla, 1986, p.111), to convert differences into wealth (Bostanci, 1995, p.29; Levin, 1998, p.70), forming we feeling instead of I by dialogs (Petress, 2001, p.104; Thayer-Bacon, 1996, p.339), to have a multicultural life style (Touraine, 2000, p.212), providing individual and social progress, contributing to democracy (Lipman, 1998, p.11; Yesil, 2002, p.123). To obtain these benefits which are stated above, an argument must have some features. Especially, it should be structured within some specific rules (Moore, 1999, p.211), it should take place under manager surveillance (Buyukkaragoz, 1997, p.80), arguers and managers should have the adequate knowledge and skills (Petress, 2001, p.108), and also positive attitude and behaviors (Sanders & Wiseman, 1994, p.28). These can be considered as the pre-conditions for arguments to be useful. As a consequence of not taking these pre-conditions into consideration, there would be obstacles for to have efficient arguments. The quality of the communication and interaction set by managers and arguers during an argument also provides to benefit efficiently from that argument. According to Moore (1999, p.211), the key factor for a successful argument is clear communication and a motivating atmosphere because at the same time, an argument is a process of communication and interaction (Levin, 1998, p.70). Communication is a web that owns undeniable acts for humans. During this process; between arguers and managers and also among arguers there is a steady communication and interaction. Verbal and visual messages are being transferred between respondents consciously or unconsciously. The structure, quality, contents and productivity of the argument are determined by the verbal and visual messages and their meanings. The crucial dimension of communication and interaction between humans is body language. Physical responses are spontaneous; they are not flexible like words used in an argument. Physical behaviors have a feature to reflect the inner-self directly. Therefore it is hard to control. Every human affects his environment by his acts and position. Humans provide communication and interaction primarily by the help of body language. Then, people use body language to support verbal language. At the same time body language serves as facilitators which enable humans to express and visualize their ideas more effectively (Caliskan & Yesil, 2005, p.200). All our feelings, desires, emotions rise within body language besides verbal statements (Molcho, 2000, p.27). Every human betray his emotional state and ideas through body language. Unconsciously or consciously, people continuously forward messages mutually without speech and writing. In this form of communication, what people do is highlighted rather than what they say (Dokmen, 2001, p.28). It should be noted that "Actions speak louder than words". Before the adaptation of languages by human beings, the communication was provided through body-language because they did not even have ability to speak. They depended on body language to complain and meet their needs. Even today during a speech, people benefit from gestures, mimics and whereas their facial muscles, shoulders and hands function as a tool for communication. Hands are one of the indispensable and most supporting organs of the body aiding in acts such as: creating motives to ideas, explaining events in the memory, loving someone, threatening someone, embracing someone, defending yourself, leading people and objects (Caliskan & Karadag, 2006, p.55). The human, consciously or unconsciously, affect and lead large groups of people by his acts without having been noticed and can cause some conflicts among this group (Caliskan & Yesil, 2005, p.201). Accordingly, body language of arguers and managers during an argument could affect the atmosphere of the argument either in a positive or negative way. Therefore, gestures, mimics, physical characteristics, accents and tonality of all the managers and arguers who take place in an argument should be identified to understand how they affect the attendants. This study's primary objective is to develop a scale which would be used in evaluation of body language's effect in an argument. Method Sample Group The sampling group consists of junior students studying at the departments of Class, Turkish, and Social Sciences at the Education faculty at Ahi Evran University. 266 students have attended to the study. Sampling group includes 112 men and 154 female students. Process of developing the evaluation scale to determine impact of body language in an argument This study aimed to observe how body language affects individuals and the extend to which it impacts. A multi-dimensional approach was considered; it is developed by taking all the steps throughout body language into consideration .All the clauses are written according to specified four dimensions by scanning the relevant literature. 90 educator trainees' were referred to give their ideas about body-language in an argument, while writing the clauses. Four factors found in the scale of body-language during an argument are given below. They are, (i) Mimics dimension: Our emotions which are reflected by our face, also displays our mental state whether we are willing to talk, listen to anyone, understand what is told, doubt of what is told or support the person that is talking to us at the moment (Schober, 1999, p.38-24). (ii) Gestures dimension: Hand, arm and body moves which support the speech during the argument. (iii) Physical appearance dimension: When you have been introduced to someone, you know how to call that person by looking at his/her physical appearance whether the person is male, female, Mr. or Mrs. Physical appearance can be a clue for either the one who starts the conversation and for also the one being the respondent at the same time. (iv) Tonality (accent): It is called the tone changes in voice to add feeling, excitement and negativity into speech. It is a detail of signification. A logical and statistical approach was followed while developing the scale of body language in an argument. An expert's view has been taken into consideration for the logical validity of scale. Thus, draft of the scale has become of 60 clauses. Also these 60 clauses which were formed for trial were applied to 107 students at Ahi Evran University. The students were asked to put a question mark next to the statements which were not clear and understandable in this application. The clauses which were marked by 20% or more of the students were removed from the scale. Clauses were written in the form of graduation scale of five-step likert type. Findings Finding in accordance with the validity of scale First of all, the data collected in the developing process of scale Kaiser Meyer Oklin=.678 and Barttlet (p<.01) test analysis results can be used as factor analysis for the structure validity of the scale. Structure validity. The draft of the scale has become of 60 clauses and applied to 266 people teacher candidate students studting in the departments of Class, Turkish or Social Sciences at Education faculty. To determine the structure validity of the scale, the results were put upon factor analysis. Factor analysis were carried out to point out whether matters in a scale could diverge into fewer factors outside. Matters collected in the same group were named according to content of the matters. Also factor analysis was used to test whether a scale had one dimension (Balci, 2000, p.68). For this purpose, it was tested with Basic Components Analysis. The expectation of the scale being decomposed into unrelated factors was observed by applying Varimax Perpendicular Turning Method. The primary criteria to evaluate factor analysis results would be the factor loads which have taken place in the criteria and could be interpreted as the correlations between factors and variables (Karadag, 2007, p. 161). Having high factor loads would be an indicator for variable to take place under the factor in question (Buyukozturk, 2002, p.51). It was seen that the matters were collected in four factors by Basic Components Analysis and Varimax Perpendicular Turning Method. These four factors signify 40% of the total variance. Matters having factor loads of 0.30 (10 matters) and below took place in more than one factors (4 matters) are removed from the scale for the studies to repeat. Factor analysis results of 46 matters which have stayed as result of analysis are shown in Table 1. The scale's explained variance percentages and Eigen values as indicated by 4 factors are given in Table 2. Explained variance ratio should be over 30% for scale developing studies to take place in behavioral science (Buyukozturk, 2002, p.76). Total matter correlation. In this section, the points taken from each matter is compared with the points taken out of the whole test. The correlation coefficient gained is also the matter's validity coefficient at the same time. This coefficient shows the consistency with the test. The statistical results for each matter are stated in Table 3. The correlation coefficients are between 0.10 and 0.85. of the 60 matters given in trial form of the scale. When crude points are ranked from top to bottom, the distinctiveness of matters are attained by calculating independent group t-test values of top groups (the ones belong to 27%) and bottom groups' (the ones belong to 27%) point averages. Each matter is distinctive at a level which was desired as p<.05. Independent group t-tests' results of 46 matters are given in Table 4. These results are indicator for distinctiveness of matters. Matter distinctiveness. Matter analysis i s executed to determine the distinctiveness Validity of similar scales. A literature scanning is applied to determine the validity of the scale. The Validity of Similar Scales can not be executed because a similar scale can not be found. Findings Relating to Reliability of the Scale Line of inside consistency for the scale to determine the body language's impact in argument. Cronbach Alpha coefficients are calculated in studies for Line of Consistency. Reliability coefficients of the whole scale and its sub-dimensions are shown in Table 5. (The scale consists of 46 matters)According to this, 4 sub-scales' coefficients are between 0.699-0741. For total scale, Cronbach Alpha coefficient is 0.795. Consistency between two practices. Consistency of the scale is determined by repeating the test. Three weeks later, the scale formed by 46 matters is applied to 61 students again. Correlation coefficient is found as 0.781, when the points for both two applications are compared. At the same time the reliability of the test is indicated. The correlations between dimensions are in a range of 0.641 to 0.774. These values can be seen in Table 6. Conclusion A scale tool to determine the body language's impact in argument was developed in this study. It is a five-step likert type scale consisting of 46 matters. For each dimension, matters are marked and scored as one of these; I am too much negatively affected (1), I am negatively affected (2), I am not affected (3), I am positively affected (4), I am too much positively affected (5). The lowest score for scale is 46, highest one is 230. Highest scores reflect the positive motivation of body language's impact in an argument, and lowest ones indicate that the level for negatively affection is high. The validity of the scale is analyzed by three different methods. These are (1) factor analysis, (2) Total matter correlation, and (3) Matter distinctiveness. As a result of factor analysis the matters of scale are collected in 4 factors. The scale has 4 subgroups called Mimic, Gesture, Physical appearance and Tonality (Accent). These dimensions are in accordance with the literature (Caliskan, Karadag & Caliskan, 2006). The factor loads of the matters alternate between 0.30 and 0.85. Factor load of a variable which is below 0.30 (that is a low level) should be removed (Kline, 1994). Factor analysis validity is highly ranked because the factor loads are not below 0.30 when analyzed. Also the eigenvalue of the scale in four factors is 13.638 and explained variance percentage is 40.763. For behavioral science it is sufficient to have explained variance ratio over 30% (Buyukozturk, 2002). Total Matter Correlation coefficients of the research are between 0.10 and 0.85. When crude points are ranked from top to bottom, the distinctiveness of matters are attained by calculating independent group t-test values of top groups (the ones belong to 27%) and bottom groups' (the ones belong to 27%) point averages. Each matter is distinctive at a level which was desired. (p<.05).These results are indicator for distinctiveness of matters. A literature scanning is applied to determine the validity of the scale. The Validity of Similar Scales can not be executed because a similar scale can not be found. In the research, the Line of Consistency for sub-dimensions is between 0.699-0.741. For the total scale, reliability was determined as CronbachAlpha 0.795. To have a reliability coefficient equal to 0.70 or above 0.70 indicates that the scale is reliable (Ozguven, 1994). The total correlation coefficient of repeating test is 0.781 which is applied to determine the Consistency between two practices. Consistency level rises as reliability coefficient approaches to 1, and declines as it approaches to zero (Turgut, 1997; Yildirim, 1999). According to this, it can be stated that reliability coefficients are at a good level for both whole scale and sub-dimensions. As a result, it can be claimed that the scale for determining the impact of body language in an argument is a valid and reliable tool to designate body language's level and direction of impact during an argument. References Aydin, M.S. (1996, October). Diyalojik egitim: Islami bir perspektif [Dialogic education: Islamic perspective]. In II. Egitim Felsefesi Kongresi (p. 155-163). Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi, Van/Turkiye. Balci, A. (2000).Sosyal bilimlerde arastirma: Yontem, teknik ve ilkeler [Research in social sciences: Method, technique and principles]. Ankara: TDFO Yayincilik Ltd. Bostanci, M.N. (1995). Toplum, kultur ve siyaset [Society, culture and politics]. Ankara: Vadi Yayinlari. Buyukkaragoz, S.S. (1997). Program gelistirme-kaynak metinler-[Program developing-resources]. Konya: S.U. Egitim Fakultesi. Buyukuzturk, S. (2002). Sosyal bilimler icin veri analizi el kitabi [DataAnalysis hand book for Social Sciences]. Ankara: Pegema Yayincilik. Caliskan, N. & Karadag, E. (2006). Bir baton olarak ogretmenin elleri [Teacher's hands with baton function]. Egitim Arastirmalari, 25, 54-61. Caliskan, N. & Karadag, E. & Caliskan, N.F. (2006). Egitim, iletisim ve ogretmenin beden dili [Education, communication and teacher's body language]. Ankara: Kok Yayincilik. Caliskan, N. & Yesil, R. (2005). Egitim surecinde ogretmenin beden dili [The teacher's body language in educational process]. Gazi Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 6 (1), 199-207. Dokmen, U. (2002). Iletisim catisma ve empati [Communication, conflict and empathy]. Istanbul: Sistem Yayincilik. Karadag, E. (2007). Yapilandirmaci ogrenme ile ilgili ogretmen yeterliligi olceginin gelistirilmesi: Gereclik ve guvenirlik analizleri [Development of the Teachers' Sufficiency Scale in Relation to Constructivist Learning: Reliability and Validity Analysis]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 7 (1), 153-175. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge. Levin, B. (1998). The educational requirement for democracy. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(1), 57-79. Lipman, M.(1998). The contributions of phi losophy to deliberative democracy. In D.Evans & I. Kucuradi (Ed.) Teaching philosophy on the eve of the twenty-first century (pp.6-29).Ankara: International Federation of Philosophical Societies. Molcho, S. (2000). Beden dili [Body language] (E.T. Batir, Trans.). Istanbul: Grin Yayincilik. Moore, K.D. (1999). Middle and secondary school instructional methods. Boston and New York: McGraw-Hill College. Ozguven, E. (1994). Psikolojik testier [Psychological Tests]. Ankara: Yeni Dogus Matbaasi. Parla, T. (1986). Demokrasi, anayasalar, partiler ve Turkiye 'nin siyasal rejimi [Democracy, constitution, parties and Turkey's political regime[. Istanbul: Onur Yayinlari. Petress, K. (2001). The ethics of student classroom silence. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 2 (28), 104-108. Sanders, J.A. & Wiseman, R.L. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking?. Communication Reports. 1 (7), 27-36. Schober, O. (1999). Beden dili [Body language], Istanbul: Arion Yayinevi. Thayr-Bacon, B.J. (1996). Democratic classroom communities. Studies in Philosophy and Education. Netherlands: Kluwer academic Publishers, 333-351. Touraine, A. (2000). Esitliklerimiz ve farkliliklarimizla birlikte yasayabilecek miyiz? [Can we live together with our equalities and differences?]. (O. Kunal, Trans.). Istanbul: Yapi Kredi Yayinlari. Tozlu, N. (1998). Erdemli toplum olma yolunda [In the wake of being a virtuous society]. Ankara: 21. Yuzyil Yayinlari. Turgut, M.F. (1997). Egitimde olcme ve degerlendirme metotlari [Measurement and evaluation methods in education]. Ankara: Gul Yayinevi. Yesil, R. (2002). Okul ve ailede insan haklari ve demokrasi egitimi [Human rights and democracy education in school and family]. Ankara: Nobel Yayinevi. Yesil, R. (2004). Tartismanin gerekliligi ve toplumsal yasama yansimasi [The necessity of discussion and its reflection to social life]. Cagdas Egitim, 310, 20-26. Yesil, R. (2005, September). Yasanana tartismalarin demokratikligi ve tartismanin teorik temelleri [Argument's theoretical principles and the democratic side of arguments].Paper presented at the annual meeting of the XIV. Ulusal Egitim Bilimleri Kongresi. Pamukkale Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi, Denizli/Turkey Yildirim, C. (1999) Egitimde olcme ve degerlendirme [Measurement and evaluation in education]. Ankara: OSYM. Engin Karadag, Yeditepe University, Education Faculty, Department of Education Science, Kayisdagi Street, Kadikoy/Istanbul/Turkey. Nihat Caliskan, Ahi Evran Universty, Education Faculty, Department of Education Science, Kirsehir/Turkey. Rustu Yesil, Ahi Evran Universty, Education Faculty, Department of Education Science, Kirsehir/Turkey. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Engin Karadag at ekaradag@yeditepe.edu.tr.
Table 1
Factor Analysis Results of the scale to determine the body
language's impact in an argument
Matters 1. Factor 2. Factor 3. Factor 4. Factor
Mimics Gestures Physical Tonality
appearance (accent)
.43
1.
2. .52
3. .42
.52
4.
5. .43
6. .51
7. .41
.48
8.
9. .44
10. .61
.52
11.
12. .42
13. .59
14. .41
.50
15.
16. .62
17. .47
18. .56
19.
20. .48
21. .39
22 .30
23 .53
24. .80
25. .37
26. .85
27. .35
28. .48
29. .78
30. .71
31. .62
32. .45
33. .67
34. .43
35. .35
36. .37
37. .72
38. .85
39. .32
40. .35
41. .55
42. .85
43. .37
44. .52
.81
45.
46. .79
Table 2
Explained Variance percentages and eigenvalue as indicated
by factors of scale to determine the body language's impact
in an argument
Factor Measure's special Factor explained
1. Mimics 5.507 11.973
2. Gestures 3.301 10.148
3. Physical appearance 2.424 9.418
4. Tonality (accent) 2.406 9.214
Total 13.638 40.763
Table 3
Correlation of Matter and Test Points for scale to determine
the body language's impact in an argument
Matter N r p
1. 262 0.10 0.05
2. 261 0.17 0.01
3. 261 0.28 0.01
4. 260 0.11 0.05
5. 258 0.38 0.01
6. 263 0.41 0.00
7. 263 0.15 0.01
8. 262 0.17 0.01
9. 256 0.47 0.02
10. 262 0.19 0.00
11. 261 0.62 0.03
12. 262 0.15 0.01
13. 262 0.11 0.04
14. 264 0.20 0.00
15. 263 0.14 0.02
16. 261 0.14 0.02
17. 260 0.37 0.04
18. 261 0.16 0.01
19. 261 0.31 0.01
20. 260 0.17 0.01
21. 262 0.24 0.00
22. 260 0.28 0.00
23. 258 0.39 0.05
24. 261 0.68 0.03
25. 260 0.15 0.02
26. 261 0.18 0.00
27. 262 0.15 0.02
28. 261 0.12 0.05
29. 264 0.17 0.01
30. 263 0.15 0.01
31. 262 0.17 0.01
32. 264 0.22 0.04
33. 262 0.85 0.01
34. 262 0.14 0.02
35. 260 0.53 0.01
36. 263 0.15 0.02
37. 263 0.31 0.03
38. 262 0.27 0.02
39. 264 0.44 0.00
40. 260 0.31 0.03
41. 260 0.21 0.00
42. 260 0.20 0.00
43. 260 0.22 0.04
44. 260 0.25 0.03
45. 260 0.39 0.02
46. 260 0.41 0.03
Table 4
Independent group t-tests' results to indicate matter
Distinctiveness of the scale to determine the body language's
impact in an argument
Matter N df t p
1. 142 140 -44,08 0,00
2. 142 140 -32,74 0,00
3. 142 140 -22,69 0,00
4. 142 140 -32,98 0,00
5. 142 140 -57,16 0,00
6. 142 140 -41,09 0,00
7. 142 140 -21,27 0,00
8. 142 140 -17,64 0,00
9. 142 140 -18,10 0,00
10. 142 140 -41,37 0,00
11. 142 140 -14,37 0,00
12. 142 140 -38,70 0,00
13. 142 140 -25,48 0,00
14. 142 140 -25,48 0,00
15. 142 140 -25,17 0,00
16. 142 140 -24,09 0,00
17. 142 140 -36,66 0,00
18. 142 140 -57,62 0,00
19. 142 140 -19,95 0,00
20. 142 140 -27,49 0,00
21. 142 140 -27,09 0,00
22. 142 140 -28,32 0,00
23. 142 140 -43,34 0,00
24. 142 140 -23,67 0,00
25. 142 140 -28,27 0,00
26. 142 140 -42,44 0,00
27. 142 140 -20,09 0,00
28. 142 140 -22,15 0,00
29. 142 140 -28,87 0,00
30. 142 140 -24,09 0,00
31. 142 140 -23,70 0,00
32. 142 140 -24,11 0,00
33. 142 140 -15,98 0,00
34. 142 140 -18,30 0,00
35. 142 140 -40,13 0,00
36. 142 140 -35,54 0,00
37. 142 140 -34,31 0,00
38. 142 140 -26,70 0,00
39. 142 140 -22,05 0,00
40. 142 140 -24,09 0,00
41. 142 140 -24,69 0,00
42. 142 140 -21,93 0,00
43. 142 140 -20,01 0,00
44. 142 140 -10,89 0,00
45. 142 140 -6,39 0,00
46. 142 140 -17,28 0,00
Table 5
Coefficients of Line of inside consistency for the scale
to determine the body language's impact in argument
Factor Alpha
1. Mimics 0,699
2. Gestures 0,731
3. Physical appearance 0,725
4. Tonality (accent) 0,741
Total 0,795
Table 6
Repeated Test Values for the scale to determine the body language's
impact in argument
Factor Fl F2 F3 F4 Total
1. Mimics .641 **
2. Gestures .721 **
3. Physical appearance .704 **
4. Tonality (accent) .774 *
Total .781 **
** p<.01
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion