Öğretmenlerin Öğrencilerine Verdikleri Dönütlerin Tiplerinin ve Niteliklerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Keywords

• -

Öğretmenlerin Öğrencilerine Verdikleri Dönütlerin Tiplerinin ve Niteliklerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı öğretmenlerin öğrencilerine verdikleri sözlü ve yazılı dönütlerin tiplerini belirlemek ve niteliklerini incelemektir. Bu amaçla, bir ilköğretim okulunda 3 sınıf öğretmeni ile yürütülmüş olan çalışmanın verileri özel durum yöntemi kapsamında gözlem ve doküman incelemesi teknikleri kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Sözel dönütlerin belirlenmesi amacıyla her bir öğretmenin matematik dersinde gözlemler yapılmıştır. Yazılı dönütler için ise, öğrencilerin matematik defterleri incelenmiştir. Veriler, Tunstall ve Gipps’in (1996) dönüt sınıflandırması kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları öğretmenlerin değerlendirici dönütü daha fazla kullandıklarını, betimleyici dönütleri ise etkili şekilde kullanmadıklarını göstermiştir. Bu durumun en önemli nedenleri olarak, öğretmenlerin konu ile ilgili olarak yeterince eğitim almamış olmaları ve öğrencilerinden beklentilerinin düşük olması gösterilebilir. Çalışmanın sonunda, öğretmenlerin dönüt kullanımı ile ilgili bilgi, beceri ve farkındalığını artırıcı tedbirlerin alınması yönünde önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Keywords

• Biçimlendirici Ölçme ve Değerlendirme, Dönüt, Öğrenme.

References

1. Adrienne, R., 1997. Feedback: Enhancing the Performance of Adult Learners with Learning Disabilities, National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center, Washington, DC.
2. Assessment Reform Group (ARG), 2002. Assessment for Learning: 10 principles, London: Institute of Education.
3. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D., 2002. Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. London, UK: King’s College, London School of Education.
4. Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. London: Kings College School of Education.
5. Broadfoot, P., 1979. Assessment, Schools and Society. London: Methuen.
6. Brophy, J., 1981. Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51 (1), 5-32.
7. Butler, R., 1987. Task-İnvolving and Ego-İnvolving Properties of Evaluation: Effects of Different Feedback Conditions on Motivational Perceptions, İnterest and Performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (4), 474-482.
8. Butler, R., 1988. Enhancing and Undermining İntrinsic Motivation: The Effects of Task-İnvolving and Ego-İnvolving Evaluation on İnterest and Performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58 (1), 1-14.http://rer.sagepub.com/cgi/external_ref?access_num =A1988M090600002&link_type=ISI

9. Clarke, S., 2003. Enriching Feedback in the Primary Classroom. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
10. Cotton, K., 2001. Expectations and Student Outcomes. 12.10.2008 tarihinde http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.html adresinden alınmıştır.
11. Crooks, .J., 1988. The İmpact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review of Educational Research, 58 (4), 438-481.
12. Çepni, S., 2007. Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
13. Davies, P., 2003. Closing the Communications Loop on the Computerized Peer-Assessment of Essays. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11 (1), 41-54.
14. Elawar, M.C. and Corno, L., 1985. A Factorial Experiment in Teachers’ Written Feedback on Student Homework: Changing Student Behavior a Little Rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162-173.
15. Ekiz, D., 2003. Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntem ve Metotlarına Giriş. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
16. Fullan, M. G., 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17. Fuller, F. F., 1969. Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization. American Education Research Journal, 6 (2), 207-226.
18. Gallagher, J.J., 2000. Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 100 (6), 310-318.
19. Gipps, C. V., 1994. Beyond Testing. London: The Farmer Press.
20. Glover, P. and Thomas, R., 1999. Coming Grips with Continuous Assessment. Assessment in Education, 6 (1), 117-127.
21. Good, T.L. and Brophy, J.E., 1987. Looking in Classrooms. New York: Harper and Row.
22. Harlen, W., 2003. Enhancing İnquiry Through Formative Assessment. San Francisco, Exploratorium.
23. Harlen, W. and Deakin Crick, R., 2003 Testing and Motivation for Learning. Assessment in Education, 10 (2), 169-207.
24. Harlen, W., Gipps, C., Broadfoot, P. and Nuttal, D., 1992. Assessment and the improvement of education. The Curriculum Journal, 3 (3), 215- 230.
25. Hattie, J. A., 1999. Influences on Student Learning.
26. http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/staff/index.cfm?P=8650 adresinden 12.10.2008 tarihinde alınmıştır.
27. Hattie, J., 2002. Who Says Formative Assessment Matters? National Regional Assessment Seminar, Nisan 2002.
28. Hawk, K. and Hill, J., 2001 The Challenge of Formative Assessment in Secondary Classrooms, SPANZ Journal, Eylül, 2001.
29. Higgins, R., Hartley, P. and Skelton, A., 2002. The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of Assessment Feedback in Student Learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1):53-64.
30. Huxham, M., 2007. Fast and Effective Feedback: Are Model Answers the Answer? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32 (6), 601-611.
31. Hyland, F., 1998. The İmpact of Teacher Written Feedback on İndividual Writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
32. Kohn, A., 1993. Punished by Rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
33. Lee,I., 2008. Understanding Teachers’ Written Feedback Practices in Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69-85.
34. McCallum, B., Hargreaves, E., and Gipps, C., 2000. Learning: The Pupil’s Voice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30 (2), 275–289.
35. McTighe, J. and Conner,K., 2005. Seven Practices for Effective Learning. Educational Leadership, November, 11-17.
36. Odabaşı Çimer, S., 2000. Concerns and Perceptions of Beginning Science Teachers. The University of Nottingham, İngiltere, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
37. Odabaşı Çimer, S., 2004. An İnvestigation into Biology Teachers’ Perceptions of Calssroom Assessment in Secondary Schools in Turkey. The University of Nottingham, İngiltere, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
38. Orsmond, P., Merry, S. and Reiling, K., 2005. Biology Students' Utilization of Tutors' Formative Feedback: A Qualitative İnterview Study, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 369-386.
39. Ramaprasad, A., 1983. On the Definition of Feedback. Behavioural Science. 28, 4-13.
40. Ramsden, P., 1988. Studying Learning: İmproving Teaching. (Ed. P. Ramsden), Improving Learning: New Perspectives. Kogan Page.
41. Ronayne, M., 2002. Marking and Feedback. SET: Research Information for Teachers 2, 8-11.
42. Ross, J.A., Hannay, L. and Hogaboam-Gray, A., 2001. The İmpact of Secondary School Reform on Student Assessment. Final Report of Ministry of Education and Training Transfer Grant, September 2000.
43. Rowntree, D., 1987. Assessing Students: How Shall We Know Them? London: Kogan Page.
44. Rubie-Davies, C. M., 2006. Teacher Expectations and Student Self- Perceptions: Exploring Relationships. Psychology in the Schools.43 (5), 537-52.
45. Sadler, D.R., 1989. Formative Assessment and the Design of İnstructional Systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
46. Stiggins, R. J., 2000. Classroom Assessment: A History of Neglect, A Future of İmmense Potantial. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
47. Tunstall, P. and Gipps, C., 1996. Teacher Feedback to Young Children in Formative Assessment: A Typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22 (4), 389-404.
48. Türnüklü, E. B., 2003. Türkiye ve İngiltere’deki Matematik Öğretmenlerinin Değerlendirme Biçimleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24 : 108-118
49. Weaver, R.M., 2006. Do Students Value Feedback? Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (3), 379-394.
50. Wiggins, G., 1998. Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to İnform and İmprove Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.