Dıfferences Between Low- and Hıgh-Performing Schools in Scıentıfıc Literacy Based on PISA 2006 Results in Turkey (pp. 55-75)

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

PISA 2006 Sonuçlarına Göre Türkiye’de Fen Okuryazarlığında Düşük ve Yüksek Performans Gösteren Okullar Arasındaki Farklar (ss.55-75)

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de bulunan, yüksek performans göstermiş okullar ile düşük performans göstermiş okullar arasındaki farklılıkları, PISA 2006 öğrenci anketinden elde edilen beş örtük değişken temelinde incelemektir. İlk olarak, çalışmanın amacına uygun olarak seçilen PISA 2006 öğrenci anketindeki soru cevaplarına yapılan faktör çözümlemesi sonucunda örtük değişkenler belirlenmiş ve daha sonra fen okuryazarlığında yüksek performans gösteren okullar ile düşük performans gösteren okullar arasındaki farkları görebilmek için diskriminant (ayırma) analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, okulların dört örtük değişkene göre anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığını göstermiştir. “Öğrenci merkezli etkinliklerin (OME)” düşük performans gösteren okullarda daha fazla teşvik edildiği bulunurken, yüksek performans gösteren okullarda öğrencilerin “sosyo-ekonomik düzeyleri (SED) ve “fene yönelik tutumları (FYT)” daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, yüksek performans gösteren okullardaki öğrenciler günlük yaşamla alakalı fen faaliyetlerinde daha iyi performans göstermişlerdir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA 2006, Fen okur-yazarlığı, Diskriminant (Ayırma) Analizi, Öğrenci Merkezli Etkinlikler

Kaynakça

1. Aypay, A., Erdogan, M. ve Sozer, M.A (2007). Variation among schools on classroom practices in science based on TIMSS–1999 in Turkey. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (10), 1417-1435.
2. Amos, S., Boohan, R., ve Open University. (2002). Aspects of teaching secondary science:Perspectives on practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
3. Bosker, R.J., ve Witziers, B. (1996, Nisan). The magnitude of school effects. or: Does it really matter which school a student attends? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association konferansında sunulmuş bildiri, New York, USA.
4. Ceylan, E. ve Berberoğlu, G. (2007). Factors related with students’ science achievement: A modeling study, Education & Science, 32, 36-48.
5. Creemers, B. P. M., ve Reezigt, G. J. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 359–371.
6. Caccovo, F. (2001). Teaching introductory microbiology with active learning. American Biology Teacher, 63, 172-174.
7. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfield, F., ve York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8. D’ Agostino, J. J. (2000). Instructional and school effects on students’ longitudinal reading and mathematics achievements. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 197-235.

9. George, D. ve Mallery, P. (2006). SPSS for Windows: Step by step (Altıncı Baskı.). Boston: Pearson A and B.
10. Gibson, H. L. (1998). Case studies of an inquiry-based science programs’ impact on students’ attitudes towards science and interest in science careers. ERIC document reproduction service no. ED 417 980.
11. Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J. ve Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for windows: Analyzing and understanding data (İkinci Baskı). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V. ve Lane, R. D. (1996). The effects of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
13. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177.
14. Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researches, 18, 45-51.
15. Kahle, J. B., Meece, J. ve Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1019-104.
16. Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB:82, and NELS:92. Teachers College Record, 108, 2550-2581.
17. Leung, F.K. (2002). Behind the high achievement of East Asian students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 87-108.
18. Lokan, J. ve Greenwood, L. (2000). Mathematics achievement at lower secondary level in Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26,9-26.
19. Luyten, H., Visscher, A. ve Witziers, B. (2005). School effectiveness research: From a review of the criticism to recommendations for further development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 249–379.
20. Mere, K., Reiska, P. ve Smith, T.M. (2006). Impact of SES on Estonian students ‘ science achievement across different cognitive domains. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 36, 497-516.
21. Morrell, P.D. ve Lederman, N.G. (1998). Students' attitudes toward school and classroom science: Are they independent? School Science and Mathematics, 98, 76-82.
22. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. ve Ecob, R. (1988). School matters. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
23. Nolen, S.B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 347-368.
24. Odom L.A., Stoddard, E.R., ve La Nasa, S.M. (2007). Teacher practices and middle-school science achievements. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1329-1346.
25. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrows’ World, Volume 1-2, Author, Paris, France.
26. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). PISA 2006 Technical Report, Author, Paris, France.
27. Papanastasiou, C. ve Papanastasiou, E.C. (2004). Major influences on attitudes towards science. Educational Research and Evaluation. 10, 239-257.
28. Papanastasiou, C. (2002). School, teaching, and family influence on students attitude toward science: Based on TIMSS data on Cyprus. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 71-86.
29. Papanastasiou, C. (2008). A residual analysis of effective schools and effective teaching in mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 24-30.
30. Papanastasiou, E. C. ve Ferdig, R. E. (2003). Computer use and mathematical literacy. An analysis of existing and potential relationships. Third Mediterranean Conference on Mathematical Education konferansında yayımlanan bildiri, Athens, Hellas: Hellenic Mathematical Society, 335–342.
31. Papanastasiou,E.C., Zembylas, M. ve Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA Results from PISA. Journal of Science Education and Technology,12, 325-332
32. Pelgrum, W.J. ve Plomp, T. (2002). Indicators of ICT in mathematics: Status and covariation with achievement measures. In D.F. Robitaille & A.E. Beaton (Eds.), Secondary analysis of the TIMSS data (ss. 317-330). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93, 352–388.
34. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ousten, J. ve Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Scheerens, J. ve Creemers, B. P. M. (1989). Conceptualizing school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 691–706.
36. Schmidt, W.H., Jorde, D., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U. ve Shimizu, K. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluver.
37. Stright, A.D. ve Supplee, L.H. (2002). Children's self-regulatory behaviors during teacher- directed, seat-work, and small-group instructional contexts. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 235-244
38. Tabachnick, B.G. ve Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (Dördüncü Baskı.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
39. Teddlie, C. ve Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10 year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.
40. Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. ve Houtveen, A. A. M. (2006). Underperformance in primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 255–273.
41. Von Secker, C. ve Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1110– 1126.
42. White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.
43. White, S. W., Reynolds, P. D., Thomas, M. M. ve Gitzlaff, N.J. (1993). Socioeconomic status and achievement revisited. Urban Education, 28, 328-343.
44. Yayan, B. ve Berberoğlu, G. (2004). A Re-Analysis of the TIMSS 1999 Mathematics Assessment Data of the Turkish Students. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 30, 87-104.
45. Yuretich, R.F., Khan, S.A., ve Leckie, R.M. (2001). Active-learning methods to improve student performance and scientific interest in a large introductory oceanography course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49, 111-119.