Performans Değerlendirmelerinde Dereceli Puanlama Anahtarı: Yazı Anlatım Örneği

Year 2017, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 683 - 703, 20.12.2017

Veda Aslım Yetiş

https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.369223

Abstract

Öğrencinin tüm bilgi, beceri, alt beceri ve kazanımlarını sergilemesini gerektiren yazılı anlatım çalışmaları, özellikle de yabancı dilde zor ve karmaşık bir süreç olup, değerlendirilmesi de zahmetli, yorucu ve zaman alıcıdır. Bu sebeplerle de, performans kategorisi içinde yer alan yazılı anlatım beceresinin ürün değerlendirmelerinin geçerliliği ve güvenirliği daima sorgulanmış, bu değerlendirmeyi olumsuz etkileyen etken olarak da en çok değerlendiricinin kendisi gösterilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, yazılı anlatım değerlendirme sürecinin en yapıcı biçimde gerçekleştirilmesi, daha verimli sonuçlara vesile olması amacıyla literatür, çalışmamızın da odak noktası olan, değerlendirme ölçeklerini kullanmayı önermiştir. Bu çalışma betimsel olup, amacı daha çok yazılı anlatım becerisini temel alarak söz konusu ölçekleri nitelemek, özelliklerini ve türlerini tanıtmak ve performans ölçmeği hedefleyen çalışmaların değerlendirmelerine getirdikleri başlıca katkılarından söz etmektir.

Keywords

Değerlendirme ölçeği, performans, geçerlilik /güvenirlik, yazılı anlatım

Rubrics for Performance Assessment: Examples for Writing

Abstract

Requiring students to display all knowledge, skills, sub-skills, and outcomes, writing activities are especially complicated and difficult in a foreign language, and assessing them is also another onerous, tiring, and time-consuming process. Thus, the reliability and validity of product assessment procedures employed for writing skill, which is in performance category, have always been questioned, and frequently the rater has been reported as the most significant factor influencing the assessment procedure negatively. In this regard, relevant literature advises to utilize rubrics, which is the focus of the present study, in order to conduct a more constructive assessment procedure and to obtain more efficient results. Being descriptive, this research aims to describe these rubrics based on writing skill, to introduce their features and types, and to report the contributions they have made to performance assessment procedures.

Keywords

Rubric, performance, validity/reliability, writing

Les Grilles d’Evaluation Critériée pour Evaluer des Performances: Exemples pour la Production Ecrite

Abstract

La production écrite est un processus complexe, notamment en langue étrangère, requérant de l’apprenant la mise en oeuvre de connaissances, compétences, sous-compétences, acquisitions et dont, de par ces faits, l’évaluation est complexe, laborieuse et demande du temps. La validité et la fidélité de l’évaluation des productions d’écrits, qui se place dans la catégorie d’évaluation de performance, ont toujours été remises en question et le facteur le plus évoqué concernant cette déficience a toujours été l’évaluateur lui-même. Afin d’assurer un processus d’évaluation de la production écrite plus structuré, de réaliser une évaluation conduisant à des résultats plus efficaces, les études menées conseillent l’usage des grilles d’évaluation critériée qui constituent l’objet de cette présente étude descriptive. L’objectif, en prenant base la compétence de production écrite, est de présenter ces grilles, de faire part de leurs caractéristiques, leurs genres et de leurs principaux apports concernant l’évaluation des activités visant la mesure des performances.

Keywords

Grille d’évaluation critériée, performance, validité/fidélité, production écrite

References

• Ahoniemi, T. & Reinikainen, T., 2006. ALOHA-a grading tool for semi-automatic assessment of mass programming courses. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea conference on Computing education research: Koli Calling 2006 (pp. 139-140).
• Allardi, J.-F. & Fournier, J.-M., 1996. Le style des élèves. Le Français Aujourd’hui, 116, 34-42. Andrade, H. G. (2005). Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College teaching, 53(1), 27-31.
• Arter, J. & McTighe, J., 2001. Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. California: Corwin Press.
• Bachman, L.F., 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bainer, D. & Porter, F., 1992. Teacher concerns with the implementation of holistic Scoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago.
• Berthiaume, D., David, J. & David, T., 2011. Réduire la subjectivité lors de l’évaluation des apprentissages à l’aide d’une grille critériée: Repères théoriques et applications à un enseignement interdisciplinaire. Revues Internationale de Pédagogie de l’Enseignement Supérieur, 27(2). Consulté le 25 Février 2017 à l’adresse: http://ripes.revues.org/524
• Beyreli, L. & Arı, G., 2009. Yazma performansını değerlendirmede çözümleyici puanlama yönergesi kullanımı-Değerlendirmeciler arası uyum araştırması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(1): 85-125.
• Bourguigon, C., 2010. Pour enseigner les langues avec le CECRL-Clés et conseils. Paris: Delagrave.
• Bresciani, M.J., Zelna, C.L., & Anderson, J.A., 2004. Assessing student learning and development. A handbook for practitioners. United States: NASPA.
• Breton, G., Lepage, S. & Rousse, M., 2010. Réussir le DELF B1-CIEP. Paris: Didier.
• Brookhart, S. M., 2013. How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Virginia: Ascd.
• Brookhart, S. M., & Chen, F., 2015. The quality and effectiveness of descriptive rubrics. Educational Review, 67(3), 343-368.
• Campbell, A., 2005. Application of ICT and rubrics to the assessment process where professional judgment is involved: the features of an e-marking tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30(5): 529–537.
• Cyr, P.R., Smithi K.A., Broyles, I.L. & Holt, C.T., 2014. Developing, evaluating and validating a scoringrubric for written case reports. International Journal of Medical Education, 5: 18-23.
• Çetin, B., 2002. Kompozisyon tipi sınavlarda kompozisyonun biçimsel özelliklerinden kestirilen puanların anahtarla ve genel izlenimle puanlanmasından elde edilen puanlarla ilişkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Dupuy M. & Launay, M., 2010. Réussir le DELF A2-CIEP. Paris: Didier.
• East, M., 2009. Evaluating the reliability of a detailed analytic scoring rubric for foreign language writing. Assessing writing, 14(2), 88-115.
• Espin, C.A., Weissenburger, J.W. & Benson, B.J., 2004. Assessing the Writing Performance of Students in Special Education. Exceptionality, 12(1): 55-66.
• Goodrich, H., 1997. Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership, 54(4): 14-17.
• Göçer, A., 2010. Eğitim Fakültesi öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım becerilerinin süreç yaklaşımı ve metinsellik ölçütleri ekseninde değerlendirilmesi (Niğde Üniversitesi örneği). Kastamonu eğitim Dergisi, 18(1): 271-290.
• Hansson, E.E., Svensson, P.J., Strandberg, E.L., Troein, M. & Beckman, A., 2014. Inter-rater Reliability and Agreement of Rubrics for Assessment of Scientific Writing. Education, 4(1), 12-17.
• Jaidev, R., 2011. Rubrics-based writing: Liberating rather than restricting in many contexts. ELT World Online, 3, 1-7. Consulté le 25 Février 2017 à l’adresse : http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/files/2014/06/Rubrics-based-Writing_editforpdf-1a0neat.pdf
• Jonsson, A. & Svingby, G., 2007. The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational research review, 2(2), 130-144.
• Linn, R.L. & Gronlund, N.E., 1995. Measurement and assessment teaching (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Lumley, T., 2002. Assessment criteria in a large-scale writing test: what do they really mean to the raters?. Language Testing, 19(3), 246-276.
• Moskal, Barbara M., 2000. Scoring rubrics:what, when and how?. Practical Assessment, Research &Evaluation, 7(3). Consulté le 25 Février 2017 à l’adresse : http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3.
• Moskal, B. M. & Leydens, J. A., 2000. Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Practical assessment, research & evaluation, 7(10), 71-81.
• Nitko, A.J., 2004. Educational Assessment of Students (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Oakleaf, M., 2007. Using rubrics to collect evidence for decision-making: What do librarians need to learn? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2(3): 27-42
• Reddy, Y. M. & Andrade, H., 2010. A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.
• Romainville, M., 2011. Objectivité versus subjectivité dans l’évaluation des acquis des étudiants. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur, (27-2).
• Scallon, G., 2004. L’évaluation des apprentissages dans une approche par compétences. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.
• Stevens, D. D. & Levi, A. J., 2005. Introduction to Rubrics. Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.
• Tompkins, G.E., 2004. Teaching writing: Balancing process and product. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Veltcheff, C. & Hilton, S., 2003. L’Evaluation en FLE. Paris: Hachette FLE.
• Venema, J., 2002. Developing classroom specific rating scales: Clarifying teacher assessment of oral communicative competence. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 6(1): 2-5.
• Zorbaz, K.Z., 2013. Yazılı anlatımın puanlanması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1): 178-192.