Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Ortaöğretime Geçişte Kapsamlı Akademik Gruplama ve Eşitsizliğin Yeniden Üretimi

Yıl 2023, , 185 - 216, 20.06.2023
https://doi.org/10.12658/M0699

Öz

Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) sistemi (2013-2017), ortaöğretime geçişte bütün öğrencilerin sınav başarısına göre hem okul türleri arasında hem de aynı okul türü içerisinde sınıflandırıldığı ve ayrıştırıldığı kapsamlı bir akademik gruplama örneğidir. Nitel araştırma yaklaşımının benimsendiği bu çalışmada, TEOG sistemindeki başarı sıralamasına göre öğrencilerin ve dolayısıyla gittikleri okulların sıralanmasının sonuçlarının keşfedilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Öğrenciler, öğretmenler ve okul yöneticileri arasından tabakalı amaçlı örneklem yöntemiyle seçilen toplamda 149 kişi ile derinlemesine mülakatlar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, okulun genel ikliminin, okula ilişkin geliştirilen algının, öğrenci ve öğretmenlerin motivasyonunun, sunulan öğrenme fırsatlarının ve dolayısıyla eğitimin genel niteliğinin okulların TEOG yerleştirmesine bağlı oluşan genel başarı düzeyine göre farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, gruplamanın öğrencileri sadece başarı düzeyine göre değil aynı zamanda sosyoekonomik arka planına göre ayrıştırdığı yönünde güçlü bulgular elde edilmiştir. Buna göre, sosyoekonomik açıdan dezavantajlı öğrenciler başarı düzeyi orta veya düşük okullarda yoğunlaşmaktadır. TEOG uygulamasıyla sosyoekonomik arka plan ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişkinin daha da güçlenme eğilimi gösterdiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Kaynakça

  • Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
  • Ammermueller, A. (2005). Educational opportunities and the role of institutions. ZEW- Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 05-044. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  • Anderson, L., & Oakes, J. (2014). The truth about tracking. P. C. Gorski & K. Zenkov (Ed.), The big lies of school reform finding better solutions for the future of public education (s. 109-128) içinde. Routledge Publishing.
  • Anıl, D., Özer Özkan, Y., & Demir, E. (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor. MEB Yayınları.
  • Ansalone, G. (2001). Schooling, tracking, and inequality. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7(1), 33–47.
  • Apple, M. W. (2006). Eğitim ve iktidar. E. Bulut (Çev., Ed.). Kalkedon Yayınları.
  • Aslan, G. (2017). Öğrencilerin temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş (TEOG) sınav başarılarının belirleyicileri: Okul dışı değişkenlere ilişkin bir analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42 (190), 211-236.
  • Atila, M., & Özeken, Ö. (2015). Temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş sınavı: Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri ne düşünüyor? Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 124-140.
  • Ayalon, H. (2006). Nonhierarchical curriculum differentiation and ınequality in achievement: A different story or more of the same? Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1186–1213.
  • Ayalon, H., & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality: Comparison of Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44, 54–80.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2006). Pratik nedenler. H. U. Tanrıöver (Çev., Ed.). Hil Yayınları
  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Haymarket Books.
  • Bölükbaş, S. (2018). Türkiye’de yoksul çocukların akademik dirençliliğinde sosyal politikaların ve seçicilik uygulamasının rolü (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Bölükbaş, S., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 78.
  • Braddock, J. H., & R. E. Slavin (1992). Life in the slow lane: A longitudinal study of effects of ability grouping on student achievement, attitudes, and perceptions. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for disadvantaged Students.
  • Broaded, C. M. (1997). The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 70, 36–53.
  • Brunello, G. & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22(52), 782–861.
  • Burris, C. C., & Garrity, D. T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. ASCD.
  • Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 27–49.
  • Caro, D. H. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558–591.
  • Chisaka, B. C. (2002). Ability grouping in zimbabwe secondary schools: A qualitative analysis of perceptions of learners in low ability classes. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(1), 19–33.
  • Chmielewski, A. K. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293-324.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
  • Çelik, Z., Boz, N., Arkan, Z., & Toklucu, D. (2017). TEOG yerleştirme sistemi: Güçlükler ve öneriler. SETA Yayınları.
  • Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1739-1774.
  • Dünya Bankası. (2011). Türkiye’de temel eğitimde kalite ve eşitliğin geliştirilmesi zorluklar ve seçenekler. Erişim: https://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/www/dokumanlar/icerik/26
  • ERG (2013). Eğitim izleme raporu. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi, Sabancı Üniversitesi. Erişim: http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/egitim-izleme-rapor-2013/
  • Ergin, O. (1977). Türkiye maarif tarihi (Cilt 5). Eser Matbaası
  • Eskicumalı, A. (2002). Okul bilgisinin dağıtılması ve eğitimde gruplama. Eğitim Yönetimi, 29, 47-68.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 6-11.
  • Finley, M. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 57, 233-43.
  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Pearson Education.
  • Gamoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice (WCER Working Paper No. 2009-6). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Erişim: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
  • Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 1146-1183.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Guthrie, Larry F., & Constance D. Leventhal. (1985). Opportunities for Scientific Literacy for High School Students. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  • Gümüş, S., & Atalmış, E. H. (2012). Achievement gaps between different school types and regions in Turkey: Have they changed over time? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(2), 48-64.
  • Gür, B. S., & Çelik, Z. (2009). Türkiye’de millî eğitim sistemi: Yapısal sorunlar ve öneriler (Rapor no. 1). Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Gür, S. B., Çelik, Z., & Coşkun, İ. (2013). Türkiye’de ortaöğretimin geleceği: Hiyerarşi mi, eşitlik mi? (Analiz No. 69). Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Gür, B. S., Öztürk, A., Özer, M., & Suna, E. (2021). The effect of changes in the transition to secondary education systems on mathematics achievement. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 1437-1463.
  • Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ pedagogic practices when teaching mixed ability and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), 3–24.
  • Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84. doi:10.2307/2112697
  • Hallinan, M. T. (2000). Ability group effects on high school learning outcomes. South Bend, IN: Institute for Educational Initiatives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 467 684).
  • Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and ınequality? Differences- in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63– C76.
  • Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.
  • Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation. Working Paper 7867. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Huang, M. (2009). Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student Math performance: A country-level fixed-effects analysis. Social Science Research, 38(4), 981–791.
  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. SAGE.
  • İnal, K. (2007). Modernizm ve çocuk: Geleneksel, modern ve post-modern çocukluk imgeleri. Sobil Yayıncılık.
  • Johnston, O., & Wildy, H. (2016). The effects of streaming in the secondary school on learning outcomes for Australian students – A review of the international literature. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 42–59.
  • Karaağaç, Z. (2019). Ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel statünün temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş üzerine etkisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Karaağaç Cingöz, Z., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel statünün akademik başarıya etkisi: PISA 2015 ve TEOG 2017 sonuçlarının karşılaştırması. İnsan & Toplum (The Journal of Humanity and Society), 10(4), 247-288.
  • Kesici, A. & Aşılıoğlu, B. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin matematiğe yönelik duyuşsal özellikleri ile Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) Sınavları öncesi yaşadıkları stresin matematik başarısına etkisi. KEFAD, 18(3), 394-411.
  • Kurt, T., & Gür, B. S. (2012). Eğitimde eşitsizliğin algoritması: AOBP. SETA Vakfı Yayınları
  • Lavrijsen, J. & Nicaise, I. (2016). Educational tracking, inequality and performance: New evidence from a differences-in-differences technique. Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(3), 334-349.
  • Lipps, G. E., Lowe, G. A., Halliday, S., Morris-Patterson, A., Clarke, N., & Wilson, R. N. (2010). The association of academic tracking to depressive symptoms among adolescents in three Caribbean countries. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(16), 16–20.
  • Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate (Volume 2, No. 8). Washington. DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Erişim: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED422454
  • Lucas, S. R. (2001). Effectively maintained ınequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642-1690.
  • MEB. (2015). Türk eğitim sistemi ve ortaöğretim. MEB.
  • Neuman, W. L. (2013). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (Cilt: 1-2) S. Özge (Çeviri Ed.). Yayın Odası.
  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track : How schools structure ınequality. Yale University Press.
  • Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalitiles: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. RAND.
  • Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (s. 570-608) içinde. American Educational Research Association.
  • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA 2003. OECD Publishing.
  • OECD. (2008). Ten steps to equity in education. OECD Publishing.
  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, polices and practices (Volume IV). OECD Publishing.
  • ÖSYM. (2012). YGS sonuçlarına ilişkin sayısal bilgiler. Erişim: https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,986/2012-ygs-sonuclarina-iliskin-sayisal-bilgiler.html
  • Özoğlu, M. (2020). Ortaöğretime geçişte kapsamlı akademik gruplama ve eşitsizliğin yeniden üretimi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi.
  • Pekkarinen, T., Uusitalo, R., & Kerr, S. P. (2013). School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labor Economy, 31(3), 577–602.
  • Polat, S. (2014). Türkiye’nin 2023 vizyonu ve eğitimde “orta kalite tuzağı”. SETA Yayınları.
  • Polat, S., Özoğlu, M., Yıldız, R., & Canbolat, Y. (2013). Ortaöğretim izleme ve değerlendirme raporu. MEB Yayınları.
  • Preckel, F., Gotz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451–472.
  • Rwodzi, M., Nel, N., & Krog, S. (2018). The process and forms of labelling learners in Zimbabwean schools: A challenge. Participatory Educational Research, 5(1), 1-16. Erişim: http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.18.1.5.1
  • Schindler, S. (2016). School tracking, educational mobility and inequality in German secondary education: developments across cohorts. European Societies, 19(1), 28–48. doi:10.1080/14616696.2016.1226373
  • Schutz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Educational policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279–308.
  • Stevens, P. A. J., & Vermeersch, H. (2010). Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: exploring teachers’ perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 267–284.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE Publications.
  • Suna, H. E., Gür, B. S., Gelbal, S., & Özer, M. (2020). Fen lisesi öğrencilerinin sosyoekonomik arkaplanı ve yükseköğretime geçişteki tercihleri. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(3), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.734921
  • Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gür, B. S., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0034
  • Şad, S. N. & Şahiner, Y. K. (2016). Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) sistemine ilişkin öğrenci, öğretmen ve veli görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 15(1): 53-76.
  • Şahin, Y., Özdemir, C., & Selvi, O. (2013). Effects of school typeand region on transition to tertiary education. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(24), 89-103.
  • TED. (2010). Ortaöğretime ve yüksek öğretime geçiş sistemi. Dumat Ofset Matbacılık.
  • Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents involvement in children's placement. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 263-279.
  • Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2018). Early tracking and socioeconomic ınequality in academic achievement: Studying reforms in nine countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 58, 22-32.
  • Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. J. (2015). Tracking and sense of futility: the impact of between-school tracking versus within-school tracking in secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 782–800.
  • Van Houtte, M., Demanet, J., & Stevens, P. A. J. (2013). Curriculum tracking and teacher evaluations of individual students: selection, adjustment or labeling? Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 329– 352.
  • Venkatakrishnan, H., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in secondary school mathematics classrooms: A case study 1. British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 189–204.
  • Watanabe, M. (2008). Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110, 489–533.
  • Woessmann, L. (2009). International evidence on school tracking: A review. Research reports. CESifo DICE Report, 7(1), 26–34.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zimmer, R. (2003). A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 307–315.
  • Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 19(1), 75–92.

Extensive Academic Grouping at The Secondary School Placement and Reproduction of Inequalities

Yıl 2023, , 185 - 216, 20.06.2023
https://doi.org/10.12658/M0699

Öz

According to secondary school placement system (TEOG) between 2013 and 2017, all incoming high school students in Turkey were placed in a high school based on their TEOG exam scores. This placement system became an example of extensive academic grouping. This qualitative study explores the consequences of TEOG-based placement of students, in which students and therefore schools are ranked according to students’ test scores. In-depth interviews were conducted with a total of 149 participants selected among students, teachers, and school administrators through stratified purposive sampling. The findings of this study suggest that overall school climate, perceptions towards the school, motivations of students and teachers, learning opportunities presented in the school, and therefore, the overall quality of the education differs largely based on the achievement levels of schools that are identified by TEOG scores of the incoming students. Furthermore, there are strong evidences that TEOG-based placements group students not only based on their academic success but also on their socio-economic backgrounds. Accordingly, students with low socio-economic backgrounds are overrepresented in schools labeled as low and mid-achieving.

Kaynakça

  • Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
  • Ammermueller, A. (2005). Educational opportunities and the role of institutions. ZEW- Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 05-044. SSRN Electronic Journal.
  • Anderson, L., & Oakes, J. (2014). The truth about tracking. P. C. Gorski & K. Zenkov (Ed.), The big lies of school reform finding better solutions for the future of public education (s. 109-128) içinde. Routledge Publishing.
  • Anıl, D., Özer Özkan, Y., & Demir, E. (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai rapor. MEB Yayınları.
  • Ansalone, G. (2001). Schooling, tracking, and inequality. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7(1), 33–47.
  • Apple, M. W. (2006). Eğitim ve iktidar. E. Bulut (Çev., Ed.). Kalkedon Yayınları.
  • Aslan, G. (2017). Öğrencilerin temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş (TEOG) sınav başarılarının belirleyicileri: Okul dışı değişkenlere ilişkin bir analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42 (190), 211-236.
  • Atila, M., & Özeken, Ö. (2015). Temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş sınavı: Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri ne düşünüyor? Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1), 124-140.
  • Ayalon, H. (2006). Nonhierarchical curriculum differentiation and ınequality in achievement: A different story or more of the same? Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1186–1213.
  • Ayalon, H., & Gamoran, A. (2000). Stratification in academic secondary programs and educational inequality: Comparison of Israel and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 44, 54–80.
  • Bourdieu, P. (2006). Pratik nedenler. H. U. Tanrıöver (Çev., Ed.). Hil Yayınları
  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Haymarket Books.
  • Bölükbaş, S. (2018). Türkiye’de yoksul çocukların akademik dirençliliğinde sosyal politikaların ve seçicilik uygulamasının rolü (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Bölükbaş, S., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 78.
  • Braddock, J. H., & R. E. Slavin (1992). Life in the slow lane: A longitudinal study of effects of ability grouping on student achievement, attitudes, and perceptions. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for disadvantaged Students.
  • Broaded, C. M. (1997). The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan. Sociology of Education, 70, 36–53.
  • Brunello, G. & Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy, 22(52), 782–861.
  • Burris, C. C., & Garrity, D. T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. ASCD.
  • Carbonaro, W. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78(1), 27–49.
  • Caro, D. H. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558–591.
  • Chisaka, B. C. (2002). Ability grouping in zimbabwe secondary schools: A qualitative analysis of perceptions of learners in low ability classes. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(1), 19–33.
  • Chmielewski, A. K. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293-324.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
  • Çelik, Z., Boz, N., Arkan, Z., & Toklucu, D. (2017). TEOG yerleştirme sistemi: Güçlükler ve öneriler. SETA Yayınları.
  • Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2011). Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1739-1774.
  • Dünya Bankası. (2011). Türkiye’de temel eğitimde kalite ve eşitliğin geliştirilmesi zorluklar ve seçenekler. Erişim: https://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/www/dokumanlar/icerik/26
  • ERG (2013). Eğitim izleme raporu. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi, Sabancı Üniversitesi. Erişim: http://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/egitim-izleme-rapor-2013/
  • Ergin, O. (1977). Türkiye maarif tarihi (Cilt 5). Eser Matbaası
  • Eskicumalı, A. (2002). Okul bilgisinin dağıtılması ve eğitimde gruplama. Eğitim Yönetimi, 29, 47-68.
  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 6-11.
  • Finley, M. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 57, 233-43.
  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Pearson Education.
  • Gamoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice (WCER Working Paper No. 2009-6). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Erişim: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
  • Gamoran, A., & Mare, R. D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Compensation, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), 1146-1183.
  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Grix, J. (2010). The foundations of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Guthrie, Larry F., & Constance D. Leventhal. (1985). Opportunities for Scientific Literacy for High School Students. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
  • Gümüş, S., & Atalmış, E. H. (2012). Achievement gaps between different school types and regions in Turkey: Have they changed over time? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(2), 48-64.
  • Gür, B. S., & Çelik, Z. (2009). Türkiye’de millî eğitim sistemi: Yapısal sorunlar ve öneriler (Rapor no. 1). Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Gür, S. B., Çelik, Z., & Coşkun, İ. (2013). Türkiye’de ortaöğretimin geleceği: Hiyerarşi mi, eşitlik mi? (Analiz No. 69). Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı.
  • Gür, B. S., Öztürk, A., Özer, M., & Suna, E. (2021). The effect of changes in the transition to secondary education systems on mathematics achievement. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50(2), 1437-1463.
  • Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2005). Secondary school teachers’ pedagogic practices when teaching mixed ability and structured ability classes. Research Papers in Education, 20(1), 3–24.
  • Hallinan, M. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67(2), 79-84. doi:10.2307/2112697
  • Hallinan, M. T. (2000). Ability group effects on high school learning outcomes. South Bend, IN: Institute for Educational Initiatives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 467 684).
  • Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance and ınequality? Differences- in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C63– C76.
  • Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2001). Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18(5), 527–544.
  • Hoxby, C. (2000). Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation. Working Paper 7867. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Huang, M. (2009). Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student Math performance: A country-level fixed-effects analysis. Social Science Research, 38(4), 981–791.
  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. SAGE.
  • İnal, K. (2007). Modernizm ve çocuk: Geleneksel, modern ve post-modern çocukluk imgeleri. Sobil Yayıncılık.
  • Johnston, O., & Wildy, H. (2016). The effects of streaming in the secondary school on learning outcomes for Australian students – A review of the international literature. Australian Journal of Education, 60(1), 42–59.
  • Karaağaç, Z. (2019). Ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel statünün temel eğitimden ortaöğretime geçiş üzerine etkisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Karaağaç Cingöz, Z., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel statünün akademik başarıya etkisi: PISA 2015 ve TEOG 2017 sonuçlarının karşılaştırması. İnsan & Toplum (The Journal of Humanity and Society), 10(4), 247-288.
  • Kesici, A. & Aşılıoğlu, B. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin matematiğe yönelik duyuşsal özellikleri ile Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) Sınavları öncesi yaşadıkları stresin matematik başarısına etkisi. KEFAD, 18(3), 394-411.
  • Kurt, T., & Gür, B. S. (2012). Eğitimde eşitsizliğin algoritması: AOBP. SETA Vakfı Yayınları
  • Lavrijsen, J. & Nicaise, I. (2016). Educational tracking, inequality and performance: New evidence from a differences-in-differences technique. Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(3), 334-349.
  • Lipps, G. E., Lowe, G. A., Halliday, S., Morris-Patterson, A., Clarke, N., & Wilson, R. N. (2010). The association of academic tracking to depressive symptoms among adolescents in three Caribbean countries. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(16), 16–20.
  • Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate (Volume 2, No. 8). Washington. DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Erişim: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED422454
  • Lucas, S. R. (2001). Effectively maintained ınequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1642-1690.
  • MEB. (2015). Türk eğitim sistemi ve ortaöğretim. MEB.
  • Neuman, W. L. (2013). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (Cilt: 1-2) S. Özge (Çeviri Ed.). Yayın Odası.
  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track : How schools structure ınequality. Yale University Press.
  • Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalitiles: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. RAND.
  • Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (s. 570-608) içinde. American Educational Research Association.
  • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA 2003. OECD Publishing.
  • OECD. (2008). Ten steps to equity in education. OECD Publishing.
  • OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, polices and practices (Volume IV). OECD Publishing.
  • ÖSYM. (2012). YGS sonuçlarına ilişkin sayısal bilgiler. Erişim: https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,986/2012-ygs-sonuclarina-iliskin-sayisal-bilgiler.html
  • Özoğlu, M. (2020). Ortaöğretime geçişte kapsamlı akademik gruplama ve eşitsizliğin yeniden üretimi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi.
  • Pekkarinen, T., Uusitalo, R., & Kerr, S. P. (2013). School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labor Economy, 31(3), 577–602.
  • Polat, S. (2014). Türkiye’nin 2023 vizyonu ve eğitimde “orta kalite tuzağı”. SETA Yayınları.
  • Polat, S., Özoğlu, M., Yıldız, R., & Canbolat, Y. (2013). Ortaöğretim izleme ve değerlendirme raporu. MEB Yayınları.
  • Preckel, F., Gotz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451–472.
  • Rwodzi, M., Nel, N., & Krog, S. (2018). The process and forms of labelling learners in Zimbabwean schools: A challenge. Participatory Educational Research, 5(1), 1-16. Erişim: http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.18.1.5.1
  • Schindler, S. (2016). School tracking, educational mobility and inequality in German secondary education: developments across cohorts. European Societies, 19(1), 28–48. doi:10.1080/14616696.2016.1226373
  • Schutz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Educational policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279–308.
  • Stevens, P. A. J., & Vermeersch, H. (2010). Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: exploring teachers’ perceptions of and adaptations to students in different streams. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 267–284.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE Publications.
  • Suna, H. E., Gür, B. S., Gelbal, S., & Özer, M. (2020). Fen lisesi öğrencilerinin sosyoekonomik arkaplanı ve yükseköğretime geçişteki tercihleri. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 10(3), 356-370. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.20.734921
  • Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gür, B. S., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic status and school type as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2020-0034
  • Şad, S. N. & Şahiner, Y. K. (2016). Temel Eğitimden Ortaöğretime Geçiş (TEOG) sistemine ilişkin öğrenci, öğretmen ve veli görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 15(1): 53-76.
  • Şahin, Y., Özdemir, C., & Selvi, O. (2013). Effects of school typeand region on transition to tertiary education. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(24), 89-103.
  • TED. (2010). Ortaöğretime ve yüksek öğretime geçiş sistemi. Dumat Ofset Matbacılık.
  • Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents involvement in children's placement. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 263-279.
  • Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2018). Early tracking and socioeconomic ınequality in academic achievement: Studying reforms in nine countries. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 58, 22-32.
  • Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. J. (2015). Tracking and sense of futility: the impact of between-school tracking versus within-school tracking in secondary education in Flanders (Belgium). British Educational Research Journal, 41(5), 782–800.
  • Van Houtte, M., Demanet, J., & Stevens, P. A. J. (2013). Curriculum tracking and teacher evaluations of individual students: selection, adjustment or labeling? Social Psychology of Education, 16(3), 329– 352.
  • Venkatakrishnan, H., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Tracking and mixed-ability grouping in secondary school mathematics classrooms: A case study 1. British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 189–204.
  • Watanabe, M. (2008). Tracking in the era of high-stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110, 489–533.
  • Woessmann, L. (2009). International evidence on school tracking: A review. Research reports. CESifo DICE Report, 7(1), 26–34.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Zimmer, R. (2003). A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 307–315.
  • Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 19(1), 75–92.
Toplam 93 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Eğitim Sosyolojisi
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Meryem Özoğlu Bu kişi benim 0000-0001-6263-6993

Bekir S. Gür 0000-0001-8397-5652

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 23 Haziran 2023
Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Haziran 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023

Kaynak Göster

APA Özoğlu, M., & Gür, B. S. (2023). Ortaöğretime Geçişte Kapsamlı Akademik Gruplama ve Eşitsizliğin Yeniden Üretimi. İnsan Ve Toplum, 13(2), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.12658/M0699