Overview of the Performance Assesment

Performans değerlendirme yöntemi, eğitim ile ilgili en güncel araştırma konulardan bir tanesidir. Bunun ana nedeni, günümüzdeki birçok eğitimcinin ortak görüş olarak belirttikleri gibi, eğitimde geleneksel anlamda kullanılan ölçme araçlarının, öğrencilerin çok boyutlu ve örüntülü olarak oluşturdukları bilişsel, duyuşsal ve devinişsel davranışlarını istenilen seviyede ölçemediği ve bu ölçme işlemine dayalı olarak yapılan değerlendirme işlemlerinin de gerçeği yansıtmadığıdır. Bu nedenle performans değerlendirme yöntemi, eğitim reformu içinde önemli bir rol oynayabilir. Bu makalenin amacı, performans değerlendirme yönteminin geleneksel olarak kullanılan ölçme yöntemlerine göre bazı avantajlı yönlerini şu belirtilen noktalar açısından tartışmaktır: Test tarihi, performans değerlendirmenin öğeleri, performans değerlendirmenin maliyeti, elde etme kaynakları, faydaları, kullanım kolaylığı, etkileri ve sonuçları, genellenebilirliği, geçerliliği, güvenirliği ve kişisel yargı.

Performans Değerlendirme Üzerine Genel Bir Bakış

Performance assessment is one of the popular topics on the agenda of educational research. Many educationalists believe that traditional assessment techniques are not enough to measure students’ complex forms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor behaviors and alternative measurement strategies need to be involved for measurement processes. Because of this perspective, performance assessment could play a key role in educational reform. The aim of this paper is to discuss some potential relative advantages of performance assessment strategies over objective paper and pencil type assessment such as alternative- response, true / false, (T/F) and multiple-choice item formats on important instructional criteria related to: History of testing, major components of performance assessment, cost, resources, utility and feasibility of performance assessment, impact and consequences, generalizability, validity, reliability issues related to the performance assessment and personal position.

PDF

___

Baron, J. B. (1990). How science is tested and taught in elementary school science classrooms: A study of classroom observation s and interviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Brennan, R. L., (1995). Generalizability of performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 9-27
Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: Policies, practices and the emerging vision of schooling, Eugene, OR. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Davey, L. & Neill, M. (1991). The case against a national test. ERIC/TM Digest (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 703).
Dawis, R. V. (1992). The individual differences tradition in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39 (1) 2-19
Drummond, R.J., (1996). Appraisal procedures for counselor and helping professionals. Columbus, OH: Merill Publishing Co.
Eisner, E. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 105(1), 658-660.
Elliott, S. N., (1994). Creating meaningful performance assessment: Fundamental concept. Raston, VA, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED 375566
Fredericson, J.R., & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32
Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-base d measurement, and performance assessment . ERIC Digest E530. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 984).
Gullickson, A. R. (1982). The practice of testing on elementary and secondary schools. Paper Presented at the Rural Education Conference at Kansas State university, Manhattan, KA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED229391).
Hardy, R.A. (1995). Examining the cost of performance assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 8 (2), 121-134
Hutchinson, N. L. (1995). Performance assessment s of career development: ERIC Digest (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 518).
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L. & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21
Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16
Linn, R. L., Gronlund N.E. (1999). Measurement and assessment in teaching. (7th Ed.) Columbus, OH. Merill Publishing Co.
Linn, R.C. (1994). Performance assessment: Policy promises and technical measurement standards. Educational Researcher, 23(9), 4-14
Lissitz, R. W., Schafer, W. D., & Wright, M. V. (1986, April). The context of educational measurement instruction for preservice teachers: Professional perspectives. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 6(3), 12-16
Marks, D. (1989). Statewide achievement testing: A brief history. Educational Research Quarterly, 13(3), 37-43.
Maeroff, G. I. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4) 272-281
Mehrens, W. A. (1992). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2(1): 3-9
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance-based assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 46, 5-8
Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment, Review of Educational Research 62(3): 229-58
Moss, P. A., Beck, J.S., Matson, B., Muchmore, J., Steck, D., Taylor, C., & Herter, R. (1992). Portfolios, accountability and an interpretive approach to validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, (1937), 12-21
Sampson, J.P., Jr. (1992). Computer assisted testing and goals of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 227-239
Schafer, W. D., Lissitz, R.W. (1987). Measurement training for school personal: Recommendations and reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 57-63.
Shavelson, R.J., Baxter, G.P., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessment: Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher, 21, (4) 22-27
Stenmark, J. (1991). Mathematics Assessment: myths, models, good questions, and practical suggestions (Reston, VA, NCTM).
Stiggins, R. J. & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 271-286.
Stiggins, R. J. (1987). Design and development of performance assessment. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 6(3) 33-42
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 20, 212-226.
Worthen, B.R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, (6), 444-454