KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 1

PISA 2015’de Türk Öğrencilerin Düşük Başarı Göstermelerinin Nedeni Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu (DMF) içeren maddeler midir?

Are Differentially Functioning Mathematics Items Reason of Low Achievement of Turkish Students in PISA 2015?

Serkan Arıkan(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9610-5496
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2019-03-29
🏛️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)

The DIF items favoring Turkish students were mainly related to the basic cognitive process.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In PISA 2015 the average mathematics score of Turkey decreased dramatically.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:One of the reasons could be the psychometric properties of mathematics items of PISA 2015.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The DIF items favoring Turkish students were mainly related to the basic cognitive process.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2015 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:PISA 2015 · Mathematics Performance · DIF

Abstract

In PISA 2015 the average mathematics score of Turkey decreased dramatically. One of the reasons could be the psychometric properties of mathematics items of PISA 2015. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate PISA mathematics items for language DIF. In the study, three different DIF detection methods were used: logistic regression (LR), Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and structural equation modeling (SEM). Eleven items were found to have DIF when Turkish and English speaking students were compared. The effect sizes of mathematics performance differences between Turkish and English speaking students before and after excluding DIF items did not change which indicated that DIF items did not cause Turkish students to perform lower than expected. All the DIF items were open response format in which answers were rated by experts and computers. The DIF items favoring Turkish students were mainly related to the basic cognitive process.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Arıkan, S. (2019). PISA 2015’de Türk Öğrencilerin Düşük Başarı Göstermelerinin Nedeni Değişen Madde Fonksiyonu (DMF) içeren maddeler midir?. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Volume: 10 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.466860

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (33)

  1. Angoff, W. (1993). Perspective on differential item functioning methodology. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Arikan, S., van de Vijver, F., & Yagmur, K. (2016). Factors contributing to mathematics achievement differences of Turkish and Australian Students in TIMSS 2007 and 2011. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12, 2039-2059. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1268a
  3. Atalay Kabasakal, K., Gok, B., Kelecioglu, H., & Arsan, N. (2012). Comparing different differential item functioning methods: A simulation study. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 43, 270-281.
  4. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
  5. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
  6. Cohen, J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mawhaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  7. Demir, S., & Köse, İ. A. (2014) An analysis of the differential item function through Mantel-Haenszel, SIBTEST and Logistic Regression Methods. Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 700-714.
  8. Doganay, A., & Bal, A. P. (2010). The measurement of students' achievement in teaching primary school fifth year mathematics classes. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10, 199-215.
  9. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage.
  10. He, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Methodological issues in cross-cultural studies in educational psychology. In G. A. D. Liem & A. B. I. Bernardo (Eds.), Advancing cross-cultural perspectives on educational psychology: A festschrift for Dennis McInerney (pp. 39-56). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
  11. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1986). Differential item functioning and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure (ETS Research Report No. RR-86-31). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
  12. Holland, P. W. and Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and Mantel-Haenszel procedure. En H.Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity, pp. 129-145. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
  13. Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329-349.
  14. Joldersma, K., & Bowen, D. (2010). Application of Propensity Models in DIF Studies To Compensate For Unequal Ability Distributions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, Denver, CO.
  15. Kankaraš, M., & Moors, G. (2014). Analysis of cross-cultural comparability of PISA 2009 scores. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(3), 381-399.
  16. Liu, Y., Zumbo, B. D., Gustafson, P., Huang, Y., Kroc, E., & Wu, A. D. (2016). Investigating Causal DIF via Propensity Score Methods. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 21(13), 1-24.
  17. Lyons-Thomas, J., Sandilands, D. D., & Ercikan, K. (2014). Gender Differential Item Functioning in Mathematics in Four International Jurisdictions. Education &Science, 39(172), 20-32.
  18. MEB (2015). PISA 2012 Araştırması Ulusal Nihai Raporu. Ankara. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2wxMX5xMcnhaGtnV2x6YWsyY2c/view
  19. MEB (2016). PISA 2015 Ulusal Raporu. Ankara. Retrieved from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/PISA2015_Ulusal_Rapor1.pdf
  20. Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2015). Mplus (Version 7.4). California. Los Angeles.
  21. OECD (2016a). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264266490-en
  22. OECD (2016b). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and FinancialLiteracy. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.doi:10.1787/9789264255425-en
  23. OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/
  24. Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: Differential Item Functioning Analysis System. AppliedPsychological Measurement, 29, 150-151.
  25. Temur, Ö. D. (2012). Analysis of prospective classroom teachers’ teaching of mathematical modeling and problem solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(2), 83-93. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2012.822a
  26. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  27. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis. Methods and applications (2nd, revised edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
  28. Yildirim, H. H., & Berberoĝlu, G. (2009). Judgmental and statistical DIF analyses of the PISA-2003 mathematics literacy items. International Journal of Testing, 9(2), 108-121.
  29. Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in item development. InP. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337–364).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  30. Zumbo, B. D. (1999). Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense.
  31. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language assessment quarterly, 4(2), 223-233.
  32. Zumbo, B. D., & Gelin, M. N. (2005). A matter of test bias in educational policy research: Bringing the context into picture by investigating sociological/community moderated (or mediated) test and item bias. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 5(1), 1-23.
  33. Zumbo, B. D., & Thomas, D. R. (1997). A measure of effect size for a model-based approach for studying DIF. Prince George, Canada: Edgeworth Laboratory for Quantitative Behavioral Science, University of Northern British Columbia.