PISA 2012 Results and Investments in Education
Öz
The purpose of this study is to review the PISA 2012 results of the most
successful countries and Turkey in the context of investments in education
relatively. To make comparisons, the PISA 2012 results of ten countries at the
top of the list, OECD average and Turkey were studied. Autonomous regions in
China such as Shangai and Hong Kong were considered as a country in the process
of comparison. This study was designed as literature review. Document analysis
technique was used in data analysis process. The data were obtained from OECD (2013a) report. The
analysis showed that the ratio of expenditures per student varies but there is
also an evidence that spending more money per student may be advantageous. On
the other hand, tenure based salary differentials were found to be at the
lowest level in Turkey. In the context
of socio economic statues, the allocation of investments such as
teacher-student ratio, in service training of teachers, physical
infrastructure, quality index of educational materials, computer accessibility,
pre primary education and time for teaching is more equal and fair in the top
countries and OECD average than Turkey.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Acar, T. (2012). Türkiye’nin PISA 2009 sonuçlarına göre OECD’ye üye ve aday ülkeler arasındaki yeri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(4), 2561-2572.
- Anıl, D. (2009). Uluslararası Öğrenci Başarılarını Değerlendirme Programı’nda (PISA) Türkiye’deki Öğrencilerin Fen Bilimleri Başarılarını Etkileyen Faktörler. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 34(152), 87-100.
- Aydın, A., Erdağ, C. ve Taş, N. (2011). 2003-2006 Pisa okuma becerileri sonuçlarının karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesi: En başarılı beş ülke ve Türkiye. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(2), 651-673.
- Aydın, A., Sarıer, Y. ve Uysal, Ş. (2012). Sosyo-ekonomik ve sosyokültürel değişkenler açısından PISA matematik sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 164, 20-30.
- Bracey, Gerald W. (2009) PISA: not leaning hard on US economy, Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 450-451.
- Carnoy, M., Khavenson, T., & Ivanova, A. (2015). Using TIMSS and PISA results to inform educational policy: a study of Russia and its neighbours.Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(2), 248-271.
- Chiu, M.M. and Khoo, L., (2005). Effects of resources, distribution inequality, and privileged bias on achievement: Country, school, and student level analyses. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 575-603.
- Çelenk, S. (2008). İlköğretim okulları birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin ilk okuma ve yazma öğretimine hazırlık düzeyleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(1), 83- 90.
- Çobanoğlu, R. ve Kasapoğlu, K. (2010). PISA’da Fin başarısının nedenleri ve nasılları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39, 121-131.
- Demir, İ., Kılıç, S. ve Ünal, H. (2010). Effects of students’ and schools’ characteristics on mathematics achievement: Findings from PISA 2006, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 3099–3103.