KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2

Matematik Eğitiminde Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmenin Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarı ve Tutumlarına Etkisi

The Effects of Formative Assessment on Student Achievement and Attitudes in Math

Çağla Akbaş(TC MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI ERZURUM)0000-0002-1474-1681
Ceyhun Ozan(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1415-7258
Sayfa
351–374
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-27
🏛️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)

Araştırma sonucunda çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin amacı öğrenciye bir değer biçmek değil, öğrencinin öğrenme eksikliklerini belirlemek ve bu eksiklikleri gidermeye yönelik öğretimsel düzenlemeler yapmaktır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Araştırmanın temel amacı, matematik öğretimi sürecinde biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarıları ve matematik dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkisini incelemektir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Araştırma sonucunda çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Biçimlendirici değerlendirme · matematik eğitimi · matematik başarısı

Özet

Biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin amacı öğrenciye bir değer biçmek değil, öğrencinin öğrenme eksikliklerini belirlemek ve bu eksiklikleri gidermeye yönelik öğretimsel düzenlemeler yapmaktır. Araştırmanın temel amacı, matematik öğretimi sürecinde biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarıları ve matematik dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkisini incelemektir. Bağımsız değişken, biçimlendirici değerlendirme ile düzey belirleyici değerlendirme uygulamalarıdır. Bağımlı değişkenler ise öğrencilerin akademik başarıları ve matematiğe karşı tutumlarıdır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Erzurum ili Pasinler ilçesinde belirlenen bir ortaokulun beşinci sınıf öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Yansız atama yoluyla deney grubunda 17, kontrol grubunda 13 öğrenci yer almıştır. Verilerin elde edilmesinde başarı testi ve tutum ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Çalışma, ortaokul beşinci sınıf matematik dersinde 11 hafta boyunca yürütülmüştür. Dersler hem kontrol hem de deney gruplarında aynı zamanda araştırmacı olan matematik öğretmeni tarafından verilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarının olduğu deney grubundaki öğrencilerin matematik dersi başarıları, kontrol grubundaki öğrencilere göre yüksek bulunmuştur ancak elde edilen fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir. Benzer şekilde, kontrol ve deney grubunun matematik dersi tutumlarında da anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır. Araştırma sonucunda çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Abstract

The objective of formative assessment is to allocate or assign a value to the student, identify the student’s learning deficiencies and make instructional arrangements to eliminate these deficiencies. This study employed a non-equivalent group pre-test and post-test design to investigate the effects of formative assessment on fifth-grade students’ academic achievement and their attitudes toward mathematics. The independent variables were formative assessment and level-determining evaluation methods. The dependent variables were students’ academic achievements and attitudes toward mathematics. The research group comprised fifth-grade students of a determined secondary school in the Pasinler district of Erzurum province. Through random assignment, 17 students were included in the experimental group and 13 in the control group. The data were obtained using the achievement test and attitude scale. This research was conducted in a secondary school fifth-grade math class for 11 weeks. The mathematics teacher, the researcher, delivered lessons to both groups. The mathematics achievement of students in the experimental group was higher than the control group. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, no significant difference was found in the attitudes of students toward math. Various recommendations were made in light of the findings obtained in this study.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akbaş, Ç., Ozan, C. (2024). Matematik Eğitiminde Biçimlendirici Değerlendirmenin Öğrencilerin Akademik Başarı ve Tutumlarına Etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 2, 351–374. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1512149

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (71)

  1. Andrade, H., & Lui, A., Palma, M., & Hefferen, J. (2015). Formative assessment in dance education. Journal of Dance Education, 15(2), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15290824.2015.1004408
  2. Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087
  3. Andrews, T. L. (2011). The use of goal setting and progress self-monitoring with formative assessment in community college to increase academic achievement and self-efficacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University.
  4. Baykul, Y. (2005). Teaching mathematics in primary education (for grades 1–5). Pegem Academy.
  5. Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(2), 146. http://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10956-0089140-4
  6. Bell, B. (2007). Classroom assessment of science learning. In S. Abell, & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 965–1006). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University.
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144. https://kappanonline.org/inside-the-black-box-raising-standards-through-classroom-assessment/
  10. Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students' potential through creative math, inspiring messages, and innovative teaching. Jossey-Bass.
  11. Borich, G. A. (2014). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice (8th ed.).
  12. Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
  13. Brookhart, S. M. (2017). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.
  14. Brown, G. T. L. (2018). Assessment of student achievement. Routledge.
  15. Bulunuz, M., Kıryak, Z., Tomaç, B., Karagöz, F., & Recepoğlu, B. (2017). Evaluation of formative assessment-based teaching practices: An action research. Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 6(2), 115-123. http://tujted.com/makale/630
  16. Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
  17. Cavanagh, A. J., Aragón, O. R., Chen, X., Couch, B., Durham, M., Bobrownicki, A., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2016). Student buy-in to active learning in a college science course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar76. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0212
  18. Chappuis, J. (2009). Seven strategies of assessment for learning. Pearson.
  19. Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in the secondary classroom. Hodder Education.
  20. Collins, N. M. (2012). The impact of assessment for learning: Benefits and barriers to student achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cardinal Stritch University.
  21. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  22. Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin.
  23. Fennell, F. (2011). Achieving fluency: Special education and mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  24. Gedikli, H. (2018). The effects of formative assessment practices in science education on students' metacognitive knowledge and skills (Publication No. 503450) [Master’s thesis, Sivas Cumhuriyet University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  25. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. Routledge.
  26. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  27. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. https://kappanonline.org/formative-assessment-heritage/
  28. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Corwin.
  29. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T. P., & Herman, J. L. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement, 28(3), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x
  30. Hodgson, C., & Pyle, K. (2010). A literature review of assessment for learning in science. National Foundation for Educational Research.
  31. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
  32. Huisman, B., Saab, N. van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
  33. Kıncal, R. Y., & Ozan, C. (2018). Effects of formative assessment on prospective teachers’ achievement, attitude and self-regulation skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2018.139.6
  34. King, M. D. (2003). The effects of formative assessment on student self-regulation, motivational beliefs, and achievement in elementary science [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. George Mason University.
  35. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
  36. Koçak, B. (2021). Determining the attitudes, perceptions and practices of geography teachers towards formative assessment (Publication No. 676619) [Master’s thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  37. Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2009). Investigating preservice teachers' professional growth in self-regulated learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013101
  38. Kültür, Y. Z. (2021). The effect of formative assessment on secondary school students' mathematics course achievement and attitudes (Publication No. 668735) [Master’s thesis, Çukurova University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  39. Lee, C. (2006). Language for learning mathematics. Open University.
  40. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42923742
  41. MoNE (2017). Mathematics curriculum (primary and secondary school 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades). Ministry of National Education.
  42. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  43. Ozan, C., & Kıncal. R. Y. (2018). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 18, 85-118. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.1.0216
  44. Önal, N. (2013). A study on the development of a middle school students’ attitudes towards mathematics scale. Elementary Education Online, 12(4), 938‐948. https://ilkogretim-online.org/index.php/pub/article/view/6042
  45. Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0991
  46. Panadero, E. (2018). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247-266). Routledge.
  47. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. ASCD.
  48. Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  49. Razali, N., & Wah, Y. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33. http://www.de.ufpb.br/~ulisses/disciplinas/normality_tests_comparison.pdf
  50. Rodriguez, M. C., & Albano, A. D. (2017). The college instructor’s guide to writing test items: Measuring student learning. Routledge.
  51. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., & Shepard, L. A. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science, 331, 1269-1270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198976
  52. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. https:/doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
  53. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
  54. Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
  55. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.030
  56. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Mathematical problem solving. Elsevier.
  57. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
  58. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Tomita, M. K., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347647
  59. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073137
  60. Sönmez, M. (2020). The effect of formative assessment on reading comprehension (Publication No. 649617) [Master’s thesis, Düzce University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  61. Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative learning in mathematics: A challenge to our beliefs and practices. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
  62. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  63. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
  64. Tuominen, K. R. (2008). Formative assessment and collaborative teaming with support involving middle school mathematics teachers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. California University.
  65. Unaş, F. (2021). The effects of formative assessment practices in science education on students' self-regulated learning skills (Publication No. 693052) [Master’s thesis, Sivas Cumhuriyet University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
  66. Walsh, J. A. (2022). Questioning for formative feedback: Meaningful dialogue to improve learning. ASCD.
  67. Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, B. D. (2016). Questioning for classroom discussion: Purposeful speaking, engaged listening, deep thinking. ASCD.
  68. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
  69. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning?. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
  70. Wiliam, D. (2018). Feedback: At the hard of -but definitely not all of- formative assessment. In A. A. Lipnevich, & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (pp. 3-28). Cambridge University.
  71. Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Tomita, M. K., & Young, D. B. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957340802347845