SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3

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

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

Hüseyin YILDIRIM
Eren CEYLAN
Pages
931–952
Publication Date
2020-12-01
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)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:PISA · Science Literacy · SES

Abstract

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.

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, H., CEYLAN, E. (2020). SES Related Differential Factors in Turkey’s PISA 2015 Science Literacy Data. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3, 931–952. https://ajindex.com/articles/47402

References (7)

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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).
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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