SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2

DETERMINATION OF STUDENTS’ PROFILES ACCORDING TO HOME EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT VIA LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS

Serpil KILIÇ DEPREN
Seda BAĞDATLI KALKAN
Pages
505–520
Publication Date
2017-12-24
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)

Furthermore, it was shown that students in 3rd latent class had the highest mathematics scorewhile students in 1st latent class had the lowest mathematics scores.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between mathematics achievements andownership of the home educational resources of students via Latent Class Analysis (LCA) using Programmefor International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although 5895 15-year-old Turkish studentswere participated in PISA study, the data of 5355 students were included in the analysis because of themissing data of the selected variables. 12 items which were related to students’ home educational resourceswere used in LCA analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, it was shown that students in 3rd latent class had the highest mathematics scorewhile students in 1st latent class had the lowest mathematics scores.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Latent Class Analysis · Mathematics Achievement · PISA 2015

Özet

The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between mathematics achievements andownership of the home educational resources of students via Latent Class Analysis (LCA) using Programmefor International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 study. Although 5895 15-year-old Turkish studentswere participated in PISA study, the data of 5355 students were included in the analysis because of themissing data of the selected variables. 12 items which were related to students’ home educational resourceswere used in LCA analysis. As a result, 3 classes were determined; 32% of students were in 1st latent class,29% of students were in 2nd latent class and 39% of students were in 3rd latent class. It was revealed thatstudents in 1st latent class had only “a desk to study at”, “a quiet place to study”, “books to help with yourschool work” and “a dictionary” while students in 3rd latent class had all the home educational resources(12 items). Furthermore, it was shown that students in 3rd latent class had the highest mathematics scorewhile students in 1st latent class had the lowest mathematics scores.

🔖

Cite This Article

DEPREN, S. K., KALKAN, S. B. (2017). DETERMINATION OF STUDENTS’ PROFILES ACCORDING TO HOME EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT VIA LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2, 505–520. https://ajindex.com/articles/6375

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. ACAR GÜVENDİR, M. (2014). Öğrenci Başarılarının Belirlenmesi Sınavında Öğrenci ve Okul Özelliklerinin Türkçe Başarısı ile İlişkisi, Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(172): 163-180.
  2. ARICIGİL ÇİLAN, Ç. (2015).
  3. Uygulamalı Gizli Sınıf Analizi, İstanbul:Çağlayan Kitabevi.
  4. ARIKAN, S., Van de Vijver, F.J.R.; Yağmur, K. (2016). Factors Contributing to Mathematics Achievement Differences of Turkish and Australian Students in TIMSS 2007 and 2011,
  5. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(8): 2039-2059.
  6. ATTEWELL, P., Battle, J. (2006). Home Computers and School Performance, The Information Society, 15: 1-10.
  7. BEESE, J., Liang, X. (2010). Do Resources Matter? PISA Science Achievement Comparison Between Students in the United States, Canada and Finland, Improving Schools, 13(3): 266-279.
  8. DAYTON, C.M.; Macready, G.B. (1988). Concomitant-Variable Latent-Class Models, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(401): 173-178.
  9. DEMİR, I., Kılıç, S., Ünal, H. (2010). Effects of Students’ and Schools’ Characteristics on Mathematics Achievement: Findings from PISA 2006, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2: 3099-3103.
  10. FIORINI, M. (2010). The Effect of Home Computer Use On Children’s Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Skills, Economics of Education Review, 29(1): 55–72.
  11. FIRAT, E., Aydın, A. (2015). İnsani Kalkınma Endeksine göre Türkiye’nin Eğitim Endeks Göstergelerinin OECD Ülkeleri ile Karşılaştırılması, Selçuk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 15(29): 62-87.
  12. FUCHS, T., Woessmann, L. (2014). Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School, Munich: CESifo Working Paper No. 1321. GOODMAN, L.A. (1974). Exploratory Latent Structure Analysis Using Both Identifiable And Unidentifiable Models, Biometrika, 61(2): 215-231.
  13. GOODMAN, L.A. (1979). On The Estimation Of Parameters In Latent Structure Analysis, Psychometrika, 44(1): 123-128.
  14. GÜVENDİR, E. (2015). A Multi-Level Simultaneous Analysis of How Student and School Characteristics Are Related to Students’ English Language Achievement, Education Research And Perspectives, 42: 491-527.
  15. HAGENAARS, J.A., McCutcheon, A.L. (2002).
  16. Applied Latent Class Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
  17. JACKSON, L.A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F.A., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., Fitzgerald, H.E. (2006). Does home internet use influence the academic performance of low-income children?, Developmental Psychology, 4