12026

Türkiye’de PISA 2015 Fen Maddelerinde SES’le İlişkili Yanlı Faktörler

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye’de alt, orta veya üst sosyoekonomik statüdeki (SES) öğrencilerinPISA 2015 fen testindeki performansını yanlı olarak etkileyen madde özellikleriniaraştırmaktır. Çalışmada profil analizi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar PISA 2015 fentestinde, farklı SES düzeylerine sahip öğrenciler arasında yanlılığa neden olabilecek temelmadde özelliklerinin cevap formatı ve bilgi boyutu olduğunu göstermektedir. Genel olarak,cevabın yazılmasını gerektiren ve prosedür bilgisiyle ilgili maddelerin düşük SES düzeyindekiöğrencilerin aleyhine işlediği görülürken, çoktan seçmeli ve içerik bilgisi gerektiren maddelerinde üst sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilerin zayıflığı olduğu belirlenmiştir.

SES Related Differential Factors in Turkey’s PISA 2015 Science Literacy Data

The purpose of this study is to investigate item characteristics which may differentially affect PISA 2015 science performance of students in lower, middle or upper SES groups in Turkey. The Profile Analysis was used in the study. Results revealed response format and knowledge aspect of PISA 2015 science items as the two main characteristics which might lead differential performance among students from different SES background. Constructed response item format and procedural knowledge aspect have been detected as the weaknesses of low SES students, and multiple choice item format and content knowledge aspect have been detected as the weaknesses of high SES students in Turkey.

Keywords:

PISA, Science Literacy SES, Profile Analysis,

___

Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 665-701. doi: 10.1080/09500690050044044
Bellipanni, L. J., and Lilly J. E. (1999). What have researchers been saying about science fairs? Science and Children, 36(8), 46-50. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/662ea6b47b0f3ce5974b0c9595f9da08/1?p q-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41736
Camilli, G., and Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about U.S. education policy? New England Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 1-14. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol26/iss1/4
Hacıeminoğlu, E., Ertepınar, H, Yılmaz-Tüzün, O., and Çakır, H. (2015). Students and school characteristics related to elementary school students’ views of the nature of science. Education 3-13 International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education 43(6), 700-721, doi: 10.1080/03004279.2013.865655
Lederman, N. G. (2006). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., and Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147. Retrieved from https://ijemst.net/index.php/ijemst/article/view/19
Lenkeit, J., and Caro, D. H. (2014). Performance status and change – measuring education system effectiveness with data from PISA 2000–2009. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 146-174. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2014.891462
Liou, P. Y., and Bulut, O. (2017). The effects of item format and cognitive domain on students’ science performance in TIMSS 2011. Research in Science Education, 50, 99-121. doi: 10.1007/s11165-017-9682-7
Mingo, M. A., Chang, H. H., and Williams, R. L. (2018). Undergraduate students’ preferences for constructed versus multiple-choice assessment of learning. Innovative Higher Education, 43(2), 143-152.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2014). Science framework for the 2015 national assessment of educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016a). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematics and financial literacy. Paris: PISA OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016b). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264266490-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016c). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris: PISA OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264267510-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute of Educational Research (Expanded edition, 1980, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
van der Linden, W. J., and Hambleton R. K. (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer.
Verhelst, N. D. (2012). Profile analysis: A closer look at the PISA 2000 reading data. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 315-332. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.583937
Verhelst, N. D., and Glas, C.A.W. (1995). One-parameter logistic model. In G. Fischer and I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 215–237). New York: Springer.
von Davier, M. (2005). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data [Research Report No. RR-05-16]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Webb, N. L. (1997). Research monograph number 6: Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments on mathematics and science education. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED414305.pdf
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J, and Wilson, M. R. (1997), ConQuest: Multi-aspect test software [Computer program]. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Yıldırım, H. H. and Yıldırım, S. (2011). Hipotez testi, güven aralığı, etki büyüklüğü ve merkezi olmayan olasılık dağılımları üzerine. İlköğretim Online, 10(3), 1112-1123.