KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Analyzing the Effects of Test, Student, and School Predictors on Science Achievement: An Explanatory IRT Modeling Approach

Serap BÜYÜKKIDIK
Okan BULUT
Sayfa
40–53
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️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 interactions between the predictors suggested that test developers, teachers, and stakeholders should be aware of potential item-level bias occurring in the science items due to complex interactions among the items, students, and schools characteristics.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aimed to investigate the impact of item features (i.e., content domain), student characteristics (i.e., gender), and school variables (i.e., school type) on students’ responses to a nationwide, large-scale assessment in Turkey.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The sample consisted of 7507 students who participated in the 2016 administration of the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education Exam (TPSEE, referred to as “TEOG” in Turkey).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The interactions between the predictors suggested that test developers, teachers, and stakeholders should be aware of potential item-level bias occurring in the science items due to complex interactions among the items, students, and schools characteristics.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Explanatory item response modeling · science · school type

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the impact of item features (i.e., content domain), student characteristics (i.e., gender), and school variables (i.e., school type) on students’ responses to a nationwide, large-scale assessment in Turkey. The sample consisted of 7507 students who participated in the 2016 administration of the Transition from Primary to Secondary Education Exam (TPSEE, referred to as “TEOG” in Turkey). Explanatory item response modeling was used for analyzing the effects of content domain, gender, school type, and their interactions on students’ responses to the science items on the exam. Five explanatory models were constructed to examine the effects of the item, student, and school variables sequentially. Results indicated that female students were more likely to answer the items correctly than male students. Also, students from private schools performed better than students from public schools. In terms of content, the biology items appeared to be significantly easier than the physics items. All interactions between the predictors were significant except for the Gender x School Type and Content x Gender x School Type interactions. The interactions between the predictors suggested that test developers, teachers, and stakeholders should be aware of potential item-level bias occurring in the science items due to complex interactions among the items, students, and schools characteristics.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BÜYÜKKIDIK, S., BULUT, O. (2022). Analyzing the Effects of Test, Student, and School Predictors on Science Achievement: An Explanatory IRT Modeling Approach. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 40–53. https://ajindex.com/articles/497142

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (10)

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. Ayva Yörü, F. G., & Atar, H. Y. (2019). Determination of differential item functioning (DIF) according to SIBTEST, Lord’s [chi-squared], Raju’s area measurement and Breslow-Day methods. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 3(3), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.v3i3.137
  2. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823.pdf
  3. Bell, J. F. (2001). Investigating gender differences in the science performance of 16-year-old pupils in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690120123
  4. Berberoğlu, G., & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısının yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PISA analizi. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 4(7), 21-35. http://www.ebuline.com/english/pdfs/7_2.pdf
  5. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 297-331. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034002297
  6. Carnevale, A. P., Strohl, J., Ridley, N., & Gulish, A. (2018). Three educational pathways to good jobs: High school, middle skills, and bachelor’s degree. https://1gyhoq479ufd3yna29x7ubjn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/3ways-FR.pdf
  7. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2-3), 65-76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2112288.pdf?casa_token=2urqntYyuZQAAAAA:Rj2XcpFpD4Asklsmj_minXEoi7CsxMD1kg7yrb81rVd2wuN_j7zMZu6feBoRaNnN53xFobtwRojV4LkD8cv8WzWUgMWGGMbIBgaVwN2cMWCRp8G0VoI
  8. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (Eds.) (2004). Explanatory item response models. Springer. Eriksson, K., Björnstjerna, M., & Vartanova, I. (2020). The relation between gender egalitarian values and gender differences in academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00236
  9. Figlio, D.N., & Stone, J.A. (1997). School choice and student performance: Are private schools really better? (Discussion Paper 1141-97).
  10. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Gierl, M., Khaliq, S. N., & Bought