Standart Sınavlar ve Dönüşen Öğretmen Kimliği

Öz

Standart sınavlar ve standart öğretim programları, eğitimin bütün paydaşlarını etkileyen unsurlardır. Standart sınavlardan en çok etkilenen unsurlardan biri öğrenci ise diğeri de öğretmen olmuştur. İlgili alan yazın incelendiğinde eğitimde standartlaşmanın öğretmenlik mesleğinin anlamını, mesleğin günlük pratiklerini etkilediği, öğretmenin iş yükünü artırdığı ve öğretmen üzerinde bir denetim mekanizması işlevi gördüğüne dair eleştirilerin mevcut olduğu görülmektedir. Bu tartışmalardan hareketle gerçekleştirilmiş olan bu çalışmanın amacı ise standart sınavların ve standart programın öğretmenin mesleki kimliği ve pratikleri üzerindeki etkisinin öğretmenlerin kendi deneyimlerine dayanarak çözümlenmesi olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırma, nitel araştırma desenlerinden biri olan olgubilim deseni ile yürütülmüştür. Olgubilim deseni, bireylerin deneyimledikleri olgulara ilişkin öznel kavrayışlarını derinlemesine çözümlemek üzere yürütülen araştırmalar için uygun bir desendir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları amaçlı örnekleme tekniklerinden biri olan ölçüt örnekleme yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Dolayısıyla araştırmanın çalışma grubu, öğrencilerini standart sınavlara hazırlama deneyimi olan ve branşı standart sınavların kapsamına giren 12 ortaokul öğretmeninden meydana gelmiştir. Araştırma verileri, derinlemesine görüşme ve odak grup görüşmesi teknikleriyle elde edilmiş olup içerik analizi yöntemi ile çözümlenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda ise “Öğretmenin Teknisyenleşmesi” ve “Sınav Öncelikli Öğretim” başlığı altında iki tema oluşturulmuş olup bu temalar, katılımcı görüşlerinden yapılan alıntılar ile sunularak tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Standart sınavlar
• standart program
• öğretmen kimliği

High Stakes Testing and Transformation in the Occupational Identity of Teachers

Öz

In the literature, there is criticism that standardization in education affects the meaning of the teaching profession, the daily practice of the profession, increases the workload of the teacher and acts as a control mechanism on the teacher. The aim of this study is to analyze standard exams and standard programs in terms of the teacher’s professional identity and practices, based on the teachers’ own experiences. For this purpose, the research was carried out with a phenomenological design, which is one of the qualitative research designs.. The participants of the study were determined by using the purposive sampling technique, which is one of the purposive sampling techniques. Therefore, the study group of the current research consisted of 12 secondary school teachers who had the experience of preparing students for standardized exams, and whose branch was included in those exams. Research data were obtained through in-depth interview and focus group interview techniques, and analyzed with the content analysis method. As a result of the analysis, two themes were created under the title of “Teachers Turning into Technicians” and “Exam Oriented Teaching”. These themes are presented and discussed with quotations from the participants’ views.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Standardized exams
• standardized program
• teacher identity

Kaynakça

1. Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the Classroom: Teachers’ Opinions of Statewide Testing Programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18─29.
2. Aksoy, H. H., Akgündüz, M. M., Demir, N., Tunacan, S., Türk, F., & Uğur, N. (2014). Eğitimde merkezi sınavlara ilişkin eleştiriler. In N. S. Baykal, A. Ural, & Z. Alica, Eleştirel Eğitim Seçkisi (pp. 32-55). Ankara: Pegem.
3. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, S. L. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 167─180.
4. Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense?. Teachers College Record (95)2, 222─241
5. Apple, M. W. (2004). Eğitim ve iktidar (Çev. E. Bulut). İstanbul: Kalkedon.
6. Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. New York: Routledge.
7. Apple, M. W. (2013). Teachers and Texts. New York, NY: Routledge.
8. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: a qualitative meta-analysis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258─267.

9. Au, W. (2008). Between education and the economy: high‐stakes testing and the contradictory location of the new middle class. Journal of Education Policy, 23(5), 501─5013.
10. Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design. New York: Routledge.
11. Au, W. (2010). The idiocy of policy: The anti-democratic curriculum of high-stakes testing. Critical Education, 1(1), 1─16.
12. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: high‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25─45.
13. Au, W. (2016). Mereitocracy 2.0: High-stakes standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39─62.
14. Baines, L. A. & Stanley, G. K. (2005). High-stakes hustle: Public schools and the new billion dollar accountability. The Educational Forum, 69(1), 8─15.
15. Balcı, A. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma. Ankara: Pegem. Berliner, D. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949—995.
16. Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287─302.
17. Blömeke, S., & Delaney, S. (2014). Assessment of teacher knowledge across countries: A review of the state of research. In International perspectives on teacher knowledge, beliefs and opportunities to learn (pp. 541─585). Springer,
18. Dordrecht. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241─258). New York: Greenwood.
19. Christians, C. G. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 139─164). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
20. Condron, D. J. (2011). Egalitarianism and Educational Excellence Compatible Goals for Affluent Societies? Educational Researcher, 40(2), 47─55.
21. Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227─268.
22. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
23. Çapulcuoğlu, U., & Gündüz, B. (2013). Öğrenci tükenmişliğini yordamada stresle başa çıkma, sınav kaygısı, akademik yetkinlik ve anne-baba tutumları. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(1), 201─218.
24. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: the irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245─260.
25. Day, R.R. (1991), Models and the Knowledge Base of Second Language Teacher Education, National Centre for Research on Teacher Learning, East Lansing, MI
26. DeMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In K. deMarrais, & S. D. Lapan, Foundations for research (pp. 51─68). Mahwah: Lawrrence Erlbaum.
27. Downey, D. B., Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. Downey, D. B., Von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613─635.
28. Flick, U. (2007). Qualitative research designs. Designing qualitative research. Sage.
29. Ford, T. G. (2018). Pointing teachers in the wrong direction: Understanding Louisiana elementary teachers’ use of compass high-stakes teacher evaluation data. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30(3), 251─283.
30. Foucault, M. (1992). Hapishanenin Doğuşu (Çev. M. A. Kılıçbay). Ankara: İmge.
31. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. Newtork: W. W. Norton.
32. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 3─17). Springer, Dordrecht.
33. Gunzenhauser, M. G. (2003). High-stakes testing and default philosophy of education. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 51─58.
34. Güler, D., & Çakır, G. (2016). Lise son sınıf öğrencilerinin sınav kaygısını yordayan değişkenlerin incelenmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(39).
35. Gür, B. S., Çelik, Z., & Coşkun, İ. (2013). Türkiye’de ortaöğretimin geleceği: Hiyerarşi mi eşitlik mi. Seta analiz, 69, 1─26.
36. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41).
37. Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure? Theory Into Practice, 1, 30─41.
38. Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high‐stakes testing in the USA: accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605─622.
39. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493─518.
40. Hursh, D. (2013). Raising the stakes: high-stakes testing and the attack on public education in New York. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 574─588.
41. Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. M. (2014). “Teaching to test” in the NCLB era: Hoe test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 387─389.
42. Karaduman, B., & Kilmen, S. (2018). Sınav Stresi Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması ve Ölçme Değişmezliğinin İncelenmesi. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 9(2), 101─115.
43. Köğce, D., & Baki, A. (2009). Matematik öğretmenlerinin yazılı sınav soruları ile ÖSS sınavlarında sorulan matematik sorularının Bloom taksonomisine göre karşılaştırılması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(26), 70─80.
44. Kumlu, G. D. Y., & Çobanoğlu, R. (2019) Çocukların eğitimde merkezi sınav başarısı ile ilgili dersler daha mı önemli? Aile görüşü ve ilişkili Faktörler. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1─22.
45. Kümbetoğlu, B. (2005). Sosyolojide ve antropolojide niteliksel yöntem ve araştırma. İstanbul: Bağlam.
46. Kılıçkaya, F. (2016). Washback effects of a high-stakes exam on lower secondary school English teachers’ practices in the classroom. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 40(1), 116─134.
47. Lewis, S., & Hardy, I. (2015). Funding, reputation and targets: the discursive logics of high-stakes testing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(2), 245─264.
48. Lundström, U., & Holm, A.-S. (2011). Market competition in upper secondary education: Perceived effects on teachers’ work. Policy Futures in Education, 9(2), 193─205.
49. Marvasti, A. B. (2004). Qualitative research in sociology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
50. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. New York: Sage.
51. Milli Eğitim Temel Kanunu (1973). Resmi gazete. Yayım Tarihi, 24, 1973. Minarechová, M. (2012). Negative impacts of high-stakes testing. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(1), 82─100.
52. Moore, A., & Clarke, M. (2016). ‘Cruel optimism’: teacher attachment to professionalism in an era of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1160293.
53. Nathaniel, P., Sandilos, L. E., L, P., & Mankin, A. (2016). Teacher stress, teaching-efficacy, and job satisfaction in response to test-based educational accountability policies. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 308─317.
54. Nelson, H. (2013). Testing more teaching less. Washingtos, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
55. Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: A teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640─657.
56. Punch, K. F. (2005). Sosyal araştırmalara giriş (Nitel ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar). (Çev. D. Bayrak, H. B. Arslan ve Z. Akyüz) Ankara: Siyasal.
57. Rutz, H. J., & Balkan, E. M. (2016). Sınıfın yeniden üretimi: Eğitim, neoliberalizm ve İstanbul’da yeni orta sınıfın yükselişi (Çev. N. Balkan). İstanbul: h2o.
58. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative research. Londra: Sage.
59. Schneider, M. C., Egan, K. L., & Julian, M. W. (2013). Classroom assessment in the context of high-stakes testing. İçinde J. H. McMillan, SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment, (55─71). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
60. Sennett, R. (2008). Karakter Aşınması (Çev. B. Yıldırım). İstanbul: Ayrıntı.
61. Stoskopf, A. (1999). The forgotten history of eugenics. Rethinking Schools, 13(3), 12─13. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. New Bury Park: Sage.
62. Styron, J. L., & Styron, R. (2012). Teaching to the test: A controversial issue in quantitative measurement. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 10(5), 22─25.
63. Sung, Y.-K., & Apple, M. W. (2003). Democracy, technology and curriculum: Lessons from critical practices of Korean teachers. In M. W. Apple, The State and The Politics of Knowledge (pp. 177─192). New York: Routledge.
64. Thompson, G. L., & Allen, T. G. (2012). Four Effects of the High-Stakes Testing Movement on African American K-12 Students. Journal of Negro Education, 81(3), 218─227.
65. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing role of teachers in an era of high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519─558.
66. West, C. (2012). Teaching Music in an Era of High-Stakes Testing and Budget Reductions. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(2), 75─79.
67. Wright, W. E. (2002). The Effects of High Stakes Testing in an Inner-City Elementary School: The Curriculum, the Teachers, and the English Language Learners. Current Issues in Education, 5(5).
68. Zimmermann, B. J. & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment: Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology in the Schools, 45(3), 206─216.