KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 51 Sayı: 1

Öğrencilerin Algıladıkları Öğretmen Nitelikleri ile Sosyoekonomik Düzeyi Yüksek ve Düşük Öğrencilerin Başarıları Arasındaki İlişki

The Relationship between the Teacher Qualities Perceived by Students and the Achievements of High and Low Socioeconomic Level Students

Sibel İnci
Volkan Hasan Kaya
Sayfa
293–320
Yayın Tarihi
2022-04-27
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu çalışmanın bulguları, uyarlanabilir öğretimin, öğretmen yönlendirmeli öğretimin ve disiplin ikliminin yüksek sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrenciler üzerinde düşük sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilere göre daha olumlu bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Öğretmen nitelikleri, öğrencilerin başarısında önemli bir rol oynar.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Veriler, Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2018 veri setinden edinilmiştir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu çalışmanın bulguları, uyarlanabilir öğretimin, öğretmen yönlendirmeli öğretimin ve disiplin ikliminin yüksek sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrenciler üzerinde düşük sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilere göre daha olumlu bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2018 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:öğretmen niteliği · öğretmen desteği · sosyoekonomik durum

Özet

Öğretmen nitelikleri, öğrencilerin başarısında önemli bir rol oynar. Ancak genel olarak dezavantajlı öğrenciler, avantajlı öğrenciler kadar öğretmen desteğinden yararlanma fırsatına sahip olamayabilirler. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, öğretmen nitelikleri ile sosyoekonomik düzeyi yüksek ve düşük öğrencilerin matematik ve fen okuryazarlığı ve okuma başarıları arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Veriler, Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) 2018 veri setinden edinilmiştir. Çalışma, %25 düşük sosyoekonomik düzey ve %25 yüksek sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilerden oluşan bir örneklemle ilişkisel model kullanılan nicel bir analizdir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, uyarlanabilir öğretimin, öğretmen yönlendirmeli öğretimin ve disiplin ikliminin yüksek sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrenciler üzerinde düşük sosyoekonomik düzeydeki öğrencilere göre daha olumlu bir etkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak, öğretmen bilişsel geri bildiriminin her iki öğrenci grubunun tüm alanlardaki başarısı üzerindeki etkisi olumsuzdur.

Abstract

Teacher qualities play a key role in students’ achievement. In general, however, disadvantaged students may not have as much opportunity to benefit from teacher support as advantaged students. Therefore, this study aims to find out the relationship between the teacher qualities and the achievements of high and low socioeconomic level students in math and science literacy, and reading. Data were obtained from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 results. The study is a quantitative analysis using a relational model, with a sample consisting of 25% low socioeconomic level students and 25% high socioeconomic level students. The findings of this study indicate a more positive impact of adaptive instruction, teacher-directed instruction, and disciplinary climate on high socioeconomic students than on low socioeconomic students. However, the impact of teacher cognitive feedback on both student groups' achievement in all domains is negative.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

İnci, S., Kaya, V. H. (2022). Öğrencilerin Algıladıkları Öğretmen Nitelikleri ile Sosyoekonomik Düzeyi Yüksek ve Düşük Öğrencilerin Başarıları Arasındaki İlişki. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 51 Sayı: 1, 293–320. https://doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.873723

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

↗Yeni Sekme

PDF belgesi yükleniyor...

Kaynakça (64)

  1. Ataç, E. (2019). Modeling educational inequalities: class, academic achievement, and regional differences in Turkey. Education and Urban Society, 51(5) 659–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747036
  2. Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: protective factors in the family, school, and community. Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. NWREL.
  3. Bölükbaş, S. &Gür, B. S. (2020). Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102262
  4. Buddin, R. &Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.05.001
  5. Büyüköztürk, S. (2009). Sosyal bilimleriiçinverianalizi el kitabıistatistikaraştırmadeseni-spssuygulamalarıveyorum [Data analysis handbook for social sciences statistical research pattern-spss applications and interpretation]. PegemAkademiPublication.
  6. Caponera, E. Sestito P. & Russo P. M. (2016). The influence of reading literacy on mathematics and science achievement, The Journal of Educational Research, 109(2), 197-204, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.936998
  7. Caro, D. H., Sandoval-Hernández, A. &Lüdtke, O. (2014) Cultural, social, and economic capital constructs in international assessments: an evaluation using exploratory structural equation modelling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.812568
  8. Cheema, J. R. &Kitsantas A. (2014). Influences of disciplinary classroom climate on high school student self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: A look at gender and racial-ethnic differences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12, 1261-1279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9454-4
  9. Chi, S.,Liu, X., Wang, Z., &Won Han, S. (2018). Moderation of theeffects of scientificinquiryactivities on low SES students’ PISA 2015 scienceachievementbyschoolteachersupport and disciplinaryclimate in scienceclassroomacrossgender. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 40(11), 1284–1304.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1476742
  10. Çelik, Ç. (2017). Parental networks, ethnicity, and social and cultural capital: the societal dynamics of educational resilience in Turkey. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(7), 1007-1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1218753
  11. Danielsen, A. G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J. &Wold, B. (2009). School-related social support and students' perceived life satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.303-320
  12. Danielsen, A. G., Wiium, N., Wilhelmsen, B. U. &Wold, B. (2010). Perceived support provided by teachers and classmates and student’s self–reported academic initiative. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.002
  13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and theright to learn: Access to qualifiedteachers in California’spublicschools. TeachersCollegeRecord, 106(10), 1936– 1966.
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securingtheright to learn: Policy and practiceforpowerfulteaching and learning. EducationalResearcher, 35(7), 13–24.
  15. Dietrich, J.,Dicke, A.-L., Kracke, B., &Noack, P. (2015). Teachersupport and itsinfluence on students' intrinsicvalue and effort: Dimensionalcomparisoneffectsacrosssubjects. Learning and Instruction, 39, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.007
  16. Goe, L. & Stickler, L. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. TQ Research & Policy Brief. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520769.pdf
  17. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50-55.
  18. Goldhaber, D. & Brewer, D.J. (1997). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In J. W. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance 1996, 197-210. National Centre for Education Statistics.
  19. Goldhaber, D., Perry, D. & Anthony, E. (2004). NBPTS certification: Who applies and what factors are associated with success? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(4), 259-280.
  20. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.
  21. Iş Güzel, Ç. & Berberoğlu, G. (2005). An analysis of the Programme for International Student Assessment 2000 (PISA 2000) mathematical literacy data for Brazilian, Japanese, and Norwegian students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 283-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.11.006
  22. Işık, O. &Ataç, E. (2011). Yoksulluğadair: Bildiklerimiz, azbildiklerimiz, bilmediklerimiz. [On poverty: what we know, what we know less, what we do not know]. Birikim, 268-269, 66-85.
  23. Keller, M. M., Goetz, T., Becker, E. S., Morger, V. Hensley, L. (2014), Feeling and showing: A new conceptualization of dispositional teacher enthusiasm and its relation to students’ interest. Learning and Instruction, 33, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.03.001.
  24. KıbrıslıoğluUysal, N. &Gelbal, S. (2018). Inequality in education in Turkey in the scope of PISA and TSI. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(4). 1195-1206. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.434152
  25. Kılıç, Y. (2014). Türkiye’de eğitimseleşitsizlikvetoplumsaltabakalaşmailişkisinedairampirikbirçalışma [The relationship between educational inequality and social stratification in Turkey: An empirical study]. EğitimBilimleriAraştırmalarıDergisi - Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4 (2), 243-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.42.14
  26. Koyuncu, I.; Kılıç, A.F. (2019). The use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses: A document analysis. EgitimveBilim, 44, 361–388.
  27. Lau, K.& Lam T. Y. (2017) Instructionalpractices and scienceperformance of 10 top-performingregions in PISA 2015, International Journal of ScienceEducation, 39(15), 2128-2149, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500693.2017.1387947
  28. Lee, V. E. &Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172–192.
  29. Lee, J. S. (2012). The effects of the teacher-student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.04.006
  30. Ma, X. & Willms, J. D. (2004). School disciplinary climate: characteristics and effects on eight grade achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 169–188.
  31. Maulana, R., André, S., Helms-Lorenz, M., Ko, J., Chun, S., Shahzad, A. et al (2020). Observed teaching behaviour in secondary education across six countries: measurement invariance and indication of cross-national variations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1777170
  32. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185
  33. McMahon, S. D. &Wernsman, J. (2009). The relation of classroom environment and school belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban fourth- and fifth-grade students. The Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1086/592307
  34. McMillan, J. H. & Reed, D. F. (1994). At-risk students and resiliency: Factors contributing to academic success. The Clearing House, 67(3), 137-140.
  35. MONE (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiyeönraporu: Eğitimanalizvedeğerlendirmeraporları [Turkey preliminary report: Education analysis and evaluation reports]. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_12/03105347_PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf
  36. Ning, B., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Yang, X. & Gielen S. (2015). The influence of classroom disciplinary climate of schools on reading achievement: a cross-country comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 586-611. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1025796
  37. OECD (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
  38. OECD (2019b), PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
  39. OECD (2019c). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
  40. OECD (2019d). Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2018. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_TUR.pdf
  41. OECD (2019e). PISA 2018 Results Combined Executive Summaries, Volume I, II& III. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/Combined_Executive_Summaries_PISA_2018.pdf
  42. Patrick, B. C. Hisley, J. &Kempler, T. (2000). “What's everybody so excited about?” The effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality, The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009600093
  43. Pitzer, J. & Skinner, E. (2017). Predictors of changes in students’ motivational resilience over the school year: The roles of teacher support, self-appraisals, and emotional reactivity. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1) 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416642051
  44. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. &Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.
  45. Reimer, D. (2019). Teachers and teacher education: A call for a renewed sociological research agenda. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 28 (2), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2019.1601582
  46. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00212
  47. Sandoval-Hernandez, A. &Białowolski, P. (2016). Factors and conditions promoting academic resilience: A TIMSS based analysis of five Asian education systems. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 17, 511–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9447-4
  48. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf
  49. Seebruck, R. (2015). Teacher quality and student achievement: A multilevel analysis of teacher credentialization and student test scores in California high schools. McGill Sociological Review, 5, 1-18.
  50. Shields, C. M. & Mohan, E. J. (2008). High‐quality education for all students: Putting social justice at its heart, Teacher Development, 12(4), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530802579843
  51. Sortkær, B. & Reimer, D. (2018). Classroom disciplinary climate of schools and gender -evidence from the Nordic countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1460382
  52. Sykes, A. O. (1993). An Introduction to Regression Analysis. Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 20.
  53. Şirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
  54. Teodorović, J. (2011) Classroom and school factors related to student achievement: What works for students? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.575650
  55. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, United Nations General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/1
  56. United Nations (2020a). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx
  57. United Nations (2020b). The universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
  58. ÜnsalÖzberk, E., Yılmaz Fındık, L., &Özberk, E. (2018). DezavantajlıYüksekBaşarılıÖğrencilerinOkulveÖğrenciDüzeyindeMatematikBaşarılarınıEtkileyenDeğişkenlerinİncelenmesi. EğitimveBilim, 43(194). http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7153
  59. Vaillant, D. & Gonzalez-Vaillant, G. (2017). Within the teacher evaluation policies black box: Two case studies, Teacher Development, 21(3), 404-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2016.1259649
  60. Vanlaar, G., Kyriakides, L., Panayiotou, A., Vandecandelaere, M., McMahon, L., De Fraine B. & Van Damme J. (2016) Do the teacher and school factors of the dynamic model affect high- and low-achieving student groups to the same extent? A cross-country study, Research Papers in Education, 31(2), 183-211, https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1027724
  61. Wentzel, K. R. & Miele, D. B. (2009). Handbook of motivation at school. Routledge.
  62. Waxman, H. C., Gray, J. P. & Padron, Y. N. (2003). Review of research on educational resilience. UC Berkeley Research Reports. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7x695885
  63. Wößmann, L. (2000). Schooling resources, educational institutions, and student performance: The international evidence, Kiel Working Paper, No. 983, Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  64. Zhang, D. & Campbell, T. (2015) An examination of the impact of teacher quality and “opportunıty gap” on student science achievement in China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 13, 489–513.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9491-z