Bir Hesap Verebilirlik Teknolojisi Olarak Merkezi Sınavlar: Finlandiya, Estonya ve Yeni Zelanda Örnekleri

Year 2019, Volume: 14 Issue: 20, 1528 - 1563, 31.12.2019

Coşkun Erdağ

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.592335

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, hem batı toplumlarında uygulanan merkezi sınavların doğası,
öğrenci performans bilgisinin nasıl üretildiği, yayıldığı ve hangi amaçlarla
nasıl kullanıldığını anlamak ve uygulamalar arası benzerlik ve farklılıkları ortaya
koymak, hem de Türk eğitim sisteminin hesap verebilirliği ve öğrencilerin
akademik performanslarını artırma amacıyla 
merkezi sınavların nasıl kullanılması gerektiğine yönelik bir yaklaşım
ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda, öğrencileri üst düzey akademik
performansa sahip olan üç batı toplumunda uygulanan merkezi sınavlar literatürden
türetilmiş kavramsal çerçeveye dayalı olarak sistematik bir şekilde incelenmiş
ve birbirleriyle kıyaslanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, (i) öğrenci performans
bilgilerinin ulusal sınavlarla nasıl üretildiğini, (ii) bu bilginin nasıl
yayıldığını ve (iii) eğitim sistemlerinde ne için kullanıldığına ilişkin
sorulara cevap aranmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, daha çok lise düzeyinde
Matematik, okuma becerileri, fen bilimleri ve yabancı dil alanlarında merkezi
olarak geliştirilmiş ve standartlaştırılmış, çoktan seçmeli, kısa cevaplı, açık
uçlu, görev temelli performans değerlendirme ve portfolyo gibi araçlarla
güvenirlik tedbirleri alınarak öğrencilerin üst düzey bilişsel performans
ölçümleri yapılmakta, elde edilen sonuçlar norm veya ölçüt temelli olarak
değerlendirilerek sonuçları eğitim paydaşlarıyla doğrudan paylaşılmakta,
öğrenci performans verilerine dayalı olarak üretilen bilgi  eğitim ve okul sistemi içerisinde özellikle
okul yöneticilerinin ve öğretmenlerin öğretimi geliştirmeye yönelik duygu,
düşünce ve becerilerini şekillendirecek şekilde kullanılmaktadır. Performans
bilgisi okul hesap verebilirliği için kullanıldığı gibi, öğrenci hesap
verebilirliği için de kullanılmaktadır.

Keywords

Merkezi sınavlar, öğrenci hesap verebilirliği, okul hesap verebilirliği, PISA, Meta-sentez

National Examinations as an Accountability Technology: The Cases of Finland, Estonia and New Zealand

Abstract

The aim of this study is first to determine and compare the western-style
policies of national examinations with respect to their production, share and
use in primary and secondary schools, and second to discuss the implications
for Turkey and develop a policy guide for the use of national examinations in
Turkey to ensure both accountability and improvement in the quality of student
outcomes. To this end, three Western countries were systematically reviewed and
compared based on the literature-derived framework that involves (i) how the
student performance information is produced by national examinations, (ii) how
this information is disseminated, and (iii) what it is used for in the
education systems. Found out that there is a common policy of examination among
the top-performing Western nations to produce student performance information
in that they both use centrally developed, standardized, norm-reference, paper
and pen exams testing students’ high-level cognitive skills in first language,
math, science and second language especially at the end of upper secondary
schools. Performance information, aggregated or not, is shared with almost all
educational stakeholders, and used mainly for student and school accountability
purposes.  

Keywords

National examinations, Student accountability, School accountability, meta-synthesis

References

• Aydın, A., Erdağ, C., ve Taş, N. (2011). A comparative evaluation of PISA 2003-2006 Results in Reading Literacy Skills: An Example of Top-Five OECD Countries and Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 651–673.
• Aydın, A., Sarıer, Y. ve Uysal, Ş. (2012). The comparative assessment of the results of PISA Mathematical literacy in terms of socio-economic and socio-cultural variables. Education and Science, 37(164), 20–30.
• Bae, S. (2018). Redesigning systems of school accountability: A multiple measures approach to accountability and support. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(8), 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2920
• Ball, S. J. (1993). Education markets, choice and social class: The markets as a class strategy in the U.K. and the USA. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569930140101
• Ball, S. J., Junemann, C., ve Santori, D. (2017). Edu.net. globalisation and education policy mobility. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
• Best, M., Knight, P., Lietz, P., Lockwood, C., Nugroho, D., ve Tobin, M. (2013). The impact of national and international assessment programmes on education policy, particularly policies regarding resource allocation and teaching and learning practices in developing countries. 05/05/2019 tarihinde https://research.acer.edu.au/ar_misc/16 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Datnow, A., ve Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D. Plank (Eds.) Handbook on Education Policy Research (pp. 348-361). New York: Routledge Publishing.
• De Wolf, I., ve Janssens, F. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspection and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305498-0701366207
• Dillon, S. (2011). Obama to waive parts of No Child Left Behind. New York Times (September, 22, 2011).
• Directoraite of Research and Development [EARGED]. (2003). Üçüncü Uluslararası Matematik ve Fen Bilgisi Çalışması (TIMSS-1999)-Ulusal Rapor [Third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS-1999) – National Report]. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://egitek.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar%5Cdokumanlar%5Culuslararasi/timss_1999_ulusal_raporu.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Directoraite of Research and Development [EARGED]. (2004). Öğrenci Başarısını Belirleme Programı (PISA-2003), Ulusal Rapor [Student achievement evaluation programme (PISA 2003) – National Report]. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://egitek.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/pisa/ PISA_2003_ Ulusal_Nihai.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Dorn, S. (2007). Accountability Frankenstein: Understanding and taming the monster. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
• Eurydice. (2009a). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
• Eurydice. (2009b). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of results – Country level reports: Estonia. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, European Commission.
• Figlio, D. ve Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 3, 383-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9
• Gable, A., ve Lingard, B. (2015). NAPLAN data: A new policy assemblage and mode of governance in Australian schooling. Policy Studies, 37(6), 568–582.
• Hanushek, E., ve Raymond, M. (2004). The effect of school accountability systems on the level and distribution of student achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2-3), 406-415. http://dx.doi.org/-10.1162/154247604323068096
• Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., ve Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change. Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harris, D., ve Herrington, C. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086-/498995
• Holmstrom, B., ve Costa, J. R. (1986). Managerial incentives and capital management. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(4), 835–860.
• Joshi, D. ve Smith, W. (2012). Education and inequality: Implications of the World Bank’s Education Strategy 2020. In Wiseman, A. & Collins, C. (Eds.), Education strategy in the developing world: Revising the World Bank’s education policy (pp. 173-202). United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3679(2012)0000016013
• Kane, T. J. ve Staiger, D. O. (2002). The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Imprecise School Accountability Measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (4), 91–114.
• Klees, S. J. (2008). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: Misleading analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4), 311–348.
• Lee, J., ve Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797–832. doi:10.3102/00028312041004797
• Levin, H. M. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. The School Review, 82(3), 363–391.
• Lincove, J. (2009). Are markets good for girls? The World Bank and neoliberal education reforms in developing countries. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, X(1), 19-35.
• Major C. ve Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An Introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the ınformation explosion in social science research. London: Routledge.
• McDonnell, L., ve Elmore, R. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 157-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002133
• McNeil, M., ve Klein, A. (2011). Obama outlines NCLB flexibility: Plan waves cornerstone provisions of law. Education Week, 31(5), 1 & 20-22.
• Milgrom, P., ve Roberts, J. (1988). An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 154–179.
• Mundy, K. (2006). Education for all and the new development compact. Review of Education, 52, 23-48.
• Noblit, G.W. and Hare, R.D. (1988) Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
• O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72 (3), 293–329.
• Olmedo, A., ve Wilkins, A. (2017). Governing through parents: A genealogical enquiry of education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(4), 573–589.
• Robertson, S. L. (2015). What teachers need to know about the ‘global education reform movement. In G. Little (Ed.), Global education ‘reform’. Building resistance and solidarity (p. 10–17).Croydon: Manifesto Press.
• Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., ve Wilder, T. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. NY: Teachers College Press and the Economic Policy Institute.
• Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (p.128–144). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Smith, W., ve Rowland, J. (2014). Parent trigger laws and the promise of parental voice. Journal of School Choice, 8(1), 94-112.
• Springer, M. G. (2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review. doi: 10.1016/j.econedrev.2007.06.004
• Stecher, B., ve Kirby, N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. Rand Cooporation. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/ monographs/2004/RAND_MG136.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 211-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.-1007/s10833-009-9105-2
• Tan, Sophia HueyShan. (2010). Singapore’s Educational Reforms: The Case for Un-Standardizing Curriculum and Reducing Testing. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6 (4), 50-58.
• Tobin, M., Lietz, P., Nugroho, D., Vivekanandan, R., ve Nyamkhuu, T. (2015). Using large-scale assessments of students’ learning to inform education policy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific region. Melbourne: ACER and Bangkok: UNESCO.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB] (2018) Mutlu çocuklar güçlü Türkiye: 2023 eğitim vizyonu. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/ doc/2023_EGITIM_ VIZYONU.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Türkoğlu, M.E. (2015). Öğretmen hesap verebilirliği: Özel bir okulda durum çalışması. Dissertation Thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Eskişehir Turkey. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://openaccess.ogu.edu.tr:8080/ xmlui/-bitstream/handle/11684/363/10022484.pdf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Verger, Antoni; Lluís Parcerisa ve Clara Fontdevila (2018). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: a political sociology of global education reforms, Educational Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1522045
• Woessman, L. (2004). The effect heterogeneity of central exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. CESifo Working Paper No. 1330.
• Woessman, L. (2007). International evidence on school competition, autonomy, and accountability: A review. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 473-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619560701313176
• *Crooks, Terry (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: New Zealand. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 71–77.
• *Delil, A. ve Tetik, B. Y. (2015). 8. sınıf merkezi sınavlardaki matematik sorularının TIMSS-2015 bilişsel alanlarına göre analizi. CBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13 (4), p: 165-184.
• *Incikabi, L., Kurnaz, M. A., ve Pektas, M. (2013). An investigation of mathematics and science questions in entrance examinations for secondary education ınstitutions in Turkey. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 352-364.
• Koç, H.; Sönmez, Ö. F. ve Çiftçi, T. (2013). ÖSS, YGS Ve LYS sınavlarındaki coğrafya sorularının bloom taksonomisi bilişsel alan düzeyi açısından analizi. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, 36, 257-275.
• MEB (2016). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı merkezî sistem sınav yönergesi. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/1790.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• MEB (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı ortaöğretime geçiş yönergesi. 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_03/261919-12_yonerge.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• MEB (2018a). 2018 Liselere geçiş sistemi (LGS): Merkezi sinavla yerleşen öğrencilerin performansi. 10/05/2019 tarihinde http://www.meb.gov.tr/-meb_iys_dosyalar/2018 _12/17094056_2018_lgs_rapor.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• MEB (2018b). Ortaöğretime geçiş tercih ve yerleştirme kilavuzu 2018. 11/05/2019 tarihindehttps://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_06/ 29113510_2018_YILI_TERCYH_VE_YERLEYTYRME_KILAVUZU.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• New Zealand Ministry of Education [NZMoE] (2010) OECD Review on evaluation and assessment frameworks for ımproving school outcomes: New Zealand Background Report
• New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) (2019). Understanding NCEA, 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/understanding-ncea/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• NZQA (2017a). NZQA examination development process. 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/qualifications-and-standards/qualifications/ncea/NZQA-Examination-Development-Process.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• NZQA (2017b). NZQA examination marking process. 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/qualifications-and-standards/qualifications/ncea/NZQA-Examination-Marking-Process.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• NZQA (2018). Annual report on NCEA and New Zealand Scholarship data and statistics (2017), 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/About-us/Publications/stats-reports/ncea-annual-report-2017.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• NZQA (2019a). NZQA NCEA external assessment: Grade score marking, 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/ncea-exams-and-portfolios/external/grade-score-marking/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• NZQA (2019b). NCEA results, 10/05/2019 tarihinde https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/ncea/ncea-results/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
• OECD (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en
• OECD (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators, OECD publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en
• OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787-/9789264266490-en
• Öğrenci Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi [ÖSYM] (2018). 2018 YKS değerlendirme raporu. 11/05/2019 tarihinde https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2018/GENEL/ YKSDegrapor06082018.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• ÖSYM (2019a). Yükseköğretim kurumlari sınavı temel yeterlilik testi (TYT). 11/05/2019 tarihinde https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2018/ YKS/TYT_01072018.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• ÖSYM. (2019). 2019 yükseköğretim kurumlari sinavi (YKS) kilavuzu. 11/05/2019 tarihinde https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2019/YKS/kilavuz_11022019.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.