GENERATION STUDY OF PISA MATHS PROFICIENCY LEVELS IN TURKISH 6TH GRADE STUDENTS

Abstract

PISA is an international exam which aims to assess whether 15-year-old students are able to convert their academic outcomes into solving daily life issues as well as analyzing high level cognitive skills. PISA evaluates the outcomes through item-based skills classification constituted by IRT technique with the help of the samples gathered from each participant country. Skill classification is a grouping process which helps to interpret the proficiency of students at different points in accordance with the ranges described for each level. For the Maths proficiency level of classes gathered by this process increasing from 1 to 6 hierarchically: the ability to give the correct answer at Level 1 only when all related information is presented and questions are clearly explained is recognized, whereas it is more frequent to recognize the correct answer at Level 6 in which high level cognitive skills are used, necessary knowledge is organized and interpreted to solve the problem. Of all the OECD countries, 15.8% of China and 10% of Japan are at Level 1, which is 52% for Turkey. An experimental study is being pursued in an attempt to enhance the Maths literacy success of 6^th grades by increasing the number of implementations in large-scale international exams with TUBITAK Research Project numbered 115K531. About 3200 students are included within the project as a longitudinal study. The equivalence of the tests to that of PISA has been assured. At this point, the study aims to determine whether the classifications made for PISA Turkey similarly range also in the younger age group, as well as aiming to find out whether the origin of the distinction between Turkey and other OECD countries in the higher levels begins at an earlier age. In Izmir province, 6^th grade students who were determined randomly by the stratification method were subjected to tests that required multiple levels of thinking and represented 6^th grade Maths subjects through test items in the form of multiple choice, true-false and open-ended. Plausible scores appropriate for PISA procedures and the cut points determined by using those scores and PISA standards were designated and proficiency levels were obtained. The proficiency levels of 6^th grade students in the sample were specified with the help of this method. When the results of the study are analyzed in detail, it is clearly seen that the percentages described in the PISA 2015 Report show a similar distribution across the classrooms.

Keywords

• Maths proficiency,PISA,rasch model

References

1. Anıl. D.. Özkan. Y. Ö. & Demir. R. E. (2015). Pisa 2012 araştirmasi ulusal ni̇hai̇ rapor. Bodin. A. (2005). What does PISA really assess? What it doesn’t? A French view 1. (June). 1–25. Edition. S. (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS. Second Edition. Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056275-en Fischbach. A.. Keller. U.. Preckel. F. & Brunner. M. (2013). PISA proficiency scores predict educational outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences. 24. 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.012 Framework. R. (2013). 2 • Figure 2.2 •. 2012–2014. Linneweber-Lammerskitten. H. & Wälti. B. (2005). Is the definition of mathematics as used in the pisa assessment framework applicable to the harmos project? ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education. 37(5). 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0028-y OECD. (2009). PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS. Oecd. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056275-en PISA. (2015). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. Oecd (Vol. I). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en Scale. P. (2014). Proficiency Scale. 1–4. Tienken. C. H. (2017). Understanding PISA Results. Kappa Delta Pi Record. 53(1). 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2017.1264806 Wu. M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 31(2–3). 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2005.05.005 Wu. M. (2009). A comparison of PISA and TIMSS 2003 achievement results in mathematics. Prospects. 39(1). 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9109-y