Dereceli puanlama anahtarının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin araştırma becerisi ve bilişsel alan düzeyine etkisi

Bu araştırmanın amaeı, dereceli puanlama analılarının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersi araştırına becerisi ve bilişsel başarısı üzerindeki etkisini belirlemektir. Araştırmada "karşılaştırmalı eşitlenmemiş grup son-test modeli" ve "eşitlenmemiş kontrol gruplu model" kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, 2010-2011 öğretini yılında Ankara İli Çankaya İlçesindeki bir ilköğretim okulunun 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflarında öğrenim gören toplanı 199 öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak dereceli puanlama anahtarı ve başarı testi geliştirilmiştir. Dört haftalık süre zarfında araştırma yapma etkinliği, deney ve kontrol gruplarına performans görevi olarak dağıtılmıştır. Deney grubuna etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılacak dereceli puanlama anahtarı verilmişken, kontrol grubuna verilmemiştir. Araştırmada öğrencilerin bilişsel alan düzeylerini ölçmek amacıyla öntest, sontest uygulanmıştır. Deney ve kontrol gruplarının araştmna etkinlikleri dereceli puanlama anahtarı ile değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonunda dereceli puanlama anahtarı kullanan öğrencilerin araştırma becerisi ve bilişsel alan düzeylerinin kullanmayanlara göre daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

The effect of rubric on primary students' research skills and cognitive level

The aim of tîıis study is to determine the effect of rubrics on die research skills and cognitive achievement of students in science and technology classes. In the study, static group comparison design and the nonequivalent control group design were used. The study was conducted in a secondary school in the Çankaya neighborhood of Ankara, with a total of 199 students, studying in the 6lh, 7l!', and 8°' grades İn the 2010-2011 academic year. A rubric and an achievement test were developed as data gathering tools. During a four-week period, the experiment and control groups were given performance tasks in the fonıı of researching activities. While the experiment group was given a rubric, the control group was not, In the study, in order to measure the students' cognitive domain levels, a pre-test and a post-test were applied. As a result of the study, it was determined; that the research skills and cognitive area levels of students who use rubrics are higher than those who do not.

PDF

___

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Edutional Leadership. Vol. 57(5)
Andrade. H. G. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 4 (4). Erişim tarihi: 12. 10. 2010 http://cie.asu.edii/volume4/number4/
Andrade, H. G. & Boulay, B. A. (2003). Role of rubric-re fere need self-asseSsment in learning to write. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 97, No. 1.
Andrade, H. G. & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research cfc Evaluation, Vol. 10,.No.3.
Andrade, H. G., Du, Y., & 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 Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 27. Issue 2, pages 3-13.
Andrade. H. G., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-refercnced seif-assessment and self efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 102, No.4.
Brookharl, S. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of pedagogy. Washington, DC: ER.İC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. ED432938. Erişim Tarihi 24 ~Eyliil 2009 http://chiron.valdosta.edU/vvhuitt/tTlcs/artsciasses.s.html
Goodrich, H. G. (1997). Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4).
Hafner, J. C. & Hafner, P. M. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: Atı Emprical Study of Student Peer-Group Rating. International of Science Education, 25(12), 1509-15298.
Maladyna. T. M. (1997). Writing test item to evaluate higher order thinking. USA: Allyn& Bacon.
Halonen. J. S., Bosack, T„ Clay, S., McCarthy, M, Dunn. D. S., Hill IV. G. W., McEntarffcr, R.. Mchrotra, C., Nesmith, R.. Weaver . IC A., & Whitlock, K. (2003). A rubric for learning, teaching, and assessing scientific inquiry in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 30, Issue 3.
Holmes. L., & Smith. L. (2003). Student evaluations of faculty grading methods. Journal of Education for Business 78( 6), 318- 323.
Isaacs, G. (2001). Asscsment for learning. Teaching and learning in higher education series. Brisbane, Australia: Teaching and Educational Development Institute, University of Queensland.
Luft. .1. A. (1997). Design your own rubric. Science Scope, 20(5), 25-27.
Lufj. J. A. (1999). Rubrics: Desiuti and use in science teacher education. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education. 10(2). 107-121.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assesment, Research c£ Evaluation,7(3).
Popham, W. J, (1997). What's wrong—and what's right—with rubrics, Educational Leadership, Vol. 55 No (2).
Popham, W..). (2007). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Pearson education, 5th Edition, USA.
Reddy, M. (2007). Effect of rubrics on enhancement of student learning. Educate- 7{1), pp. 3-17.
Saddler, B. & Andrade. H. G. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership. Vol. 62, No.2.
Sefer, D. G., 2006, Dereceli puanlama anahtarının (rııbrik) problem çözme becerisinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılması. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Whittaker, R. C., Salend, S. J.. & Duhaney, D., (2001). Creating instructional rubrics for inclusive classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. (34), No.(2). pp.(8-13).
Wiggins, G. (1991). Standart, not standardization: Evoking quality student work. Educational Leadership 48 (5), 18-25.