SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Changes in Literacy of Students in Turkey by Years and School Types: Performance of Students in PISA Applications

Hayri Eren SUNA
Hande TANBERKAN
Mahmut ÖZER
Pages
76–97
Publication Date
2020-03-24
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results show that approximately all students in science high schools and social sciences high schools have basic proficiency in all literacy fields and throughout PISA 2003 and PISA 2018.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The assessment of students' academic achievement via international monitoring studies provides important insights to participating countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Besides the cognitive performance of students, educational equity is one of the emphasized topics within the scope of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results show that approximately all students in science high schools and social sciences high schools have basic proficiency in all literacy fields and throughout PISA 2003 and PISA 2018.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:academic achievement · educational equity · PISA proficiency

Abstract

The assessment of students' academic achievement via international monitoring studies provides important insights to participating countries. Besides the cognitive performance of students, educational equity is one of the emphasized topics within the scope of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. Results regarding educational equity are quite important in Turkey because academic achievement differences among school types are relatively high in Turkey. Although a wide range of studies is conducted to examine the performance differences between school types in Turkey, it is observed that most studies focus on mean scores of school types. The aim of this study is to examine the change in student ratios at a basic- and advanced level of proficiency by school types in PISA applications between 2003 and 2018. Results show that approximately all students in science high schools and social sciences high schools have basic proficiency in all literacy fields and throughout PISA 2003 and PISA 2018. The ratio of students with basic proficiency in Anatolian high schools and Anatolian imam hatip high schools tends to be increased. However, the ratio of students with advance proficiency seems to be low in all school types in Turkey except science high schools. Steps to decrease the achievement differences between school types in Turkey within the scope of findings are suggested.

🔖

Cite This Article

SUNA, H. E., TANBERKAN, H., ÖZER, M. (2020). Changes in Literacy of Students in Turkey by Years and School Types: Performance of Students in PISA Applications. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 76–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/137302

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (2014). Australian students’ readiness for study, work and life in the digital age: ICILS 2013. Australia: ACER Publishing. Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 182-192.
  2. Albayrak, A. (2009). PISA 2006 sınavı sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen başarılarını etkileyen bazı faktörler. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Ataş, D., & Karadağ, Ö. (2017). An analysis of Turkey’s PISA 2015 results using two-level hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 720-727.
  3. Berberoğlu, G., & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısının yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PISA analizi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 4(7), 21-35.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2010). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications. Brunello, G. (2004). Stratified or comprehensive? Some economic consedirations on the design of secondary education. CESifo DICE Rep 4:7-10.
  6. Coleman, J. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2-3), 65–76.
  7. Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books. Çiftçi, A. (2006). PISA 2003 sınavı matematik alt testi sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin başarılarını etkileyen bazı faktörlerin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about US education policy?. New England Journal of Public Policy, 26, 1. Erişim adresi: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol26/iss1/4.
  8. Erdoğan, E. (2018). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programında öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik özellikleri ile okuma becerileri arasındaki ilişki. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Eğitimde Reform Girişimi (2009). Eğitimde eşitlik: Politika analizi ve öneriler. ERG Raporları. Retrieved from www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/wp- content/u