KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1

Changes in Literacy of Students in Turkey by Years and School 201?; ?(?);1-x Types: Performance of Students in PISA Applications

H. Eren SUNA
Mahmut ÖZER
Hande TANBERKAN
Sayfa
76–97
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)

Steps to decrease the achievementdifferences between school types in Turkey within the scope of findings are suggested.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The assessment of students' academic achievement via international monitoring studies provides important insightsto participating countries.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Besides the cognitive performance of students, educational equity is one of theemphasized topics within the scope of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Steps to decrease the achievementdifferences between school types in Turkey within the scope of findings are suggested.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2003 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The assessment of students' academic achievement via international monitoring studies provides important insightsto participating countries. Besides the cognitive performance of students, educational equity is one of theemphasized topics within the scope of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. Resultsregarding educational equity are quite important in Turkey because academic achievement differences amongschool types are relatively high in Turkey. Although a wide range of studies is conducted to examine theperformance differences between school types in Turkey, it is observed that most studies focus on mean scores ofschool types. The aim of this study is to examine the change in student ratios at a basic- and advanced level ofproficiency by school types in PISA applications between 2003 and 2018. Results show that approximately allstudents in science high schools and social sciences high schools have basic proficiency in all literacy fields andthroughout PISA 2003 and PISA 2018. The ratio of students with basic proficiency in Anatolian high schools andAnatolian imam hatip high schools tends to be increased. However, the ratio of students with advance proficiencyseems to be low in all school types in Turkey except science high schools. Steps to decrease the achievementdifferences between school types in Turkey within the scope of findings are suggested.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SUNA, H. E., ÖZER, M., TANBERKAN, H. (2022). Changes in Literacy of Students in Turkey by Years and School 201?; ?(?);1-x Types: Performance of Students in PISA Applications. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 1, 76–97. https://ajindex.com/articles/497177

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (8)

  1. Australian Council for Educational Research (2014). Australian students’ readiness for study, work and life in the digital age: ICILS 2013. Australia: ACER Publishing. Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 182-192.
  2. Albayrak, A. (2009). PISA 2006 sınavı sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen başarılarını etkileyen bazı faktörler. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Ataş, D., & Karadağ, Ö. (2017). An analysis of Turkey’s PISA 2015 results using two-level hierarchical linear modelling. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 720-727.
  3. Berberoğlu, G., & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısının yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PISA analizi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 4(7), 21-35.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.
  5. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2010). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications. Brunello, G. (2004). Stratified or comprehensive? Some economic consedirations on the design of secondary education. CESifo DICE Rep 4:7-10.
  6. Coleman, J. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Coleman, J., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2-3), 65–76.
  7. Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books. Çiftçi, A. (2006). PISA 2003 sınavı matematik alt testi sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin başarılarını etkileyen bazı faktörlerin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek lisans tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about US education policy?. New England Journal of Public Policy, 26, 1. Erişim adresi: http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nejpp/vol26/iss1/4.
  8. Erdoğan, E. (2018). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programında öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik özellikleri ile okuma becerileri arasındaki ilişki. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). Eğitimde Reform Girişimi (2009). Eğitimde eşitlik: Politika analizi ve öneriler. ERG Raporları. Retrieved from www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/wpcontent/upl