ASSESSMENT PREFERENCES OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS ABOUT MATHEMATICS COURSE

Abstract

This is a descriptive study aiming to investigate assessment preferences of pre-service teachers about mathematics course. As the data collection tool, “Assessment Preferences Inventory (API)” was used. This inventory was developed by Birenbaum (1994). As the result of the study, it was found that pre-service teachers demand information about assessment methods before they got prepared for the exams and they prefer measurement tools revealing cognitive processes. In line with these findings, it can be suggested that pre-service teachers ought to be informed about assessment methods at the beginning and at the end of the academic term and they can be assessed through techniques that bring their cognitive processes to light.

Keywords

• Assessment Preferences Inventory, Measurement-Evaluation, Traditional and Alternative Evaluation

SINIF ÖĞRETMENLİĞİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ MATEMATİK DERSİNE İLİŞKİN ÖLÇME - DEĞERLENDİRME TERCİHLERİ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, sınıf öğretmenliği bölümüne devam eden öğretmen adaylarının matematik dersindeki değerlendirme tercihlerini belirlemeye yönelik tarama modelinde betimsel bir çalışmadır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Çukurova Üniversitesi İlköğretim Bölümü Sınıf Öğretmenliği Ana Bilim Dalına devam eden 154 öğretmen adayı oluşturmuştur. Veri toplama aracı olarak Birenbaum (1994) tarafından geliştirilen “Değerlendirme Tercihleri Ölçeği (DTÖ)” kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının değerlendirmeye hazırlık aşamasında ve sonrasında bilgi istedikleri, bilişsel süreçleri ortaya koyacak nitelikte ölçme araçlarını tercih ettikleri bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuçlar doğrultusunda, öğretim döneminin başında ve sonrasında nasıl değerlendirilme yapılacağı konusunda öğretmen adaylarına gerekli yönergelerin verilmesi ve bilişsel süreçleri ortaya çıkaracak nitelikte değerlendirmeler yapılması önerilebilir.

Keywords

• Değerlendirme Tercihleri Ölçeği, Ölçme-Değerlendirme, Geleneksel ve Alternatif Ölçme-Değerlendirme

References

1. Archbald, D. A. ve Grant, T. J. (2000). What’s on the test? An analytical framework and findings from an examination of teachers’ math tests. Educational Assessment, 6(4), 221–256.
2. Baeten, M., Dochy, F. ve Struyven, K. (2008). Students’ approaches to learning and assessment preferences in a portfolio-based learning environment. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 36, 359-374.
3. Beller, M. ve Gafni, N. (2000). Can ıtem format (multiple choice vs. open-ended) account for gender differences in Mathematics achievement? Sex Roles, 42 (1/2), 1-21.
4. Ben-Chaim, D. ve Zoller, U. (1997). Examination-type preferences of secondary school students and their teachers in the science disciplines. Instructional Science, 25 (5), 347-367.
5. Birenbaum M. ve Feldman, R. A. (1998). Relationships between learning patterns and attitudes towards two assessment formats. Educational Research, 40(1), 90-98.
6. Birenbaum, M. (1994). Toward adaptive assessment - the student's angle. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 239-255.
7. Birenbaum, M. (1997). Assessment preferences and their relationship to learning strategies and orientations. Higher Education, 33, 71-84.
8. Birenbaum, M. ve Rosenau, S. (2006). Assessment preferences, learning orientations, and learning strategies of pre-service and in-service teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 213-225.

9. Birgin O. (2007). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirme konusundaki okur-yazarlık düzeylerinin incelenmesi E. Erginer (Ed.), XVI. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi (Cilt 3, 498-503). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
10. Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
11. Black, P. ve Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy ve Practice, 5(1), 7-68.
12. Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279-301.
13. Brown, G. T. L. ve Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2007). Students’ conception of assessment and mathematics: Self regulation raises achievement. Australian Journal of Education ve Development Psychology, 7, 63-74.
14. Bryant, D. D. (2001). The perception of secondary mathematics teachers in Christian schools on the effectiveness of alternative assessment on academic achievement. Unpublished master dissertation. University of Memphis, Memphis.
15. Büyüköztürk Ş. ve Gülbahar Y. (2010). Assessment preferences of higher education students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 41, 55-72.
16. Çakan, M. (2004). Öğretmenlerin ölçme-değerlendirme uygulamaları ve yeterlik düzeyleri: İlk ve ortaöğretim. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37( 2), 99-114.
17. Carnevale, J. (2006). The Impact of self-assessment on mathematics teachers beliefs and reform practices. Unpublished Master dissertation. University of Toronto Ontario, Canada.
18. Cooney, T. J. , Sanchez, W. B. ve Ice, N. F. (2001). Interpreting teachers’ movement toward reform in mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 11(1), 10-14.
19. Doğan, D. C. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının başarıları belirlenirken tercih ettikleri durum belirleme yöntemlerini etkileyen faktörler ve bu yöntemlere ilişkin görüşleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
20. Eisner, E. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 658-660.
21. Gijbels, D. ve Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: can formative assessment make a difference?. Educational Studies, 32(4), 399-409.
22. Gülbahar, Y. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Değerlendirme tercihleri ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35. 148-161.
23. Güven, B. ve Eskitürk, M. (2007), Sınıf öğretmenlerinin ölçme ve değerlendirmede kullandıkları yöntem ve teknikler. E. Erginer (Ed.), XVI. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi (Cilt 3. 504-511). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
24. Jennings, S. ve Pankhurst, K. (1999). To what extend can national curriculum tests in mathematics inform and guide teaching?. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 30(1), 1-10.
25. Karaca, E. (2003). Öğretmen adaylarının ölçme ve değerlendirme yeterliliklerine ilişkin lanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. algıları. Yayım
26. Krulick, S. , Rudnick, J. ve Milou, E. (2003). Teaching Mathematics in the middle school. Newyork: Pearson Education.
27. Kulm, G. (1993). A theory of classroom assessment and teacher practice in mathematics. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/000001 2 Mart 2006’da elde edilmiştir: 9b/80/29/a6/c6.pdf
28. Long, V. (2001). The myth of objectivity in mathematics assessment. Mathematics Teacher, 94(1), 31-37.
29. Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effect of traditional standardized testing ob direct writing assessment. Internet’ten 28 Mayıs 2007’de elde edilmiştir: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kmab9905.htm.
30. Mcmillian, (2004). Classroom assessment principles and practice for effective ınstruction. Boston: Pearson Education.
31. Meir Ben-Hur, (2003). Assessment Concept-Rich Mathematics Instruction: Building a strong foundation for reasoning and problem solving. Internet’ten 13 Aralık 2008’de elde edilmiştir:http://www.ascd.org.
32. Morgan C. ve Watson A. (2002). The Interpretative nature of teachers' assessment of students' mathematics: Issues for equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(2), 78-110.
33. NCTM, (2000). Principles and standards for school Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
34. Newmann, F. M. ve Wehlage G. G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
35. Özçelik, D. A. (2010). Ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: PegemA Yayınları..
36. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. ve Glaser, R. (2003). Knowing what students know the science and design of educational assessment, Washington: National Academy Press.
37. Romberg, T. A., Carpenter, T. P. ve Kwako, J. (2005). Standart based reform and teaching for understanding. T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter ve F. Dremock (Ed.), Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters (3-26). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates Publishers.
38. Romberg, T. A. ve Lange, J. (2005). Research in Assessment Practices. In T. A. Romberg, T. P. Carpenter ve F. Dremock (Ed.), Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters (279-307). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assosiates Publishers.
39. Saxe, G. B., Franke, M. L. Gearhart, M., Howard, S. ve Crockett, M. (1997). Teachers’ shifting assessment practices in the context of educational reform in mathematics. CSE Technical Report 471, CRESST University of California, Los Angeles. Internet’ten 12 Kasım 2006’da elde edilmiştir: http:// www.cresst.org.
40. Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453-472.
41. Semerci, Ç. (2008). Eğitimde Ölçme ve değerlendirme. E. Karip (Ed.), Ölçme ve Değerlendirme. (1-15). Ankara: PegemA Yayınları.
42. Senk, S. L., Beckmann C. E. ve Thompson, D. R. (1997). Assessment and grading in high school Mathematics classroom. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 187-215.
43. Sheffield, L. J. ve Cruikshank, D. E. (2000). Teaching and learning elementary and middle school Mathematics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
44. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
45. Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Assessment, student confidence, and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 191-198.
46. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
47. Struyven, K., Dochy, F. ve Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.
48. Volante, L. ve Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates’assessment literacy: Implications for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal for Education, 30(3), 749-770.
49. Watering, G. V., Gijbels, D., Dochy, F. ve Rijt, J. V. (2008). Students’ assessment preferences, perceptions of assessment and their relationships to study results. High Education, 56, 645-658.
50. Watt, H. M. G. (2005). Attitudes to the use of alternative assessment methods in mathematics: A study with secondary mathematics teacher in Sydney, Australia. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 21-44.
51. Webb, D. C. (1992). Assessment of student’ knowledge of mathematics: Steps toward a theory. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, (pp. 661-683). New York: Macmillan Library.
52. Webb, D. C. (2001). Instructionally embedded assessment practices of two middle grades mathematics teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
53. Zeidner, M. (1987). Essay versus multiple-choice type classroom exams: The student's perspective. The Journal of Educational Research, 80(6), 352- 358.
54. Zoller U. ve Ben Chaim, D. (1989). Interaction between examination type, anxiety state, and academic achievement in college science; an action-oriented research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(1), 65-77.
55. Zoller, U., Ben-Chaim, D. ve Kamm, S. D. (1997). Examination-type preferences of College Science students and their Faculty in Israel and USA: A Comparative Study. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-10.
56. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences
57. Summer 2012, 10(3), 477-479