SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 53 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Impact of the High School Entrance Exam on Students and Parents According to Meaningful Evaluation Model

Liseye Geçiş Sınavının Öğrenciler ve Ebeveynlerde Bıraktığı Etkinin Anlamlı Değerlendirme Modeline Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Tuğba Babacan

Pages
718–754
Publication Date
2024-08-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Abstract

This study aims to examine the experiences of 8th-grade students and their parents regarding the HSEE process within the framework of a Meaningful Evaluation Model. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with a total of 12 participants, comprising six students and their parents, selected through criterion sampling in Denizli. The research is based on a phenomenological design, and the data were analyzed using inductive analysis. The findings reveal that the accountability associated with exam-based performance has fostered a competitive mindset and individualism that is highly prominent in the family and social environment. In this context, it has been observed that children tend to adopt more selfish, isolated, and aggressive roles and behaviors, while parents are undergoing a transformation towards being more controller, prohibitive, threatening, criticizer, and supportive. Additionally, it has been concluded that the participants did not allocate enough time to activities that would contribute to meaningful wholeness in the process.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 8. sınıf öğrenci ve ebeveynlerinin LGS sürecine ilişkin deneyimlerini Anlamlı Değerlendirme Modeli çerçevesinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Denizli ilinde ölçüt örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen altı öğrenci ve ebeveynleri olmak üzere toplamda 12 katılımcıyla yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerle veri toplanmıştır. Araştırma, fenomenoloji desenine dayalı olup veriler tümevarımsal analiz ile çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, katılımcıların sınava dayalı hesap verebilirlik sonucunda oluşan rekabetçi zihniyeti ve hem aile içinde hem de sosyal çevrede daha bireysel olmayı önemli gördüklerini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu bağlamda, çocukların benimsedikleri rol ve sergiledikleri davranışlarda daha bencil, yalıtılmış ve hırçın oldukları görülürken ebeveynlerin ise kontrolcü, yasaklayıcı, tehditkâr, eleştirici ve destekleyici yönünde bir dönüşüm içinde oldukları belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca, katılımcıların süreçte anlamlı bütünlüğe katkı sağlayacak etkinliklere yeterince zaman ayıramadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

Babacan, T. (2024). Evaluation of Impact of the High School Entrance Exam on Students and Parents According to Meaningful Evaluation Model. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 53 Sayı: 2, 718–754. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.1357064

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

↗New Tab

Loading PDF document...

References (58)

  1. Adick, C. (2002). Demanded and feared: Transnational convergencies in national educational systems and their (expectable) effects. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 214-233. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2002.1.2.2
  2. AL Shbail, M. O, Al Trad, E. B., Alshurafat, H., Ananzeh, H., & Al Kurdi, B. H. (2021). Factors affecting online cheating by accounting students: The relevance of social factors and the fraud triangle model factors. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 1-16.
  3. Amrein Beardsley, A., Berliner, D. C., & Rideau, S. (2010). Cheating in the first, second, and third degree: Educators’ responses to high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(14), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n14.2010
  4. Azili, E., & Tutkun, Ö. F. (2021). Ortaokul öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre ortaöğretim merkezi sınavı (LGS)’nin üstünlükleri ve sınırlıkları. Journal of Social Research and Behavioral Sciences, 7(13), 123-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.52096/jsrbs.6.1.7.13.7
  5. Baldner, M. (2021). Falling thralling through the cracks of education: A comparative analysis of Canada’s and the United States’ use of standardized testing within the realm of public education. University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, 29(1), 254-282.
  6. Bradley Geist, J. C., & Olson Buchanan, J. B. (2014). Helicopter parents: An examination of the correlates of over-parenting of college students. Education+Training, 56(4), 314-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2012-0096
  7. Buchweitz, B. (2001). Aprendizagem significativa: Ideias de estudantes concluintes de curso superior. Investigações em ensino de Ciências, 6(2), 133-141.
  8. Choi, Y. H. (2021). A study on the instructional design and effect integrating writing education and community service activities. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 21(7), 500-509. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2021.21.07.500
  9. Çınar, İ. (2009). Küreselleşme, eğitim ve gelecek. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 2(1), 14-30.
  10. Demir, S. B., & Yılmaz T. A. (2019). En iyisi bu mu? Türkiye’de yeni ortaöğretime geçiş politikasının velilerin görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 164-183. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.43815-445515
  11. Doğan, S., & Oktay, Y. (2022). Liselere geçiş sınavı (LGS) hazırlık sürecinin değerlendirilmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 963-992. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1054829
  12. Egley, R. J., & Jones, B. D. (2004). Rural elementary administrators’ views of high-stakes testing. The Rural Educator, 26(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v26i1.519
  13. Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in academic context: Does academic moral disengagement matter?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 356-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250
  14. Farvis, J., & Hay, S. (2020). Undermining teaching: How education consultants view the impact of high-stakes test preparation on teaching. Policy Futures in Education, 18(8), 1058-1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210320919541
  15. Fernandez, O. E. (2021). Second chance grading: An equitable, meaningful, and easy-to-implement grading system that synergizes the research on testing for learning, mastery grading, and growth mindsets. PRIMUS, 31(8), 855-868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1772915
  16. Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 466-474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466
  17. Gümüş, S., & Atalmış, E. H. (2012). Achievement gaps between different school types and regions in Turkey: Have they changed over time? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(2), 50-66.
  18. Hall, M. (2019). Accounting for meaningful work. In R. Yeoman, C. Bailey, A. Madden, & M. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of meaningful work (pp. 388-403). Oxford Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788232.013.23
  19. Hashmi, K., & Fayyaz, H. N. (2022). Adolescence and academic well-being: Parents, teachers, and students’ perceptions. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 9(1), 27-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v9i1.475
  20. İnce Aka, E., Karakaya, F., & Yılmaz, M. (2021). Liselere geçiş sınavında (LGS) sorulan biyoloji sorularına yönelik değerlendirme. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education Faculty, 40(1), 143-163.
  21. Jones, J. N. (2017). The development of youth purpose through community service and social action. American Secondary Education, 45(3), 50-67.
  22. Kallio, E. K., Mononen, L., & Ek, T. (2024). Holistic wisdom education: Towards transformational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, & S. Karami (Eds.), Transformational creativity (pp. 169-182). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51590-3_12
  23. Kalsen, C., & Yiğit Öztekin, H. (2021). Liselere geçiş sisteminin öğrencileri özel okullara yönlendirip yönlendirmediğine ilişkin öğretmen ve veli görüşleri. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 838-852. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.735552
  24. Karataş, İ., & Öztürk, N. (2023). LGS’ye Covid-19 pandemisinde uzaktan eğitimle hazırlanmak. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 66, 475-501. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1137055
  25. Knapp, M. S., & Feldman, S. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666-694. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249862
  26. Küçükgençay, N., Karatepe, F., & Peker, B. (2021). LGS ve örnek matematik sorularının öğrenme alanları ve PISA 2012 çerçevesinde değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50(232), 177-198. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.741871
  27. Lips Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2018). The map of meaningful work: A guide to sustaining our humanity in the world of work. Routledge.
  28. Lips Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale. Group & Organization Management, 37(5) 655-685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578
  29. Louis, K. S., & Robinson, V. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629-665. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853
  30. Macgregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2011). To cheat or not to cheat: Rationalizing academic impropriety. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21(3), 265-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.617174
  31. Mahmud, R. (2021). Learning in the shadows: Parents’ investments, family burden, and students’ workload in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09655-9
  32. Marion, S., & Leather, P. (2015). Assessment and accountability to support meaningful learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(9), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1984.
  33. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı ortaöğretime geçiş yönergesi. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_03/26191912_yonerge.pdf
  34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd Ed.). Sage Publication.
  35. Orakcı, Ş. Dilekli, Y., & Erdağ, C. (2020). The structural relationship between accountability felt and responsible teaching in Turkish teachers: The mediating effect of innovative thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09655-9
  36. Özdaş, F. (2019). Merkezi yerleştirme sınav sistemine ilişkin öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Mukaddime, 10(2), 688-707. https://doi.org/10.19059/mukaddime.509244
  37. Padilla Diaz, M. (2015). Phenomenology in educational qualitative research: Philosophy as science or philosophical science? International Journal of Educational Excellence, 1(2), 101-110.
  38. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Sage Publication.
  39. Pişkin Tunç, M., & Baydar, O. (2022). TEOG, LGS ve TIMSS matematik sorularının MATH taksonomisine göre incelenmesi. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(33), 20-53. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.745365
  40. Polat, M., & Bilen, E. (2022). TEOG ve LGS merkezi sınav fen sorularının bilişsel süreç boyutunun yenilenmiş Bloom taksonomisi ile değerlendirmesi. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Eğitimi, 7(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.1041329
  41. Polosel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2013). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.865082
  42. Porfilio, B., & Carr, P. R. (2010). The neo-liberal sociol order, youth and resistance. In B. Porfilio, & P. R. Carr (Eds.), Youth culture, education and resistance (pp.1-18). Sense Publishers.
  43. Rose, P., Beeby, J., & Parker, D. (1995). Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21(6), 1123-1129. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061123.x
  44. Sahlberg, P. (2023). Trends in global education reform since the 1990s: Looking for the right way. International Journal of Educational Development, 98, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102748
  45. Smyth, E., & Banks, J. (2012). High stakes testing and student perspectives on teaching and learning in the Republic of Ireland. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9154-6
  46. Şıvkın, S., Aksoy, V. C., & Gür Erdoğan, D. (2020). LGS‘de sorulan PISA tarzı matematik sorularını doğru cevaplama ile okuduğunu anlama arasındaki ilişkinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 148-159.
  47. Taşkın, G., & Aksoy, G. (2021). Liselere giriş sistemine ilişkin okul ve yöneticilerinin görüşleri: Durum çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(2), 870-888. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.743399
  48. Taylor, L. A. (2023). “If I was better at managing all this”: The role of neoliberal logic in framing one teacher's narratives about accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103944
  49. Ulusoy, B. (2020). 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin liselere geçiş sınavı (LGS)’na ilişkin algılarının metaforlar aracılığıyla incelenmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.51119/ereegf.2020.5
  50. Uzun, F., & Bolat, Y. (2023). Program dışı etkinliklerin öğrenci gelişimine etkisi. Harran Maarif Dergisi, 8(1), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.22596/hej.1244118
  51. Ünal, C., & Eroğlu, D. (2021). LGS’de yer alan matematik sorularının ortaokul matematik öğretim programının çeşitli bileşenleriyle uyumluluğunun incelenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 60, 510-536. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.936887
  52. Yılmaz Bodur, Z., & Aktan, S. (2021). A research on the relationship between parental attitudes, students’ academic motivation and personal responsibility. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences, 3(4), 636-655. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonses.187
  53. Yi, P., & Kim, H. J. (2019). Exploring the relationship between external and internal accountability in education: A cross-country analysis with multi-level structural equation modeling. International Journal of Educational Development, 65, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.12.007
  54. Yu, S., Zheng, J., Xu, Z., & Zhang, T. (2022). The transformation of parents’ perception of education ınvolution under the background of “double reduction” policy: The mediating role of education anxiety and perception of education equity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800039
  55. Zandroto, A. D., & Indriani, S. (2023). An analysis on learning loss and holistic education. POLYGLOT: Jurnal Ilmiah, 19(1), 156-168. https://dx.doi.org/10.1966/pji.v19i1.6346
  56. Zappala, G. (2021). Cultivating spiritual intelligence for a participatory worldview: The contribution of archetypal cosmology. Journal for the Study of Spirituality, 11(2), 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/20440243.2021.1961463
  57. Zappala, G., & Smyth, C. (2021). Student and teacher outcomes from participating in a Philosophy for Children program: Volunteer ethics teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 8(1), 104-128. https://doi.org/10.46707/jps.8ii.137
  58. Zhang, J. (2021). Parents’ involvement in high-stakes language assessment: A review of test impact on parent behavior. English Language Teaching, 14(12), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n12p55