Dereceli Puanlama Anahtarı Kullanan Öğrencilerin Başarıları Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Bu çalışmanın genel amacı, performans ödevlerini hazırlarken Derecelendirilmiş Puanlama Anahtarı (DPA) kullanan ortaokul öğrencileriyle kullanmayan öğrencilerin başarıları arasında fark olup olmadığını belirlemektir. Çalışma grubu, aynı Türkçe öğretmeninden ders alan ve Türkçe dersindeki akademik başarıları birbirine denk iki 6. sınıf öğrencisinden (n=44) oluşmaktadır. Bu gruplardan birisi rastlantısal atama yoluyla deney grubu (n=22), diğeri ise kontrol grubu (n=22) olarak belirlenmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri öğrencilerin performans ödevlerinden aldıkları puanlardan toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın ilk aşamasında öğrencilerin düzeyine ve Türkçe Öğretimi Programı'nın 6. sınıf kazanımlarına uygun bir performans ödevi hazırlanmıştır. Daha sonra bu ödevin nasıl yapılacağını açıklayan ve her iki gruptaki öğrencilere de verilen ayrıntılı bir yönerge ile alanyazın taraması, uzmanların görüş ve öneriler i doğrultusunda dokuz boyutu olan çözümleyici (analitik) bir DPA hazırlanmıştır. Ayrıntılı yönerge her iki gruba, DPA ise yalnızca deney grubuna verilmiştir. Öğrencilerin hazırladıkları ödevler bu DPA'nın belirlenen dokuz boyutuna göre deneyimli iki Türkçe öğretmeni tarafından değerlendirilmiştir. Shapiro-Wilk testine göre dağılımların normal olduğu belirlenmiş, bu nedenle Pearson korelasyon katsayısı hesaplanmış ve değerlendi riciler arasındaki tutarlılık .77 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu değer .05 düzeyinde anlamlı olup, aynı zamanda iki puanlayıcı uyumu için yeterli düzeydedir. İki grubun performans ödevlerindeki başarı puanları arasında fark olup olmadığına Mann-Whitney U testi ile bakılmış; sonuçta yalnızca dil ve a nlatım boyutlarında deney grubu öğrencilerinin lehine anlaml ı bir fark olduğu görülmüştür

A Study on the Achievement of Students who Use Scoring Rubrics

The general aim of this study is to determine achievement differences between students who use rubrics while preparing their performance homework assignments and those who don't. The study group consisted of forty-four 6th grade students who were taking the Turkish course from the same teacher and had equal academic success rates in two separate sections of the same school. Both groups had the same teacher and demonstrated an equal level of aca demic achievement. One group was randomly selected as the experiment group (n=22) and the other was used as the control group (n=22). The data were collected from the scores students obtained on their performance homework assignments . Firstly, a performance homework assignment which was appropriate to the level of the students and the learning outcomes specified in the 6thgrade Turkish curriculum was prepared. Afterwards, detailed written instructions that explained how the assignment were to be done and an analytic scoring rubric with nine dimensions which was based on related literature, expert opinions, and recommendations was prepared by the researchers. Detailed instructions were given to both groups, but the rubric was given to the experiment group. The students' written assignments were graded by two experienced teachers, using the nine dimensions specified in the rubric. The Shapiro-Wilk test results showed normal distribution and Pearson correlation co-efficiency was calculated and the consistency between the raters was found to be 0.77. This value was meaningful at .05 level and sufficient regarding the consensus level between the scorers. Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to see whether there were differences in the achievement scores of the two groups, and a statistically significant difference was found only in the language and expression dimension between the experiment and control groups

PDF

___

Andrade, H., Buff, C., Terry, J., Erano, M. ve Paolino, S. (2009). Assessment-driven improvements in middle school students' writing. Middle School Journal, 40(4), 4-12.
Andrade, H. ve Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1-11.
Andrade, H., Du, Y. ve Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students' writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199-214.
Andrade, H., Du, Y. ve Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the test: The effect of a model , criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students' writing. Educational Measure- ment: Issues and Practices, 27(2).
Aslanoğlu, A. E. (2003). Eğitimde sunu becerilerinin değerlendirilmesinde dereceli puanlama anahtarı (rubric) kullanımına ilişkin bir araştırma. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Bangert-Drowns, R., Kulik, C., Kulik, J. ve Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-238.
Beyreli, L. ve Arı, G. (2009). Yazma performansını değerlendirmede çözümleyici puanlama yönergesi kullanımı-değerlendirmeciler arası uyum araştırması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(1), 85- 125.
Bolton, F. (2006). Rubrics and adult learners: Andragogy and assessment. Assessment Update, 18(3), 5-6.
Boston, C. (2002). An introduction to performance assessment scoring rubrics. İçinde Understanding Scoring Rubrics: A Guide for Teachers.ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.ERIC Publications, 071.
Butler, D. ve. Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 65(3), 245-281.
Chase, C. I. (1999). Contemporary assessment for educators. New York: Longman.
Çetin, Y. (2011). Kompozisyon değerlendirmesinde değerlendiricilerin güvenirliği: Analitik-holistik, analitik- analitik, holistik-holistik. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(16), 471-486.
Cyr, P. R., Smith, K. A., Broyles, I. L. ve Holt, C. T. (2014). Developing, evaluating and validating a scoring rubric for written case reports. International Journal of Medical Education, 5, 18-23.
DelleBovi, B. M. (2012). Literacy instruction: From assignment to assessment. Assessing Writing, 17, 271-292.
East, M. (2009). Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing Writing, 14, 88-115.
Elbow, P. (2000). Everyone can write essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing. New York: Oxford Universiy Press.
Erman Aslanoğlu, A. ve Kutlu, Ö. (2003) Öğretimde sunu becerilerinin değerlendirilmesinde dereceli puanlama anahtarı (rubrik) kullanılmasına ilişkin bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi,36,(1-2), 25-36.
Fehring, H. (2005). Critical, analytical and reflective literacy assessment: Reconstructing practice. Australian Jounal of Language andLiteracy, 28(2), 95-113.
Goodrich, A. H. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Teaching, 53(1), 27-31.
Goodrich Andrade, H. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4 (4). Available: http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume4/number4/
Goodrich A. H. (2000). What do we mean by using rubrics to promote thinking and learning? Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13-18.
Goodrich, H. (1996). Student self assessment: At the intersection of metacognition and authentic assessment. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Cambridge, MA: Harward University.
Goodrich Andrade, H. ve Boulay, B. A. (2003) Role of rubric-referenced self-assessment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-30.
Gunning, T. G. (2006). Assessing and correcting reading and writing diff iculties (3th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Huerta, M., Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F. ve Irby, B. J. (2014). Developing and validating a science notebook rubric for fifth-grade non-mainstream students. International Journal of Science Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.879623
Jonsson, A. ve Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144.
Kan, A. (2007). An alternative method in the new educational program from the point of performance-based assessment: Rubric scoring scales. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 144-152.
Koutsoftas, A. D. ve Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 395-409.
Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D. ve Karakaya, İ. (2014). Ölçme ve değerlendirme performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: PegemAkademi.
Mason, C. Y. ve Steedly, K. S. (2006). Lessons and rubrics for arts integration. TEACHING Exceptional http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol3/iss1/art1 Plus, 3(1) Article 1. Retrieved [date] from
Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25 7(25).
RetrievedMarch 2004 from
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when, how? Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7 (3). Retrieved from August 20, 2004 http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp? v=7&n=3.
Oakleaf, M. (2008). Dangers and opportunities: A conceptual map of information literacy assessment approaches. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 8(3), 233-253.
Özdemir, S. M. (2010). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin alternatif ölçme ve değerlendirme araçlarına ilişkin yeterlikleri ve hizmetiçi eğitim ihtiyaçları. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(4), 787-816. metin içinde yok
Panadero, E. ve Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129-144.
Petkov, D. ve Petkova, O. (2006). Development of scoring rubrics for IS projects as an assessment tool. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 499-510.
Popham, W. J. (1997). What's wrong -and what's right -with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 72-75.
Reitmeier, C. A. ve Vrchota, D. A. (2009). Self-assessment of oral communication presentations in food science and nutrition. Journal of Food Science Education, 8(4), 88-92.
Reynolds-Keefer, L. (2010). Rubric-referenced assessment in teacher preparation: An opportunity to learn by using. Practical Assessment Research &Evaluation, 15(8). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=15&n=8.
Rezaei, A. R. ve Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and vali dity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15, 18-39.
Rhodes, T. (2010). Since we seem to agree, why are the outcomes so difficult to achieve? New Directions for teaching and Learning, 121, 13-21.
Scharf, D. Elliot, N., Huey, H. A., Briller, V. ve Joshi, K. (2007). Direct assessment of information literacy using writing portfolios. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 462-477.
Tierney, R. ve Simon, M. (2004). What's still wrong with rubrics: Focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 9 (2). Retrie- ved from December 12, 2005 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=2
Tompkins, G. E. (2008). Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Turgut, M. F. ve Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem AkademiYayını.
van Helvoort, A. A. J. (2012). Perspectives on how adult students in information studies use a scoring rubric for the development of their information literacy skills. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(3), 165-171.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kapan, 70, 703-713.