Türkiye’de Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme Alanında ve Eğitim-Öğretim Konusunda Yapılmış Lisansüstü Tezlerin İçerik Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de biçimlendirici değerlendirme ile ilgili yapılan lisansüstü tezlerin tematik açıdan incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden tematik içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 39 (27 yüksek lisans ve 12 doktora) onaylanmış lisansüstü tez çalışması oluşturmaktadır. Bu tezler 5 ana tema altında (öğretmen veya öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlendirme becerilerini betimleyen çalışmalar, öğretmen veya öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerini geliştirmeyi planlayan çalışmalar, biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrenci çıktıları üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen çalışmalar, biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamasını etkileyen faktörler üzerine yapılan çalışmalar, biçimlendirici değerlendirme konusunda yapılmış diğer çalışmalar) çeşitli değişkenler (tez türü, tez dili, tez yılı, tezin yürütüldüğü üniversite türü, bilim dalı, tezin çalışma grubu, tezin yöntemi, veri toplama araçları, verilerin analiz yöntemi) bakımından analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda biçimlendirici değerlendirme ile ilgili tezlerin 2009 yılından itibaren artış gösterdiği, çoğunluğunun dilinin Türkçe olduğu ve devlet üniversitelerinde yürütüldüğü belirlenmiştir. Tezler ana temalara göre incelendiğinde ise; biçimlendirici değerlendirmenin öğrenci çıktıları üzerindeki etkisini inceleyen çalışmalar ana temasına ait çalışmaların sayıca en fazla olduğu ve öğretmen veya öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlendirme becerilerini betimleyen çalışmalar ve öğretmen veya öğretmen adaylarının biçimlendirici değerlendirme bileşenlerini geliştirmeyi planlayan çalışmalar ana temalarına ait çalışmaların sayıca en az olduğu görülmektedir. Çalışmalarda en fazla kullanılan yöntem karma yöntem olurken en az kullanılan yöntemin ise eylem araştırması olduğu belirlenmiştir. Çalışmalarda veri toplama araçlarından en fazla görüşme ve ölçek kullanılırken veri analiz yöntemlerinden ise içerik analizi, betimsel analiz ve t-testi sıklıkla tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda biçimlendirici değerlendirme konusunda yapılacak araştırmalarla ilgili araştırmacılara öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Biçimlendirici değerlendirme
• içerik analizi
• lisansüstü tez çalışmaları

Content Analysis of Postgraduate Theses on Formative Assessment and Education in Turkey

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to examine the postgraduate theses related to formative assessment in Turkey from a thematic point of view. Thematic content analysis method, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. The study group of the research consists of 39 (27 master's and 12 doctorate) approved postgraduate thesis studies. These theses are under 5 main themes (studies describing the formative assessment skills of teachers or pre-service teachers, studies that plan to develop the components of formative assessment of teachers or prospective teachers, studies that examine the effect of formative assessment on student outcomes, studies on factors affecting formative assessment practice, and studies on formative assessment) were analyzed in terms of various variables (thesis type, thesis language, thesis year, the type of university where the thesis was conducted, the branch of science, the study group of the thesis, the method of the thesis, data collection tools, data analysis method). As a result of the research, it has been determined that the theses related to formative assessment have increased since 2009, the language of the majority is Turkish and they are conducted in state universities. When the theses are examined according to the main themes; It is seen that the number of studies related to the main theme of studies examining the effect of formative assessment on student outcomes is the highest in number, and studies describing the formative assessment skills of teachers or prospective teachers and studies that plan to develop the formative assessment components of teachers or prospective teachers are the least in number. While the most used method in the studies was the mixed method, it was determined that the least used method was action research. While interviews and scales were used the most among data collection tools in the studies, content analysis, descriptive analysis and t-test were frequently preferred among data analysis methods. At the end of the study, suggestions were presented to the researchers about the researches on formative assessment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : Biçimlendirici değerlendirme
• içerik analizi
• lisansüstü tez çalışmaları

Kaynakça

1. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
2. Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu. (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research. Brüksel.
3. Aydeniz, M., & Doğan, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service science teachers’ pedagogical capacity for formative assessment through analyses of student answers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), s. 125-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1092954
4. Bala, V. G. (2013). Bilimin doğasının fen konularına entegrasyonunda biçimlendirici değerlendirme uygulamalarının bilimin doğasının öğrenimine etkisi [Influence of formative assessment applications on the learning of nature of science in the integration of nature of science in science content]. (Dissertation Number. 339099). [Master Thesis, Hacettepe University], YÖK Thesis Center.
5. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). The Characteristic of Formative Assessment in Science Education. Science Education, 85(5), 536-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1022
6. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2002). Formative Assessment and Science Education. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King's College.
8. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assesment for Learning-putting it into practice. Maidenhead, U.K.: Open university Press.

9. Boz, N., & Boz, Y. (2005). Investigating formative assessment. Eğitim ve Bilim, 30(138).
10. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11. Buck, G. A., & Trauth-Nare, A. E. (2009). Preparing teachers to make the formative assessment process integral to science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9142-y
12. Buck, G. A., Trauth-Nare, A., & Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment discernable to pre‐service teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), s. 402-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20344
13. Buldur, S. (2014). Performansa dayalı tekniklerle yürütülen biçimlendirmeye yönelik değerlendirme sürecinin öğretmen ve öğrenci üzerindeki etkisi [The effects of formative assessment process which in used performance-based techniques on teacher and student]. (Dissertation Number. 354654). [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University], YÖK Thesis Center.
14. Carless, D. (2012). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. Routledge.
15. Cheng, H. M. (2006). Junior secondary science teachers' understanding and practice of alternative assessment in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher professional development. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(3), 227-243.
16. Cornelius, K. E. (2013). Formative Assessment Made Easy: Templates for Collecting Daily Data in Inclusive Classrooms. Teaching Expectional Children, 47(2), s. 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500502
17. Çalık, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. [Parameters of content analysis]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3412
18. Çalık, M., Ayas, A., & Ebenezer, J. V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students’ conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50.
19. Demirel, Ö. (2004). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme – öğretme sanatı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
20. DeNome, E. (2015). The ımpact on student achievement following professional development on the principles of formative assessment [Doctoral dissertation, William Howard Taft University].
21. Falk, A. (2012). Teachers learning from professional development in elementary science: reciprocal relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(2), 265-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20473
22. Finfgeld, D. L. (2003). Metasynthesis: The state of the art- so far. Qualitative Health Research, 893-904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732303253462
23. Fluckiger, J., Tixier, Y. T., Pasco, R., & Danielson, K. (2010). Formative feedback: Involving students as partners in assessment to enhance learning. College Teaching, 58(4), s. 136-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2010.484031
24. Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2011). The formative assessment action plan: Practical steps to more successful teaching and learning. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
25. Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181-1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21054
26. Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016). Teachers’ formative assessment abilities and their relationship to student learning: findings from a four-year ıntervention study. Instructional Science, 44(3), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3
27. Gipps, C. (1994). Developments in educational assessment: what makes a good test? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1(3), s. 283-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594940010304
28. Gotwals, A. W., & Birmingham, D. (2016). Eliciting, ıdentifying, ınterpreting, and responding to students’ ıdeas: Teacher candidates’ growth in formative assessment practices. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 365-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9461-2
29. Gotwals, A. W., Philhower, J., Cisterna, D., & Bennett, S. (2015). Using video to examine formative assessment practices as measures of expertise for mathematics and science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9623-8
30. Harrison, C. (2013). Collaborative action research as a tool for generating formative feedback on teachers’ classroom assessment practice: the KREST project. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 202-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.741839
31. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), s. 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
32. Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Formative assessment and teachers' sensitivity to student responses. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.1003262
33. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progression: Supporting ınstruction and formative assesment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
34. İnaltun, H. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmenleri için geliştirilen biçimlendirici değerlendirmeye yönelik hizmet içi eğitim modülünün etkinliğinin incelenmesi. [Investigation of the effectiveness of in-service training module for developing science teachers' formative assessment practices. (Dissertation number. 568665). [Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University], YÖK Thesis Center.
35. İnaltun, H., & Ateş, S. (2018). Formative Assessment in Science Education: A Literature Review. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 38(2), 567-612. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.353975
36. Marshall, B., & Jane Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research papers in education, 21(02), s. 133-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615638
37. Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment ve grading that work. ASCD.
38. McMillan, J. H. (2017). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice that enhance student learning and motivation (7. b.). New York: Pearson.
39. MEB. (2018). Science Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 and 8. Grades). Ankara.
40. MEB. (2018). English Curriculum (Primary and Secondary School 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th Grades). Ankara.
41. Metin, M., & Birişçi, S. (2009). Effects of formative assessment on pre-service teachers’ developing science process skills and their opinions about assessment. Çagdas Egitim Dergisi, 34(370), 31-39.
42. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Advancing Formative Assesment in Every Classroom: a Guide for İnstructional Leaders. Alexandria, United States of America, Virginia: ASCD.
44. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. OECD publishing.
45. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ ınformal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific ınquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20163
46. Sabel, J. L., Forbes, C. T., & Zangori, L. (2015). Promoting prospective elementary teachers’ learning to use formative assessment for life science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(4), 419-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9431-6
47. Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An ınvestigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598684
48. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
49. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited, (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers.
50. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British educational research journal, 27(5), s. 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120095780
51. Ültay, N., & Çalık, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 686-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9357-5
52. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. F. K. Lester (Dü.) İn. Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (s. 1053-1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
53. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994
54. Yang, X., Teng, Y., Gu, Z., & Zhang, D. (2021). Self and peer assessment in K-12 Chinese language classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions and implantation. Research in Language and Education: An International Journal [RILE], 1(1), 69-84.
55. Yavuz, M., Özkaral, T., & Yıldız, D. (2015). The teacher competencies and teacher education in international reports. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 60-71.