Kırsal-Kent Başarı Farkını Açıklayan Öğrenci ve Okul Özellikleri: TIMSS 2019 Analizi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı kırsaldaki ve kentteki okullarda öğrenci performansını açıklayan öğrenci ve okul özelliklerinin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaçla TIMSS 2019 Türkiye örnekleminde yer alan 4028 öğrenci ve 180 okula ait veriler analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin analizi için örnekleme yapısına uygun olarak aşamalı doğrusal modeller kurulmuş; veriler HLM 7 programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, kırsal bölgedeki okulların başarısının kentlere göre düşük olduğunu; sosyoekonomik düzeyin etkisi kontrol edildiğinde bölgeler arası başarı farklarının devam ettiğini göstermiştir. Benzer şekilde okul düzeyi değişkenler modele eklendiğinde okulun bulunduğu bölgenin öğrenci performansı üzerindeki etkisi bir miktar azalmış; öğrencinin fen ve matematikte kendine güven duyması bölgesel başarı farklarını ortadan kaldırma konusunda etkili olmamıştır. Araştırmanın bulguları ilgili literatür bağlamında tartışılmış ve öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• fırsat eşitliği
• kırsal-kent okul
• başarı farkı

Student and School Characteristics Explaining the Rural- Urban Achievement Gap: TIMSS 2019 Analysis

Öz

The purpose of the study was to determine student and school characteristics that explain student performance in rural and urban schools. For this purpose, data of 4028 students and 180 schools in the TIMSS 2019 Turkey sample were analyzed. The hierarchical linear models were established in accordance with the sampling structure; The data were analyzed using the HLM 7 program. The findings showed that the success of schools in rural areas is lower than in urbans. When the effect of socio-economic level is controlled, it has been shown that the differences in achievement between regions continue. Similarly, when school level variables were added into the model, the effect of the school region on student performance decreased slightly. However, the student's self-confidence in science and mathematics was not effective in eliminating regional achievement differences. The findings were discussed based on the relevant literature.and recommendations were given.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• equal opportunity
• rural-urban schools
• achievement gap
• TIMSS 2019

Kaynakça

1. Ababneh, E. G., & Kodippili, A. (2020). Investigation the association of some variables with mathematics achievement gap between rural and urban Jordanian students. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(21), 146-158.
2. Abrams, E., & Middleton, M, (2017). Towards multidimensional approaches to research on rural science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 167-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9748-2.
3. Ares Abalde, M. (2014). School size policies: A literature review, OECD Education Working Papers, No 106. OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en7/s11422-016-9748-2.
4. Arıkan, S., Özer, F., Şeker, V., & Ertaş, G, (2020). The importance of sample weights and plausible values in large-scale assessments. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 11(1), 43-60.
5. Balcı, A, (2014). Etkili okul ve okul geliştirme. PegemA Yayıncılık.
6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
7. Berberoğlu, G., & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısının yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PISA Analizi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 22(4), 21-35.
8. Bolyard, J. J., & Moyer-Packenham, P. S. (2008). A review of the literature on mathematics and science teacher quality. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(4), 509-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802414890.

9. Burroughs N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). A review of the literature on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Teaching for excellence and equity (s. 7-14). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16151-4_2.
10. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M, Weinfield, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966), Equality of educational opportunity, American Sociological Review, 32(3), U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Cotter, K. E., Centurino, V. S., & Mullis, I. V.S. (2020). Developing the TIMSS 2019 mathematics and science achievement instruments (Chapter1). M. O. Martin, M, von Davier & I. V. S. Mullis (Haz.), Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2019 technical report, https://pirls,bc,edu/timss2019/methods/pdf/T19_MP_Ch1-developing-achievement-instruments,pdf adresinden erişildi.
12. Curtis, E., Wikaire, E., Jiang, Y., McMillan, L., Loto, R., Poole, P., Barrow, M., Bagg, W., & Reid, P. (2017). Examining the predictors of academic outcomes for indigenous Māori, Pacific and rural students admitted into medicine via two equity pathways: A retrospective observational study at the University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand, BMJ Open, 7(8), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017276
13. Duckworth A. L., Yeager D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15584327
14. Echazarra, A., & Radinger, T. (2019). Learning in rural schools: Insights from PISA, TALIS and the literature. OECD Education Working Papers, No, 196, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019
15. Hammond, C. D. (2005). The impact of using the responsible classroom management plan: A modified case study/journal of the program’s impact on overall school effectiveness, [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi], The University of North Carolina, Charlotte.
16. Harwell, M., Maeda, Y., Bishop, K., & Xie, A. (2017). The surprisingly modest relationship between SES and educational achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 197-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1123668
17. He, X., Wang, H., Chang, F., Dill, S, E., Liu, H., Tang, B., & Shi, Y. (2021). IQ, grit, and academic achievement: Evidence from rural China. International Journal of Educational Development, 80, 102306.
18. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis techniques and applications, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
19. Konstantopoulos, S., & Borman, G. D. (2011). Family background and school effects on student achievement: A Multilevel analysis of the Coleman data. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 113, 97 – 132.
20. LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2020). Sample design in TIMSS 2019. M. O. Martin, M, von Davier & I. V. S. Mullis (Haz.), Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2019 technical report, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
21. Lezotte, L. W. (1999). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
22. Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement in China: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 49-76.
23. Luschei T. F., & Chudgar A. (2015). Evolution of policies on teacher deployment to disadvantaged areas. UNESCO.
24. Ma, X. (2001). Health outcomes of elementary school students in New Brunswick: The education perspective. Evaluation Review, 24, 435– 456.
25. Ma, X., & Williams, J. D. (2004). School disciplinary climate: Characteristics and effects on eighth grade achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 2(50), 169-188.
26. McBer, H. (2001). Research into teacher effectiveness. Early Professional Development of Teachers, 68(216), 1-69.
27. Mercik, V. (2015). Eğitimde fırsat eşitliği, toplumsal genel başarı ve adalet ilişkisi: PISA projesi kapsamında Finlandiya ve Türkiye deneyimlerinin karşılaştırması. [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi], Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Balıkesir.
28. Mohammadpour, E., & Abdul Ghafar, M. N. (2014). Mathematics achievement as a function of within- and between-school differences. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 189-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725097.
29. Mussa, R. (2013). Rural–urban differences in parental spending on children's primary education in Malawi. Development Southern Africa, 30(6), 789-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2013.859066
30. Nicholas, O., John, O., & Eric, K. (2016). Impact of discipline on academic performance of pupils in public primary schools in Mohoroni Sub-Country, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(6), 164-173.
31. Nissinen, K., Ólafsson, R. F., Rautopuro, J., Halldórsson, A. M., & Vettenranta, J. (2018). The urban advantage in education? Science achievement differences between metropolitan and other areas in Finland and Iceland in PISA 2015. D. Reimer, B. Sortkear, M. Oskarsson, T. Nilsen, M. Rasmusson, K. Nissinen (Haz.), Northern Lights on TIMSS and PISA 2018, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2018-524.
32. OECD (2013). What makes urban schools different?, PISA in Focus, No, 28, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46l8w342jc-en.
33. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools, OECD Publishing: Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
34. OECD (2017). The funding of school education: Connecting resources and learning, OECD Publishing: Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.
35. OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, OECD Publishing: Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
36. Owens, A. (2018). Income segregation between school districts and inequality in students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 9(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717741180.
37. Paronen, P., & Lappi, O. (2018). Finnish teachers and principals in figures, Finnish National Agency for Education. Juvenes Print. https://oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/finnish_teachers_and_principals_in_figures_0.pdf
38. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publishing.
39. Richardson, J. W., & Sauers N. J. (2014). Social justice in India: Perspectives from school leaders in diverse contexts. Management in Education, 28(3), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020614535799.
40. Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M., & Von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142-151.
41. Sahlberg, P. (2012). Quality and equity in Finnish Schools. School Administrator, 69(8), 27-30.
42. Scheerens, J. (1993). Basic school effectiveness research: Items for a research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4(1), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345930040102.
43. Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy, A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Haz.) Development of achievement motivation (s. 15–31), Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50003-6.
44. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publishing.
45. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
46. Sullivan, K., McConney, A., & Perry, L. B. (2018). A comparison of rural educational disadvantage in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand using OECD’s PISA. Sage Open, 8(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018805791.
47. Surya, E., & Putri, F. A. (2017). Improving mathematical problem-solving ability and self-confidence of high school students through contextual learning model. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(1), 85-94.
48. Şişman, M. (2018). Öğretim liderliği. PegemA Akademi.
49. TUİK(2020). Yabancı çocuk nüfusu. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=206&locale=tr
50. Van Damme, J., & Bellens, K, (2017). Countries strive towards more quality and equity in education: Do they show success or failure? Evidence from TIMSS 2003 and 2011 for Grade 4. Rosén, M., Yang, H. K., & Wolff, U. (Haz.), Cognitive abilities and educational outcomes: Methodology of educational measurement and assessment (s. 127-148), Springer.
51. Von Davier, M. (2020). TIMSS 2019 Scaling methodology: Item response theory, population models, and linking across modes. M. O. Martin, M. von Davier & I. V. S. Mullis (Haz.), Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2019 Technical report, (s.11.1-11.25). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
52. Yalcin, S., Demirtasli, R., Dibek, M., &Yavuz, H. (2017). The effect of teachers and student chracteristics on TIMSS 2011 mathematics achievement of fourth and eigth grade students in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(3), 79-94.
53. Yetkiner Özel, Z. E., & Özel, S. (2013). Mathematics teacher quality: Its distribution and relationship with student achievement in Turkey. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9242-4.
54. Yıldırım, Ö. (2012). Okuduğunu anlama başarısıyla ilişkili faktörlerin aşamalı doğrusal modellemeyle belirlenmesi: PISA 2009 Hollanda, Kore ve Türkiye karşılaştırması [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
55. Yıldırım, Ö. (2017). Okul ortamlarının okuduğunu anlama performansı üzerinde etkisinin ülkeler arası incelenmesi. International Journal of Human Science, 14(4), 4453-4463. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5034.
56. Yin, L. & Fishbein, B. (2020). Creating and interpreting the TIMSS 2019 context questionnaire scales, Methods and procedures in TIMSS 2019 Technical report, (s.16.1-16.331). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education and Human Development, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
57. Young, D. J. (1998). Rural and urban differences in student achievement in science and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(4), 386-418. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090403.