PISA 2018 SONUÇLARININ ÖĞRENCİ, ÖĞRETMEN VE TOPLUM DEĞİŞKENLERİYLE İLİŞKİSİ

Öz

Uluslararası sınavlar ülkelerin eğitim sistemlerinin kalitesinin artırılması noktasında önemli göstergeler sunmaktadır. Uluslararası Öğrenci Ölçme Programı (PISA) saygın uluslararası sınavlardan bir tanesi olup eğitime dair geniş dönütler sağlamaktadır. 2018 yılında gerçekleştirilen PISA, 79 ülke ve ekonomiden katılan 15 yaşındaki yaklaşık 600 bin öğrenciye uygulanmıştır. Bu çalışma, PISA puanları ile öğrenci, öğretmen ve toplum değişkenleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yaşam doyumu ve okula aidiyet duygusu öğrenci değişkenleri, öğretmen maaşı ve en az yüksek lisans derecesine sahip öğretmen oranı öğretmen değişkenleri ve yerel okul yönetiminde veli katılımı ve sosyoekonomik düzey ise toplum değişkenleridir. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için ilişkisel tarama modeli yürütülmüştür. PISA veri tabanından elde edilen 79 ülke ve ekonomiye ait veriler çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi ile incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonuçları yaşam doyumu, en az yüksek lisans derecesine sahip öğretmen oranı, yerel okul yönetiminde veli katılımı ve sosyoekonomik düzeyin ayrı ayrı okuma, fen ve matematik okuryazarlık puanlarını yordadığını göstermiştir. Modele göre en fazla varyans matematik okuryazarlığı puanlarında açıklanmıştır. Okuma okuryazarlığı için yerel okul yönetiminde veli katılımının en güçlü yordayıcı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılırken; fen ve matematik okuryazarlığı içinse yaşam doyumunun en güçlü yordayıcı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA
• Yaşam Doyumu
• Yüksek Lİsans Derecesi
• Sosyoekonomik Düzey
• Okuryazarlık

RELATION OF PISA 2018 RESULTS WITH THE VARIABLES OF STUDENT, TEACHER, AND SOCIETY

Öz

International exams present important indicators for the quality of educational systems in many countries. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) as one of the popular international exam is a widespread program providing feedback on education. PISA was administered to about 600000 15-year students from 79 countries and economies in 2018. The current study aims to investigate the relationship between PISA scores and student, teacher and community variables. Student variables are life satisfaction and sense of belonging; teacher variables are teacher salary and proportion of teacher with at least Master’s Degree; and community variables are parent involvement in local school government and socioeconomic status. In this aspect, a correlational study was conducted to achieve the purpose. Data coming from 79 countries and economies via the PISA database were analyzed in multiple linear regression. Results showed that life satisfaction, the proportion of teachers with at least a Master’s Degree, parent involvement in local school government, and socio-economic status predicted separately reading, science, and math literacy. The model explained the most variance in the math literacy scores. Among the predictors, parent involvement in local school government was the strongest predictor for reading literacy while life satisfaction was the strongest predictor for both science and math literacy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA
• Life Satisfaction
• Master's Degree
• Socioeconomic Status
• Literacy

Kaynakça

1. Aksu, G., Güzeller, C. O., & Eser, M. T. (2017). Öğrencilerin matematik okuryazarlığı performanslarının aşamalı doğrusal model (HLM) ile incelenmesi: PISA 2012 Türkiye örneği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 247-266.
2. Aytekin, G. K., & Tertemiz, N. I. (2018). PISA sonuçlarının (2003-2015) eğitim sistemi ve ekonomik göstergeler kapsamında incelenmesi: Türkiye ve Güney Kore örneği. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 103-128.
3. Balkis, M. (2013). Academic procrastination, academic life satisfaction and academic achievement: the mediation role of rational beliefs about studying. Journal of Cognitive & Behavioral Psychotherapies, 13(1), 57-74.
4. Battle, J., & Lewis, M. (2002). The increasing significance of class: The relative effects of race and socioeconomic status on academic achievement. Journal of poverty, 6(2), 21-35.
5. Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10-30.
6. Borgonovi, F. and G. Montt (2012), “Parental Involvement in Selected PISA Countries and Economies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 73, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k990rk0jsjj-en.
7. Bozkurt, B. Ü. (2016). Türkiye’de okuma eğitiminin karnesi: PISA ölçeğinden çıkarımlar. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(4), 1673-1686.
8. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513 - 531.

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723 - 742.
10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.
11. Crede, J., Wirthwein, L., McElvany, N., & Steinmayr, R. (2015). Adolescents’ academic achievement and life satisfaction: the role of parents’ education. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(52), 1-8.
12. Diseth, Å., Danielsen, A. G., & Samdal, O. (2012). A path analysis of basic need support, self-efficacy, achievement goals, life satisfaction and academic achievement level among secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 335-354.
13. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. Biometrika, 38(1/2), 159-177.
14. Erdem-Kara, B., & Tat, O. (2019). Eğitim kaynaklarının kullanım etkinliği üzerine bir uluslararası karşılaştırma. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 15(2), 153-170. doi: 10.17244/eku.478617.
15. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
16. Gall, G., & Gall, J. P. Borg.(2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson.
17. Gilman, R., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Characteristics of adolescents who report very high life satisfaction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 311–319.
18. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in schoolfinance, (pp. 197-210). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
19. Heffner, A. L., & Antaramian, S. P. (2016). The role of life satisfaction in predicting student engagement and achievement. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1681-1701.
20. Hwang, J., Choi, K. M., Bae, Y., & Shin, D. H. (2018). Do Teachers’ ınstructional practices moderate equity in mathematical and scientific literacy?: an investigation of the PISA 2012 and 2015. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(1), 25-45.
21. Lam, G. (2014). A theoretical framework of the relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement of students. Education, 134(3), 326-331.
22. McCoach, D. B., & Colbert, R. D. (2010). Factors underlying the collective teacher efficacy scale and their mediating role in the effect of socioeconomic status on academic achievement at the school level. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(1), 31-47.
23. Oliver, M., McConney, A., & Woods-McConney, A. (2019). The efficacy of Inquiry-Based instruction in science: A comparative analysis of six countries using PISA 2015. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-019-09901-0.
24. Oswald, D. P., Zaidi, H. B., Cheatham, D. S., & Brody, K. G. D. (2018). Correlates of parent involvement in students’ learning: Examination of a national data set. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(1), 316-323.
25. Perelman, S., & Santín, D. (2011). Measuring educational efficiency at student level with parametric stochastic distance functions: an application to Spanish PISA results. Education economics, 19(1), 29-49.
26. Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.
27. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2019). PISA 2018 Database. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/ in January, 2020.
28. Rautalin, M., & Alasuutari, P. (2009). The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government. Journal of Education Policy, 24(5), 539-556.
29. Reparaz, C., & Sotés-Elizalde, M. A. (2019). Parental involvement in schools in Spain and Germany: Evidence from PISA 2015. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 33-52.
30. Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20035.
31. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
32. Sebastian, J., Moon, J. M., & Cunningham, M. (2017). The relationship of school-based parental involvement with student achievement: A comparison of principal and parent survey reports from PISA 2012. Educational Studies, 43(2), 123-146.
33. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge.
34. Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2004). Does life satisfaction moderate the effects of stressful life events on psychopathological behavior during adolescence? School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 93–105
35. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of educational research, 75(3), 417-453.
36. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
37. Tang, Y. (2019). Immigration status and adolescent life satisfaction: an international comparative analysis based on PISA 2015. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(5), 1499-1518.
38. Thien, L. M. (2016). Malaysian students’ performance in mathematics literacy in PISA from gender and socioeconomic status perspectives. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 657-666.