BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

AKRAN DEĞERLENDİRMENİN İLKOKUL ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMLARINDA KULLANILABİLİRLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 903 - 919, 01.08.2018

Mehmet Demir

Öz

Bu çalışma akran değerlendirme yönteminin ilkokul öğretim programlarında kullanılabilirliğini ortaya koymak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırma, durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılarak yürütülmüştür. Çalışma grubunu Adıyaman’ın üç farklı ilkokulunda görev yapmakta olan 32 sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Bu katılımcılar amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden maksimum çeşitlilik örneklemesi kullanılarak araştırmaya dâhil edilmiştir. Nitel veriler, yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme formu yöntemi ile toplanmıştır. Yapılan tüm görüşmeler ses kaydına alınmış ve daha sonra bu ses kayıtları yazılı hale getirilmiştir. Toplanan veriler, kodlama yaklaşımı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Daha sonra tema ve alt temalar şeklinde kategorize edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda öğretmenlerin büyük kısmı akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin yeterli bilgiye sahip olmamalarına rağmen akran değerlendirmenin uygulanmasına yönelik olumlu görüş bildirmişlerdir. Ayıca öğretmenlerin tamamına yakını ise akran değerlendirme yöntemini sınıfların kalabalık olması, kitaplarda akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin yeterli bilgi ve formların olmaması, öğrencilerin objektif değerlendirme yapamamasından dolayı sınıflarında uygulamadıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Ancak akran değerlendirme uygulandığında öğrenciler arasındaki iletişimi ve işbirliğini arttırdığını, eleştirme ve değerlendirme yeteneklerini geliştirdiği gibi avantajlar kazandırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akran değerlendirme Ilkokul Öğretim programı

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? the shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. İçinde Anderson, R. J. ve Speck, B. (Ed.), New Directions in Teaching and Learning: No. 74: Changing the Way We Grade Student Performance: Classroom Assessment and the New Learning Paradigm (ss. 5-16). San Francisco, US: Jossey Bass.
  • Arter, J. (1996) Using assessment as a tool for learning. İçinde Blum, R. ve Arter, J. (Ed.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (ss. 1-16). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., ve Mylonas, A. (2010). Developing procedures for implementing peer Assessment in large classes using an action Research process. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education. 27(5), 427-441.
  • Bayat, Ö. (2010). İngilizce yazılı anlatım derslerinde uygulanan akran ve öz değerlendirme etkinliklerine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Dil Dergisi, 150, 70-81.
  • Boud, D. (1990) Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101-111.
  • Bozkurt, E. ve Demir, R. (2013). Öğrenci görüşleriyle akran değerlendirme: Bir örnek uygulama. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 241‐253.
  • Cheng, W. ve Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–240.
  • Cutler, H. ve Price, J. (1995). The development of skills through peer
  • assessment. İçinde Edwards
  • A. ve Knight P. (Ed.), Assessing competence in higher education (ss.150-159). Birmingham, UK
  • Staff and Educational Development Series.
  • Divaharan, S. ve Atputhasamy, L. (2002). An attempt to enhance the quality of cooperative learning through peer assessment. Journal of Education Enquiry, 3, 72–8.
  • Dochy, F. J. R. C. ve Mcdowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.
  • Dochy, F., Segers, M. ve Sluijsmans, D. (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A Review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.
  • Elharrar, Y. (2006). Teacher assessment practices and perceptions: the use of alternative assessments within the quebec educational reform. Doctoral dissertation, Universite Du Quebec A Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
  • Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovation in Education ve Training, 32(2), 175–187.
  • Fallows, S. ve Chandramohan, B. (2001) Multiple approaches to assessment: reections on use of tutor, peer and self assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229-246.
  • Fardouly, N. (2000). Instructivist versus constructivist models of teaching. Principles of Instructional Design and Adult Learning: Learner-Centred Teaching Strategies. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales. 17.04.2016 tarihinde http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/learning/instructionaldesign/strategies.htm adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Ferguson, G., Sheader, E. ve Grady, R. (2008). Computer-assisted and peer assessment: A combined approach to assessing first year laboratory practical classes for large numbers of students. Bioscience Educatione-Journal. 10.03.2016 tarihinde http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej114.aspx. adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Fisher, A. (2007). Bridges in mathematics grade 4 getting started. Oregon, US: The Math Learning Center.
  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. ve Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning ve Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
  • Gömleksiz, N. M. ve Koç, A. (2011, Eylül). Bilgisayar kullanımı öğretiminde akran değerlendirme. Sözel bildiri, 5th International Computer ve Instructional Technologies Symposium, Elazığ.
  • Hanharan, S. J. ve Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self and peer-assessment: the students’ views Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(1), 53-70.
  • Koç, C. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulamasında akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1965-1989.
  • Kwan, K. ve Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a stimulation training exercise. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 205-214.
  • Kollar, I. ve Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning ve Instruction, 20(4), 240-348.
  • Lee, A. S., Park, S. ve Choi. H. J. (2012). The relationship between communication climate and elementary teachers' beliefs about alternative assessment. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 5(1), 11-18.
  • Liu, N-F. ve Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
  • Mcdowell, L. (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning. Innovation in Education ve Training International, 32(4), 302–313.
  • Meadow-Orlans, K., Mertens, D. ve Sass-Lehrer, M. (2003). Parents and their deaf children: The early years. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research and case study applications in
  • education. San Francisco, US: Jossey Bass.
  • Mowl, G. ve Pain, R. (1995) Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essa writing: A case study from geography, Innovation in Education ve Training International, 32(4), 324–335.
  • Orsmond, P. ve Merry, S. (1996) The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239–250.
  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., ve Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self assessment. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23-38.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sag Publications.
  • Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., ve van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer perceptions. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
  • Smith, H., Cooper, A., ve Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of under-graduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education ve Teaching International, 39(1), 71-81.
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Strauss, A., ve Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded
  • theory procedure techniques.
  • Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Temizkan, M. (2009). Akran değerlendirmenin konuşma becerisinin geliştirilmesi üzerindeki etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(12), 90-112.
  • Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. ve Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146-169.
  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
  • Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. ve Yuan, M. (2002). Developing science activities through a network peer assessment system. Computer ve Education, 38, 241-252.
  • Weaver, D. ve Esposto, A. (2012). Peer assessment as a method of improving student engagement.Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(7), 805-816.

AKRAN DEĞERLENDİRMENİN İLKOKUL ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMLARINDA KULLANILABİLİRLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 903 - 919, 01.08.2018

Mehmet Demir

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? the shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. İçinde Anderson, R. J. ve Speck, B. (Ed.), New Directions in Teaching and Learning: No. 74: Changing the Way We Grade Student Performance: Classroom Assessment and the New Learning Paradigm (ss. 5-16). San Francisco, US: Jossey Bass.
  • Arter, J. (1996) Using assessment as a tool for learning. İçinde Blum, R. ve Arter, J. (Ed.), Student performance assessment in an era of restructuring (ss. 1-16). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., ve Mylonas, A. (2010). Developing procedures for implementing peer Assessment in large classes using an action Research process. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education. 27(5), 427-441.
  • Bayat, Ö. (2010). İngilizce yazılı anlatım derslerinde uygulanan akran ve öz değerlendirme etkinliklerine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Dil Dergisi, 150, 70-81.
  • Boud, D. (1990) Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101-111.
  • Bozkurt, E. ve Demir, R. (2013). Öğrenci görüşleriyle akran değerlendirme: Bir örnek uygulama. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 241‐253.
  • Cheng, W. ve Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–240.
  • Cutler, H. ve Price, J. (1995). The development of skills through peer
  • assessment. İçinde Edwards
  • A. ve Knight P. (Ed.), Assessing competence in higher education (ss.150-159). Birmingham, UK
  • Staff and Educational Development Series.
  • Divaharan, S. ve Atputhasamy, L. (2002). An attempt to enhance the quality of cooperative learning through peer assessment. Journal of Education Enquiry, 3, 72–8.
  • Dochy, F. J. R. C. ve Mcdowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 279–298.
  • Dochy, F., Segers, M. ve Sluijsmans, D. (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A Review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.
  • Elharrar, Y. (2006). Teacher assessment practices and perceptions: the use of alternative assessments within the quebec educational reform. Doctoral dissertation, Universite Du Quebec A Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
  • Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovation in Education ve Training, 32(2), 175–187.
  • Fallows, S. ve Chandramohan, B. (2001) Multiple approaches to assessment: reections on use of tutor, peer and self assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 229-246.
  • Fardouly, N. (2000). Instructivist versus constructivist models of teaching. Principles of Instructional Design and Adult Learning: Learner-Centred Teaching Strategies. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales. 17.04.2016 tarihinde http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/learning/instructionaldesign/strategies.htm adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Ferguson, G., Sheader, E. ve Grady, R. (2008). Computer-assisted and peer assessment: A combined approach to assessing first year laboratory practical classes for large numbers of students. Bioscience Educatione-Journal. 10.03.2016 tarihinde http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej114.aspx. adresinden erişilmiştir.
  • Fisher, A. (2007). Bridges in mathematics grade 4 getting started. Oregon, US: The Math Learning Center.
  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. ve Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning ve Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
  • Gömleksiz, N. M. ve Koç, A. (2011, Eylül). Bilgisayar kullanımı öğretiminde akran değerlendirme. Sözel bildiri, 5th International Computer ve Instructional Technologies Symposium, Elazığ.
  • Hanharan, S. J. ve Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self and peer-assessment: the students’ views Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(1), 53-70.
  • Koç, C. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulamasında akran değerlendirmeye ilişkin görüşleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(4), 1965-1989.
  • Kwan, K. ve Leung, R. (1996). Tutor versus peer group assessment of student performance in a stimulation training exercise. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 205-214.
  • Kollar, I. ve Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning ve Instruction, 20(4), 240-348.
  • Lee, A. S., Park, S. ve Choi. H. J. (2012). The relationship between communication climate and elementary teachers' beliefs about alternative assessment. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 5(1), 11-18.
  • Liu, N-F. ve Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
  • Mcdowell, L. (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning. Innovation in Education ve Training International, 32(4), 302–313.
  • Meadow-Orlans, K., Mertens, D. ve Sass-Lehrer, M. (2003). Parents and their deaf children: The early years. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research and case study applications in
  • education. San Francisco, US: Jossey Bass.
  • Mowl, G. ve Pain, R. (1995) Using self and peer assessment to improve students’ essa writing: A case study from geography, Innovation in Education ve Training International, 32(4), 324–335.
  • Orsmond, P. ve Merry, S. (1996) The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239–250.
  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., ve Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self assessment. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23-38.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sag Publications.
  • Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., ve van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer perceptions. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443-454.
  • Smith, H., Cooper, A., ve Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of under-graduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education ve Teaching International, 39(1), 71-81.
  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of case study research. Thousand Oks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Strauss, A., ve Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:Grounded
  • theory procedure techniques.
  • Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Temizkan, M. (2009). Akran değerlendirmenin konuşma becerisinin geliştirilmesi üzerindeki etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(12), 90-112.
  • Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. ve Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146-169.
  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
  • Tsai, C. C., Lin, S. S. ve Yuan, M. (2002). Developing science activities through a network peer assessment system. Computer ve Education, 38, 241-252.
  • Weaver, D. ve Esposto, A. (2012). Peer assessment as a method of improving student engagement.Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(7), 805-816.
Toplam 47 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Mehmet Demir Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Ağustos 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Demir, M. (2018). AKRAN DEĞERLENDİRMENİN İLKOKUL ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMLARINDA KULLANILABİLİRLİĞİNİN İNCELENMESİ. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 903-919.

2562219122   19121   19116   19117     19118       19119       19120     19124