2018 Fen Bilimleri Öğretim Programı Kapsamındaki 7. Sınıf Güneş Sistemi Ve Ötesi Ünitesine Yönelik Bir Başarı Testi Geliştirme

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 38 Sayı: 2, 172 - 205, 24.12.2019

Ayşe Gül Özaşkın Arslan Sevilay Karamustafaoğlu

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı,
2018-2019 akademik yılında yürürlüğe giren ve uygulanmaya başlanan 2018 Fen
Bilimleri Öğretim Programı’ndaki 7. Sınıf “Güneş Sistemi ve Ötesi” ünitesine
yönelik çoktan seçmeli geçerli ve güvenilir bir başarı testi geliştirmektir.
Testin geliştirilme sürecinde öğrenci kazanımları dikkate alınarak, hazırlanan
maddelerin bağlamsal bir yapı üzerine inşa edilmesine ve öğrencilerin problem
çözme becerisinin kullanımını gerektirmesine önem verilmiştir. Araştırmacılar
tarafından ders kitaplarından faydalanılarak ve öğretim programına bağlı kalınarak
ek kazanımlar yazılmış ve belirtke tablosu hazırlanmıştır. Çalışma grubunu Ağrı
il merkezindeki devlet okullarında öğrenim gören ve 7. sınıfa devam etmekte
olan 392 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin analizinde Test Analiz Programı
(TAP) kullanılmış ve madde güçlük indeksi, madde ayırıcılık indeksi ve
güvenirlik için Kuder-Richardson 20 değerleri hesaplanmıştır. Yapılan analizler
sonucu çoktan seçmeli başarı testindeki 7 madde testin kapsamından
çıkarılmıştır. Çıkarılan maddelerin kapsam geçerliğini etkilemediği sonucuna
ulaşıldıktan sonra ilgili madde analizleri yeniden gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuç
olarak ortalama güçlük indeksinin 0,44; ortalama ayırıcılık indeksinin 0,40 ve
KR-20 değerinin 0,80 olduğu 36 maddelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir başarı testi
geliştirilmiştir. Testten çıkarılan maddelerin üst ve alt grubu ayırt edememe
sebepleri tartışılmış ve gerekli önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Geliştirilen bu
başarı testi, ilgili araştırmacıların ve öğretmenlerin kullanımına sunulmuştur.
2018 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programına yönelik ve yenilenen ortaöğretime
geçiş sınavlarında sorulan sorularla benzer türde olan bu başarı testinin,
alanda çalışma yapan herkese katkı sağlayacağına inanılmaktadır.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çoktan seçmeli başarı testi, güneş sistemi ve ötesi ünitesi, madde güçlük indeksi

To Develop an Achievement Test for 7th Grade Solar System and Beyond Unit Within the Scope of 2018 Science Education Curriculum

Öz

There are several
methods for the purpose of measuring and evaluating in education and one of
these methods is achievement tests which varies as true-false, matching or
multiple-choice. To prepare test items for different cognitive domain levels,
to make objective scoring and thus to compare different groups, and to save and
time in measuring and evaluating crowded classes' level of achievement; all of
these makes multiple choice achievement test more advantageous than other
measurement methods. A multiple-choice achievement tests whose validity and
reliability is ensured has a reusable feature. Creating an achievement test
that has reached this stage is an effort that requires care and attention.
Achievement tests prepared in accordance with measurement standards are one of
the measurement instruments that provide data on students' level of
understanding about the content, the level of accession to course's objectives,
the quality of actions in instruction and what kind of changes should be made.
The level of usefulness of the methods and techniques used in teaching the
content can also be evaluated by the data obtained from the achievement tests.
Clear, comprehensible and well-established tests provide a sound basis for
making objective and important decisions about both students and education
programs. One of the most important factors to be considered when preparing
test items is to develop ways to minimize the external cognitive load that may
occur in the student. Practices such as not using non-specific questions,
distractive content and images; paying attention to make all parts related to a
question to be on the same page; using visuals if they will facilitate the
understanding of the item; writing in bold type or underline the important
words in the item root; using clear and short guidelines have been considered
in constructing this achievement test.

One of the shortages
in the related literature is there is not any research about developing an
achievement test on solar system and beyond unit that belongs to 7th grade of
science curriculum which was revised in 2018. Because of this reason, the aim
of this study is to develop a valid and reliable multiple-choice achievement
test for the first subject of 7th grades namely Solar System and Beyond in 2018
Science Curriculum which was enacted in 2018-2019 academic year. Having a
contextual structure and requiring students to use problem solving skills are
the points considered during the item construction process. Because the test
items should be appropriate to the objectives of the unit, the related
curriculum and textbooks were examined. As it found that more than one
objective in the curriculum was expresses in a single objective, those ones
were written separately. Also, additional objectives were written by the
researchers by using the content in science textbooks without going out of the
curriculum. A total of 40 objectives were obtained and an achievement test
involves 43 items was developed which was analyzed by domain experts. A table
of specifications was prepared in order to see perspicuously which items
corresponds to which objectives. The participants in this study are 392 7th
grade students attending to public schools in Turkey. The survey method was
used in this study because the data was collected to identify some aspects or
characteristics of a sample representing the related population, rather than
each member of the population. The 43-item achievement test was applied to 392
students who were voluntarily contributed to the study, and in the analysis of
data TAP (Test Analysis Program) was used. Item difficulty index and item
discrimination index for each item and Kuder-Richardson 20 value for
reliability were examined.

In the analysis of the
data, some formulas and criteria were used which was given below;

D:
Item discrimination index

p:
Item difficulty index

D_h:
Number of students who answered the item correctly in the highest group

D_l:
Number of students who answered the item correctly in the lowest group

N_h:
Number of students in the in the highest group

N_l:
Number of students in the in the lowest group

 

Table 1. Item Difficulty Index and Interpretation of
Values

Item Difficulty Index	p	Means
	p<0,35	Difficult
	0,35<p<0,85	Moderate
	0,85<p	Easy

 

Table 2. Item Discrimination Index and Interpretation
of Values

Item Discrimination Index	D	Quality	Suggestion
	D < -0,01	Worst	Discard
	0,00 - 0,20	Poor	Discard or review in depth
	0,20 -0,29	Mediocre	Check/Review
	0,30 -0,39	Good	Possibilities for improvement
	0,39 < D	Excellent	Retain

 

As a result of the
analysis, 7 items in the multiple-choice achievement test were discarded
because of item discrimination indexes were not as desired levels. Those
questions are labeled as 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 34 and 35. Their discrimination
indexes were 0,10; 0,15; 0,15; -0,04; -0,02; 0,15 and 0,16; respectively. The
initial test’s KR-20 value was 0,78. after discarding the mentioned above
items, a valid and reliable multiple-choice achievement test consisting 36
items with 0,44 difficulty index, 0,40 discrimination index and 0,80 KR-20
value was developed ultimately and made available for researchers and science
teachers who are interested in astronomy.

In addition, which
cognitive domain levels corresponds to those seven items that have high
difficulty index is also examined. Objectives at mostly
"Understanding" and one for each "Analyzing", "Evaluating"
and "Creating" levels were seemed to be difficult for participants.
Although the number of items in the test that require high level thinking
skills is limited, it would not be a mistake to look for reasons in-classroom
activities about why high-level thinking seemed difficult to students. In an
environment where the teacher and textbook are the primary source and the
course is being teach in a manner that will not allow students to make
analysis, evaluation and creating new ideas; may lead to an inability to
develop high level thinking skills. The objectives that correspond to the items
which have medium-quality discrimination index were also examined and two of
them are at "Evaluating" level, one is at "Understanding"
and the last one is at "Analyzing" level. Although three of these
four items require high-level thinking skills, they are not good at
distinguishing the highest group from the lowest one. This may mean that the
in-class activities may only remain at the basic levels such as remembering, understanding
and application in cognitive domain; and no place and time allocated for
activities that will promote high-level thinking skills of students. The fact
that students in the highest group made mistakes in items about telescopes,
constellations and galaxies may require teachers to make more detailed lesson
planning for such abstract contents. It is necessary to develop alternative
solutions such as developing related tools and materials, demonstrating videos
and simulation on the smart board and more importantly producing of such
technologies on a local basis.

Therefore, a valid and
reliable test is developed, and it is believed that this multiple-choice
achievement test is going to contribute to everyone working in this field
because it is developed for National Science Curriculum which was revised in
2018 and in the manner of renewed questions in transition exam to secondary
education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multiple choice achievement test, solar system and beyond unit, item difficulty index

Kaynakça

• 7. Sınıf Fen Bilimleri Ders Kitabı (2018). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları Yardımcı ve Kaynak Kitaplar Dizisi. http://www.eba.gov.tr/ekitap?icerik-id=7322 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Anderson, L. W. &Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, And Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’sTaxonomy of Educational Objectives. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
• Ayas, A. (2009). Test Geliştirme ve Madde Analizi. S. Çepni & S. Akyıldız (ed.), Ölçme ve Değerlendirme içinde (ss. 236-249). Celepler Matbaacılık: Trabzon.
• Bademci, V. (2001). Düşünmenin öğretilmesi ve öğretimde kullanılan yöntemler-teknikler. TÜRMOB Konferansı: Bursa, 9 Kasım 2001.
• Bademci, V. (2011). Kuder-Richardson 20, Cronbach’ın alfası, Hoyt’un varyans analizi, genellenirlik kuramı ve ölçüm güvenirliği üzerine bir çalışma. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17, 173-193.
• Baloğlu Uğurlu, N. (2005). İlköğretim 6. Sınıf öğrencilerinin dünya ve evren konusu ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 229-246.
• Baxter, J. (1989). Children’s understanding of familiar astronomical events. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 502-513.
• Beddow, P. A. (2010). Beyond Universal Design: Accessibility Theory to Advance Testing for All Students. In Assessing Students in The Margins: Challenges, Strategies, and Techniques M. Russell (Ed.), (1.Baskı, ss. 383–407). New York: Information Age Publishing.
• Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A. & Frey, J. R. (2011). Accessibility Theory: Guiding the Science and Practice of Test Item Design with the Test-Taker in Mind. In Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students: Bridging the Gaps Between Research, Practice, and Policy S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, A. Kurz (Ed.), (ss. 163-182). Springer: New York.
• Bejar, I. I. (1983). Achievement Testing: Recent Advances. Sage University Papers Series. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; No. 07-036.
• Bektaşlı, B. (2013). The development of astronomy concept test for determining preservice science teachers’ misconceptions about astronomy. Education and Science, 38(168), 362-372.
• Bisard, W. & Zeilik, M. (1998). Conceptually centered astronomy with actively engaged students. Mercury, 27, 16-19.
• Blake, A. (2010). Do young children’s ideas about the Earth’s structure and processes reveal underlying patterns of descriptive and causal understanding in earth science? Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 59-74.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). (Ed.) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. David McKay Company, Inc.: New York.
• Brooks, G. P., & Johanson, G. A. (2003). Test Analysis Program. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 305-306.
• Buluş Kırıkkaya, E. & Şentürk, M. (2018). Güneş sistemi ve ötesi ünitesinde artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojisi kullanılmasının öğrenci akademik başarısına etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 26(1), 181-189.
• Comins, N. F. (2000). A method to help students overcome astronomy misconceptions. The Physics Teacher, 38(9), 542-543.
• DeLaughter, J. E., Stein, S., Stein, C. A., & Bain, K. R. (1998). Preconceptions abound among students in an introductory earth science course. EOS Transactions, 79, 429.
• Dunlop, J. (2000). How children observe the universe. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 17(2), 194-206.
• Ebel, R. L. &Frisbie, D. A. (1986). Essentials of education measurement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Emrahoğlu, N. & Öztürk, A. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının astronomi kavramlarını anlama seviyelerinin ve kavram yanılgılarının incelenmesi üzerine boylamsal bir araştırma. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18(1), 165-180.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7. Baskı). McGraw-Hill: New York, USA.
• Gronlund, N. E. (1977). Constructing Achievement Tests (2.Baskı). Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• Martinez Pena, B. & GilQuilez, M. J. (2001) The importance of images in astronomy education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1125-1135.
• Mehrens, W. A. & Lehmann, I. J. (1991). Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (4.Baskı). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA.
• Nussbaum, J. & Novak, J. D. (1976). An assessment of children's concepts of the earth utilizing structured interviews. Science Education, 60(4), 535-550.
• Parker, J. & Heywood, D. (2007). The Earth and beyond: Developing primary teachers’ understanding of basic astronomical concepts. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 20(5), 503-520.
• Slater, T. F. & Adams, J. P. (2002). Mathematical reasoning over arithmetic in introductory astronomy. The Physics Teacher, 40, 268.
• Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 293-312.
• Trumper, R. (2001). A cross-age study of junior high school students' conceptions of basic astronomy concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1111-1123.
• Trumper, R. (2006). Teaching future teachers basic astronomy concepts—seasonal changes—at a time of reform in science education. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 43(9), 879-906.
• Türk, C. & Kalkan, H. (2017). Modellerle astronomi öğretiminin öğrencilerin başarılarına ve tutumlarına etkisi. Journal of Current Researches on Educational Studies, 7(2), 185-204.
• Wallace, J. & Louden, W. (1992) Science teaching and teachers’ knowledge: Prospects for reform of elementary classrooms. Science Education, 76, 507-521.
• Yılmaz, E., Türkoğuz, S. & Şahin, M. (2014). Güneş sistemi ve uzay konularına yönelik kavram yanılgılarının günlük yaşama etkisi üzerine öğretmen görüşleri. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 37-44.
• Zeilik, M. (2002). Birth of the astronomy diagnostic test: Prototest evolution. Astronomy Education Review, 1(2), 46. http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=2&section=2&article=5.