Öğrencilerin Yazılı Çalışmalarına İlişkin Öğretmenlerin Değerlendirmelerini Etkileyen Etmenler

Öz

Bu araştırma, öğrencilerin yazılı çalışmalarına ilişkin öğretmenlerin değerlendirmeleriyle ilintili bazı değişkenler arasındaki ilişkileri irdelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışma grubunu, üniversite düzeyinde bir dil okulunda çalışmakta olan 48 öğretmen oluşturmuştur. Araştırmacının kendisi, araştırma sorularına koşut olarak, iki makale (yazı-essay) yazmış ve gerekli verileri temin edecek araştırma desenini oluşturmuştur. Çalışma, ölçme yaklaşımı ve daha iyi olan yazının önce ya da sonra okunmasının, öğrencilerin yazılı çalışmalarına ilişkin öğretmenlerin değerlendirmelerini etkileyebileceğini göstermiştir. Ölçme yaklaşımının etkisi denetlenince de benzer sonuçlar bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, yazının algılanan niteliği (verilen notlar); okunan metnin uzunluğuyla ilişkili bulunmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• bütüncül değerlendirme, çözümleyici değerlendirme, yabancı dilde yazma, ölçme güvenirliği

Factors Influencing Teachers' Quality Judgments of Students' Written Work

Abstract

This study aimed at identifying the relationships between teachers' quality judgments about student written work and some related variables. 48 teachers working for a language school at tertiary level constituted the participants. The researcher himself wrote two essays and set up a design that would provide the required data. The study indicated that assessment strategy and the adjacency of essays assessed are likely to affect teachers' judgments of students' written work. Similar conclusions were found when the contribution of assessment strategy is controlled. The perceived quality of the essay (assigned scores) are correlated with the amount of the writing.

Keywords

• holistic evaluation, analytic evaluation, writing in a foreign language, reliability in assessment

Kaynakça

1. Alderson, J. C.; Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (2001). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bauer, B. A. (1981). A study of the reliabilities and cost-effeciencies of three methods of assessment for writing ability (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216 357).
3. Breland, H. M. & Jones, R. J. (1984). Perception of writing skills. Written Communication 1 (1), 101-19.Daly, J. A. & Dickson-Markman, F. (1982). Contrast effects in evaluating effects, Journal of Educational Measurement, 19 (4) 309-16.
4. Çetin, B & Kelecioğlu, H. (2004). The relation between scores predicted from structured features of essay and scores based on scoring key and overall impression in essay type examinations. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 26, (2004), 19-26.
5. Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T. & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Gelbal, S. & Kelecioğlu, H. (2007). Teachers' proficiency perceptions of the measurement and evaluation techniques and the problems they confront. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education), 33, 135-145.
7. Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Gipps, C. & Murphy, P. (1994). A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

9. Goddard-Spear, M. (1983). Sex bias in science teachers' ratings of work. Contribution to the second GASATConference, Oslo, Norway.
10. Grobe, (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of writing quality. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 75-85.
11. Hales, L. W. & Tokar, E. (1975). The effects of quality of preceding responses on the grades assigned to subsequent responses to an essay question. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 115-117.
12. Hughes, D. E; Keiling, B. & Tuck, B. F. (1980). The influence of context position and scoring method on essay scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 131-135.
13. Kroll, B. (1990). Second language writing: Research insights from the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Nakamura, Y. (2002). A comparison of holistic and analytic scoring methods in the assessment of writing.Retrieved from the Web 16.1.2007. .
15. Stock, P. L. & Robinson, J. L., 1987. Taking on testing: Teachers as researchers. English Education, 19, 93–121.
16. Tan, Ş. (2006). Öğretimi planlama ve değerlendirme, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
17. Tedick, D. J. & Mathison, M. A. (1995). Holistic scoring in ESL writing assessment: What does an analysis of rhetorical features reveal? In: Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 205–230.
18. Tekin, H. (1984). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Has-soy Matbaası.
19. Vaughan, C. (1992). Holistic assessment: What goes on in the rater's mind? In: HampLyons,
20. L., Editor, Assessing second language writing in academic contexts, Norwood: Ablex, NJ, 111–126.
21. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Weigle, S. C. (2007). Teaching writing teachersaboutassessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (3), 194-209.
23. White, E. M. (1995). An apologia for the timed impromptu essay test. College Composition and Communication, 46 (1), 30-45.
24. Wragg, E. C. (2001). Assessment and learning in the secondary school. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.