PİYANO EĞİTİMİ DERSİ PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜNE YÖNELİK DERECELİ PUANLAMA ANAHTARININ GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Şafak Turgut; Esra Dalkıran

doi:10.20488/sanattasarim.1048952

Araştırma Makalesi

PİYANO EĞİTİMİ DERSİ PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜNE YÖNELİK DERECELİ PUANLAMA ANAHTARININ GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 438 - 449, 27.12.2021

Şafak Turgut Esra Dalkıran

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1048952

Öz

Çalgı performans sınavlarında, likert tipi ölçekler ve analitik DPA türü ölçme araçları kullanıldığında, hakemler öğrenci performansını dinlemek, ölçme aracı maddelerini okuyup anlamak ve performansa göre uygun puanlamayı yapmak durumundadır. Dolayısıyla araştırmacılar, bu ölçme araçlarının çalgı sınavı gibi kısıtlı bir zaman içerisinde doldurmaya uygun olmadığını düşünmektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, piyano eğitimi dersi sınav performansını ölçmeye yönelik geçerliği ve güvenirliği sağlanmış, sürecin bütününe odaklanan, pratik bir ölçme aracı geliştirilmesidir. Tarama modeli kullanılan araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2018-2019 eğitim-öğretim yılında, üniversitelerin, eğitim fakültelerine bağlı müzik eğitimi anabilim dalında, lisans 1 düzeyinde öğrenim gören 52 müzik öğretmeni adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen DPA ile toplanmış, sınıf içi korelasyon analizi (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient) ile genel puanlar ve tüm ölçütlere verilen puanlar arasında hakemler arası tutarlılığa bakılmıştır. DPA’nın güvenirlik analizleri ve iç tutarlılığının belirlenmesinde Cronbach’s alpha ile madde-bütün analizleri (Item-Total Statistics) yapılmıştır. DPA’nın kapsam geçerliği için uzman görüşü alınmış; yapı geçerliği için ise, iki farklı ölçme yöntemi arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi amacıyla Pearson korelasyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre, hakemler arası tutarlılık, .850 ve .976 arasında değişmektedir. Tüm ölçütler üzerinden hesaplanan Cronbach’s alpha iç tutarlık katsayısı, hakem-1 ve hakem-2 için .80’den büyük olduğundan, DPA’nın güvenirliği yüksek düzeydedir. DPA’nın, yapı geçerliği için yapılan Pearson korelasyon analizi sonuçlarına göre; hakem-1 ve hakem-2 için ölçme yöntemleri arasında yüksek korelasyon bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Müzik, Piyano, Performans, Dereceli Puanlama Anahtarı, Ölçme Ve Değerlendirme

Kaynakça

• Abeles, H. (1973). Development and validation of a clarinet performance adjudication scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 246–255.
• Arı, G. (2008). Öğrencilerin hikâye edici metinlerinin çözümleyici puanlama yönergesine göre değerlendirilmesi (6 ve 7. Sınıf örneği) (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Arter, J. A. (2000). Rubrics, scoring guides and performance criteria: Classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association.
• Azzara, C. D. (1993). The effect of audiation-based improvisation techniques on musical achievement of elementary music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 328–342.
• Barnicle, S. P. (1993). Evaluating the choral performer. CMEA News, 44(2), 24–26.
• Bergee, M. J. (1988). The use of an objectively constructed rating scale for the evaluation of brass juries: A criterion related study. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 5(5), 6–25.
• Bergee, M. J. (1989). An investigation of the efficacy of using an objectively constructed rating scale for the evaluation of university-level single reed juries. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 74–91.
• Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 19–27.
• Burnsed, V., Hinkle, D., & King, S. (1985). Performance evaluation reliability at selected concert festivals. Journal of Band Research, 21(1), 22–29.
• Ciorba, C. R., & Smith, N. Y. (2009). Measurement of instrumental and vocal undergraduate performance juries using a multidimensional assessment rubric. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(1), 5-15.
• Cornett, C. E., & Smithrim, K. L. (2001). The arts as meaning makers: Integrating literature and the arts throughout the curriculum (Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.
• Çepni, S. (2011). Performansların Değerlendirilmesi. Emin Karip (Ed.). Performansların Değerlendirilmesi (ss.233-285) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Dönmez, L. ve Dalkıran E. (2018). Vurmalı çalgılar dereceli puanlama anahtarı tasarımı ve geleneksel puanlama yöntemi ile ilişki ve farklılığın tespit edilmesi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 84, 500-518.
• Garman, B. R., Boyle, J. D., & DeCarbo, N. J. (1991). Orchestra festival ratings: Interjudge agreement and relationships between performance categories and final ratings. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 2, 19– 24.
• Gliem, R. and Gliem, J. (Ekim, 2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales”, in 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, pp. 82-88.
• Grançer Okay, N. (2010). Piyano performansının değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Horowitz, R. A. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 3443.
• Jones, H., Jr. (1986). An application of a facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the development of a rating scale for high school solo vocal performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1230.
• Kan, A. (2007). Performans değerlendirme sürecine katkıları açısından yeni program anlayışı içerisinde kullanılabilecek bir değerlendirme yaklaşımı: Rubrik puanlama yönergeleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7 (1), 144-152.
• Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (18. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Kırışoğlu, O. T. (2005). Sanatta eğitim görmek öğrenmek yaratmak. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Kurtuldu, K. (2010). Piyano sınavı değerlendirme ölçeğinin puanlayıcılara yönelik geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(31), 224-232.
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C., D. ve Karakaya, İ. (2017). Ölçme ve değerlendirme, performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Levinowitz, L. M. (1989). An investigation of preschool children’s comparative capability to sing songs with and without words. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 100, 14–19.
• MEB (2007). Görsel sanatlar dersi (1-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu, Ankara: MEB Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
• MENC (1996). Performance standards for music. Reston: Author.
• Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment in Evaluation, 7 (3).
• Norris, C. E. & Borst, J. D. (2007). An examination of the reliabilities of two choral festival adjudication forms. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 237–251.
• Özalp, U. ve Dalkiran, E. (2018). Piyano performansı dereceli puanlama anahtarının geliştirilmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27).
• Polat, S. (2017). Ses Eğitiminin Temel Ögeleri ve Çeşitli Söyleme Tekniklerine Yönelik Uzman Görüşleri ve Performans Değerlendirme Ölçeği Örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 3(1), 1-18.
• Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (Vol. 892). NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
• Radocy, R.E. (1986). On quantifying the uncountable in musical behavior. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 88, 22–31.
• Radocy, R. E. (1989). Evaluating student achievement. Music Educators Journal, 76(4), 30–33.
• Rutkowski, J. (1990). The measurement and evaluation of children’s singing voice development. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 1(1/2), 81–95.
• Saddler, B. ve Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62 (1), 48-52.
• Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria specific rating scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–272.
• Tuna, S. (2011). Sanat eserlerini değerlendirme. A. O. Alakuş ve L. Mercin (Ed.), Sanat eğitimi ve görsel sanatlar öğretimi (s.253-262). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Uçan, A. (1980). Çevreden evrene keman eğitimi üzerine. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 5(47), 19-27.
• Yarar, B. (2010). Müzik öğretmenliği lisans programındaki “bireysel ses eğitimi” dersine yönelik performans ölçeği geliştirme çalışması (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
• Yaşar, M. (2008). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirmenin önemi. S. Tekindal (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (s.1-7). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık
• Zdzinski, S. F., & Barnes, G. V. (2002). Development and validation of a string performance rating scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 245–255.

DEVELOPMENT OF A PIANO EDUCATION LESSON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT RUBRIC: THE STUDY OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 438 - 449, 27.12.2021

Şafak Turgut Esra Dalkıran

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1048952

Öz

When Likert-type scales and analytical rubric type measurement tools are used in instrument performance exams, the adjudicators have to listen the student performance, read and understand the measurement tools and make appropriate scoring according to the performance. Therefore, the researchers think that these measurement tools are not suitable for filling in a limited time like an instrument exam. The aim of the research is to develop a practical measurement tool that focuses on the whole process, whose validity and reliability have been ensured for the piano education lesson. Survey model was used in this study. The study group of the research consists of 52 pre-service music teachers, studying at undergraduate level 1 in the department of music education. The data of the study was collected with rubric developed by the researchers. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was used to determining inter-rater reliability for general scores and scores given to all criteria. Cronbach’s alpha and item-total statistics were used to determine the reliability and internal consistency of the rubric. Expert opinion was obtained for the content validity of rubric. For the construct validity of the rubric, Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between two different assessment methods. According to the results of the study, the consistency between the adjudicators varies between .850 and .976. Since the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculated over all criteria is greater than .80 for adjudicator-1 and adjudicator-2, the reliability of the rubric is high. According to the results of Pearson correlation analysis; There is a high correlation between assessment methods for adjudicator-1 and adjudicator-2.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Music, Piano, Performance, Rubric, Assessment

Kaynakça

• Abeles, H. (1973). Development and validation of a clarinet performance adjudication scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 246–255.
• Arı, G. (2008). Öğrencilerin hikâye edici metinlerinin çözümleyici puanlama yönergesine göre değerlendirilmesi (6 ve 7. Sınıf örneği) (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Arter, J. A. (2000). Rubrics, scoring guides and performance criteria: Classroom tools for assessing and improving student learning. New Orleans: American Educational Research Association.
• Azzara, C. D. (1993). The effect of audiation-based improvisation techniques on musical achievement of elementary music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 328–342.
• Barnicle, S. P. (1993). Evaluating the choral performer. CMEA News, 44(2), 24–26.
• Bergee, M. J. (1988). The use of an objectively constructed rating scale for the evaluation of brass juries: A criterion related study. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 5(5), 6–25.
• Bergee, M. J. (1989). An investigation of the efficacy of using an objectively constructed rating scale for the evaluation of university-level single reed juries. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 74–91.
• Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 19–27.
• Burnsed, V., Hinkle, D., & King, S. (1985). Performance evaluation reliability at selected concert festivals. Journal of Band Research, 21(1), 22–29.
• Ciorba, C. R., & Smith, N. Y. (2009). Measurement of instrumental and vocal undergraduate performance juries using a multidimensional assessment rubric. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(1), 5-15.
• Cornett, C. E., & Smithrim, K. L. (2001). The arts as meaning makers: Integrating literature and the arts throughout the curriculum (Canadian ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education
• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of applied psychology, 78(1), 98.
• Çepni, S. (2011). Performansların Değerlendirilmesi. Emin Karip (Ed.). Performansların Değerlendirilmesi (ss.233-285) Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Dönmez, L. ve Dalkıran E. (2018). Vurmalı çalgılar dereceli puanlama anahtarı tasarımı ve geleneksel puanlama yöntemi ile ilişki ve farklılığın tespit edilmesi. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 84, 500-518.
• Garman, B. R., Boyle, J. D., & DeCarbo, N. J. (1991). Orchestra festival ratings: Interjudge agreement and relationships between performance categories and final ratings. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 2, 19– 24.
• Gliem, R. and Gliem, J. (Ekim, 2003), “Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales”, in 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education, pp. 82-88.
• Grançer Okay, N. (2010). Piyano performansının değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Horowitz, R. A. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 3443.
• Jones, H., Jr. (1986). An application of a facet-factorial approach to scale construction in the development of a rating scale for high school solo vocal performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1230.
• Kan, A. (2007). Performans değerlendirme sürecine katkıları açısından yeni program anlayışı içerisinde kullanılabilecek bir değerlendirme yaklaşımı: Rubrik puanlama yönergeleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 7 (1), 144-152.
• Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (18. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
• Kırışoğlu, O. T. (2005). Sanatta eğitim görmek öğrenmek yaratmak. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Kurtuldu, K. (2010). Piyano sınavı değerlendirme ölçeğinin puanlayıcılara yönelik geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(31), 224-232.
• Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C., D. ve Karakaya, İ. (2017). Ölçme ve değerlendirme, performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Levinowitz, L. M. (1989). An investigation of preschool children’s comparative capability to sing songs with and without words. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 100, 14–19.
• MEB (2007). Görsel sanatlar dersi (1-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu, Ankara: MEB Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
• MENC (1996). Performance standards for music. Reston: Author.
• Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment in Evaluation, 7 (3).
• Norris, C. E. & Borst, J. D. (2007). An examination of the reliabilities of two choral festival adjudication forms. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 237–251.
• Özalp, U. ve Dalkiran, E. (2018). Piyano performansı dereceli puanlama anahtarının geliştirilmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(27).
• Polat, S. (2017). Ses Eğitiminin Temel Ögeleri ve Çeşitli Söyleme Tekniklerine Yönelik Uzman Görüşleri ve Performans Değerlendirme Ölçeği Örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, 3(1), 1-18.
• Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (Vol. 892). NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
• Radocy, R.E. (1986). On quantifying the uncountable in musical behavior. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 88, 22–31.
• Radocy, R. E. (1989). Evaluating student achievement. Music Educators Journal, 76(4), 30–33.
• Rutkowski, J. (1990). The measurement and evaluation of children’s singing voice development. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 1(1/2), 81–95.
• Saddler, B. ve Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62 (1), 48-52.
• Saunders, T. C., & Holahan, J. M. (1997). Criteria specific rating scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–272.
• Tuna, S. (2011). Sanat eserlerini değerlendirme. A. O. Alakuş ve L. Mercin (Ed.), Sanat eğitimi ve görsel sanatlar öğretimi (s.253-262). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Uçan, A. (1980). Çevreden evrene keman eğitimi üzerine. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 5(47), 19-27.
• Yarar, B. (2010). Müzik öğretmenliği lisans programındaki “bireysel ses eğitimi” dersine yönelik performans ölçeği geliştirme çalışması (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Erzurum.
• Yaşar, M. (2008). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirmenin önemi. S. Tekindal (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (s.1-7). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık
• Zdzinski, S. F., & Barnes, G. V. (2002). Development and validation of a string performance rating scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 245–255.

Toplam 42 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil	Türkçe
Bölüm	Makaleler
Yazarlar	Şafak Turgut Bu kişi benim 0000-0002-0279-6407 Esra Dalkıran Bu kişi benim 0000-0001-6829-7216
Yayımlanma Tarihi	27 Aralık 2021
Yayımlandığı Sayı	Yıl 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA	Turgut, S., & Dalkıran, E. (2021). PİYANO EĞİTİMİ DERSİ PERFORMANS ÖLÇÜMÜNE YÖNELİK DERECELİ PUANLAMA ANAHTARININ GELİŞTİRİLMESİ: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Sanat Ve Tasarım Dergisi, 11(2), 438-449. https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1048952

Kapak Resmi İndir

Makale Dosyaları

Tam Metin