BİYOLOJİ EĞİTİMİNİ DEĞERLENDİRMEDE KULLANILAN SORU TİPLERİ HAKKINDA LİSE VE MESLEK LİSESİ ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN GÖRÜŞLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma Erzurum il merkezindeki 14 lise ve 11 meslek lisesinde yapılmıştır. Biyoloji dersi alan 351 lise ve 234 meslek lisesi öğrencisine anket uygulanarak biyoloji eğitimini değerlendirmede kullanılan soru tipleri ile ilgili görüşleri alınmıştır. Verilerin analizinde X2 ‘‘uyum kontrol testi’’ uygulanmıştır. Alınan sonuçlara önemlilik dereceleri verilmiştir. Neticede, liselerde en çok kullanılan soru tipleri sırasıyla ‘‘Klâsik soru (kısa cevaplı)’’, ‘‘Klâsik soru (uzun cevaplı)’’ ve ‘‘Birkaç soru tipinin bir arada kullanılması’’ dır. Meslek liselerinde ise en çok kullanılan soru tipleri ‘‘Klâsik soru (uzun cevaplı)’’, ‘‘Klâsik soru (kısa cevaplı)’’ ve ‘‘Birkaç soru tipinin bir arada kullanılması’’ soru tipleridir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoloji eğitimi
• Soru tipleri
• Lise
• Meslek lisesi
• Erzurum
• Türkiye

THE VIEWS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL AND VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS REGARDING THE QUESTION TYPES USED TO EVALUATE BIOLOGY COURSES

Abstract

This study has been carried out in fourteen high school and eleven vocational high school located in the center of Erzurum. A questionnaire has been administered to 351 high school and 234 vocational high school students’ view on regarding the guestion types used to evaluate biology courses. The results have been evaluated by using the X2test and have been given their significancy degrees. As a result, according to the views of the high school pupils, the most used question types in biology exams were essay type (short-answered), essay type (long-answered) and employing mixed question types together respectively. According to the views of the vocational high school students, the most used question types in biology exams were essay (long-answered), essay (short-answered) and employing mixed question types together respectively.

Keywords

• Biology education
• Question types
• High school
• Vocational High school
• Erzurum
• Turkey

References

1. Aschbacher, P.M., 1994. Helping Educators to Develop and Use Alternative Assessments: Barriers And Facilitators, Educational Policy, 8 (2), 202-224.
2. Ayas, A., Çepni, S., Jhonson, D. ve Turgut F.,1997. Kimya Öğretimi,YÖK/Dünya Bankası Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi, Ankara.
3. Baume, D. ve Yorke, M., 2002. The reliability of assessment by Portfolio on a Course to Develop and Accredit Teachers in Higher Education, Studies in Higher Education, 27 (1), 8-25.
4. Bell, B. ve Cowie, B., 2001. The Characteristics of Formative Assessment in Science Education, Sci.Ed., 85, 536-553.
5. Beydoğan, H.Ö., 1998. Okullarda Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Yayın No: 72, Erzurum.
6. Biggs, J., 1996. Assessing Learning Quality: Reconciling in Intuitional, Staff And Educational Demands, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21 (1), 5-16.
7. Biggs, J., 1998. Assessment And Classroom Learning: A Role For Summative Assessment,
8. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,5 (1),103-111.

9. Black, P. ve Harrison, C., 2001. Feedback in Questioning and Marking: The Science Teacher’s Role in Formative Assessment, School Science Review, 82 (301), 55-61.
10. Black, P., 2001. Dreams, Strategies and Systems: Portraits of Assessment Past, Present and Future, Assessment in Education, 8 (1), 65-85.
11. Black, P.,1995. Assessment and Feedback in Science Education, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 257-279.
12. Bonwell, C.C., 1997. Using Active Learning as Assessment in The Postsecondary Classroom, Clearing House, 71 (2), 73-77.
13. Brookhart, S.M. ve DeVoge, J.G., 1999. Testing a Theory about The Role of Classroom Assessment in Student Motivation and Achievement, Applied Measurement in Education, 12 (3), 409-426.
14. Brookhart, S.M., 1997. Effects of The Classroom Assessment Environment On Mathematics and Science Achievement, Journal of Educational Research, 90 (6), 323-331.
15. Brookhart, S.M., 2001. Successful Students’ Formative and Summative Uses of Assessment Information, Assessment in Education, 8 (2), 154-168.
16. Butler, A., Phillmann, K.-B. ve Smart, L.,2001. Active Learning Within A Lecture: Assessing The Impact Of Short, In-Class Writing Exercises, Methods and Techniques, 28 (4), 257-259.
17. Columba, L., 2001. Daily classroom assessment, Education, 122 (2), 372-375.
18. Cowie, B. ve Bell, B., 1999. A Model of Formative Assessment in Science Education, Assessment in Education, 6 (1), 101-116.
19. Diez, M.E., 1997. Assessment as a Lever in Educational Reform, National Form, 77 (1), 27- 31.
20. Dindar, H., 2000. Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg., 20,1.145-148, Ankara. Dindar, H., 1995. Ortaöğretim Kurumlarında Biyoloji Öğretiminin Yapı ve Sorunları,
21. Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniv., Fen Bilimleri Enst., Ankara. (yayınlanmamış)
22. Dochy, F., 2001. A New Assessment Era: Different Needs, New Challenges, Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 2, 11-20.
23. English, L., Bonanno, H., Ihnatko, T., Webb, C. ve Jones, J., 1999, Learning Through Writing in A First-Year Accounting Course, Journal of Accounting Education, 17, 221-254.
24. Feller, M., 1994. Open-Book Testing and Education for Future, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 235-238.
25. Fowell, S.L.,Southgate, L.J. ve Bligh, J.G.,1999. Evaluating Assessment: The Missing Link., Medical Education,33,276-281.
26. Hargreaves, E., 2001. Assessment for learning in the Multigrade Classroom, International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 553-560.
27. Harwood, E.M., 1999. Student Perceptions of The Effects of Classroom Assessment Techniques (Cats), Journal of Accounting Education, 17, 51-70.
28. Heverly, M. ve Fitt, D.X., 1994. Classroom Assessment of Student Competencies, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 19 (3), 215-225.
29. Higginns,R. ve Hartley, P. ve Skelton, A., 2002. The Conscientious Consumer:
30. Reconsidering The Role Of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning, Studies in Higher Education 27 (1), 53-64.
31. Holliday, W.G.,Yore, L.D. ve Alvermann, D.E., 1994. The Reading-Science Learning- Writing Connection: Breakthroughs, Barriers and Promises, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-894.
32. İşman, A., ve Eskicumalı, A., 2000. Eğitimde Plânlama ve Değerlendirme, Değişim Yayınları, Adapazarı.
33. Kaptan, F., 1999. Fen Bilgisi Öğretimi, Milli Eğitim Basımevi, İstanbul.
34. Kaya, E. 2001. Ortaöğretimde Biyoloji Öğretiminin Yapı ve Sorunları (Erzurum Örneği), Doktora Tezi, A.Üniv., Fen Bilimleri Enst., Erzurum. (yayınlanmamış)
35. Klecker, B.M., 2000. Assessing Students in A Graduate Tests and Measurement Course: Changing The Classroom Climate, College Student Journal, 34 (1),155-161.
36. Küçükahmet L., 1999. Öğretimde Plânlama ve Değerlendirme, 10. Baskı, Alkım yayınevi,
37. İstanbul.
38. Linn, R.L. ve Gronlund, 1995. N.E., Measurement and Assessment in Teaching, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA
39. Lynn, C., 2001. Daily Classroom Assessment, Education, 122 (2), 372-375.
40. Morrison, K., 1994. Uniformity and Diversity in Assessment: An International Perspective And Agenda, A Journal of Comparative Education, 24 (1), 5-16.
41. Rivard, L., P., 1994. A Review of Writing To Learn In cience: Implications of Practice And Research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 969-984.
42. Russell, N. ve Willinsky, J., 1997. Fourth Generation Educational Evaluation: The Impact of A Post-Modern Paradigm on School Based Evaluation, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (3), 187-199.
43. Sambell, K., McDowell, L. ve Brown, S., 1997. ”But is it fair”: An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23 (4), 349-371.
44. Stiggins, R.J., 1999. Assessment, student confidence and school success, Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (3), 191-199.
45. Stiggins, R.J., 2002. Assessment Crisis; The Absence of Assessment for Learning, Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 758-766.
46. Struyf, E.,Vandenberghe, R. ve Lens, W., 2001. The Evaluation Practice of Teachers as A Learning Opportunity for Students, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 215-238. Theophilides, C. ve Dionysiou, O.,1996. The Major Functions of Open-Book Examination at the University Level: A Factor Analytic Study, Studies in Educational Evaluation,
47. (2),157-170.
48. Tillema, H.H. ve Smith, K., 2000. Learning From Portfolios: Differential Use of Feedback in Portfolio Construction, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26,193-210.
49. Torrance, H. ve Pryor, J., 2001. Developing Formative Assessment in the Classroom: Using Action Research to Explore and Modify Theory, British Educational Research Journal, 27 (5), 616-631.
50. Towns, M.H. ve Grant E.R., 1997. “I Believe I Will Go Out of This Class Actually Knowing Something”: Cooperative Learning Activities In Physical Chemistry, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34 (8), 819-835.
51. Treagust, D.F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallager, J.J. ve Parker, J., 2001. Using Assessment as a Guide in Teaching for Understanding: A Case Study of A Middle School Science Class Learning About Sound, Science Education, 85, 137-157.
52. Turgut, M. F., Baker, D., Cunningham, R., ve Piburn, M., 1997. İlköğretim Fen Öğretimi, Yök/Dünya Bankası, Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi, Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitimi, Ankara.
53. Turgut, M.F., 1997. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, Onuncu Baskı, Tıpkı Basım, Ankara.
54. Wiske, M.S.,Sick, M. ve Wirsig, S., 2001, New Technologies to support teaching for understanding, International Journal of Educational research,35,483-501.
55. Yıldız, N., Akbulut Ö. ve Bircan H., 1999. İstatistiğe Giriş, Aktif Yayınevi, Erzurum. Yılmaz, H., 1996. Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, Birinci Baskı, Özel Eğitim Basım
56. Yayım Dağıtım, Konya.
57. Zeichner, K. ve Wray S., 2001. The Teaching Portfolio in US Teacher Education Programs: What We Know and What We Need to Know, Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 613-621.