Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması

Betül KARAKOÇ ALATLI (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü, Tokat, Türkiye)
Eğitim ve Bilim
13 6
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 45 Sayı: 202 Sayfa Aralığı: 17 - 49 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.15390/EB.2020.8188 İndeks Tarihi: 15-11-2020

Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması

Öz:
Bu araştırma ile Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı(Programme for International Student Assessment-PISA) 2015uygulamasında yer alan doğrudan fene yönelik değişkenlerin,öğrencilerin fen okuryazarlığı performanslarını yordamadurumlarının uygulamaya katılan Türkiye ve Singapurörneklemleri üzerinde incelenmesi ve iki ülke örneklemibakımından benzerlik ve farklılıkların belirlenmesiamaçlanmaktadır. Araştırmanın modeli ilişkisel tarama modelidir.Araştırma örneklemi, Türkiye örnekleminden 4643, Singapurörnekleminden 5037 olmak üzere toplam 9680 onbeş yaş grubuöğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Bununla birlikte Türkiye‘den 177,Singapur’dan 163 okul araştırma kapsamında incelenmiştir.Araştırmada okul ve öğrenci düzeyinde değişkenler bir arada yeraldığından hiyerarşik verilere uygun olan Aşamalı DoğrusalModelleme (Hierarchical Linear Modeling-HLM) istatistik tekniğikullanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre fenokuryazarlığı performansı her iki ülke için de okullar arasındaanlamlı bir şekilde farklılaşmaktadır. Bununla birlikte öğrencilerinfen okuryazarlığı puanlarındaki farklılığın Türkiye için yaklaşık%52'si, Singapur için %34'ü okullar arası farklılıktankaynaklanmaktadır. Öğrenci düzeyinde fene yönelik ilgi,araştırmaya dayalı fen öğretimi ve öğrenme uygulamaları, fendersinde öğretmen desteği, fen özyeterliliği, öğretmen odaklı fenöğretimi değişkenleri ve okul düzeyinde fen öğretmeni oranı heriki ülke için de fen okuryazarlığının anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olarakbelirlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte Türkiye için yalnızca fenden keyifalma değişkeni, Singapur için ise fen dersinde disiplin iklimideğişkeni fen okuryazarlığının anlamlı bir yordayıcısıdır. Okuldüzeyi değişkenlerinden 4 yıl ve üzeri eğitim almış fen öğretmenioranı ise her iki ülke için fen okuryazarlığı performansının anlamlıbir yordayıcısı olmadığı ortaya konulmuştur
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Acar, T. ve Öğretmen, T. (2012). Çok düzeyli istatistiksel yöntemler ile 2006 PISA fen bilimleri performansının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 37(163), 178-189.
  • Agasisti, T. (2014). The efficiency of public spending on education: An empirical comparison of EU countries. European Journal of Education, 49(4), 543-557.
  • Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K. ve Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369-387.
  • Akpullukçu, S. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme ortamının öğrencilerin akademik başarı, hatırda tutma düzeyi ve tutumlarına etkisi (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Akyüz, G. ve Pala, N. M. (2010). PISA 2003 sonuçlarına göre öğrenci ve sınıf özelliklerinin matematik okuryazarlığına ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2) 668-678.
  • Albayrak, A. (2009). PISA 2006 sınavı sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerden fen başarısını etkileyen bazı faktörler (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Anagün, Ş. S. (2011). PISA 2006 sonuçlarına göre öğretme-öğrenme süreci değişkenlerinin öğrencilerin fen okuryazarlıklarına etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 84-102.
  • Anderman, E. M. ve Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811-831.
  • Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education: Education policy series (1). Paris: International Academy of Education, Brussels: International Institute for Educational Planing. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001409/140986e.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Anderson, D. (2012). Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM): An introduction to key concepts within crosssectional and growth modeling frameworks (Technical Report. 1308). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
  • Anderson, J. O., Lin, H. S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P. ve Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large-scale assessment data sets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 591-614.
  • Anıl, D. (2008). The analysis of factors affecting the mathematical success of Turkish students in the PISA 2006 evaluation program with structural equation modeling. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 3(2), 222-227.
  • Anıl, D. (2009). Factors effecting science achievement of science students in programme for International Students’ Achievement (PISA) in Turkey. Education and Science, 34(152), 87-100.
  • Anıl, D. ve Özer, Y. (2012). The effect of the aim and frequency of computer usage on student achievement according to PISA 2006. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5484-5488.
  • Areepattamannil, S. ve Kaur, B. (2013). Factors predicting science achievement of immigrant and nonimmigrant students: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1183-1207.
  • Arum, R. ve Velez, M. (2012). Improving learning environments: School discipline and student achievement in comparative perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Atar, B. (2010). Basit doğrusal regresyon analizi ile hiyerarşik doğrusal modeller analizinin karşılaştırılması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 1(2), 78-84.
  • Aypay, A, Erdoğan, M. ve Sözer, 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.
  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
  • Bandura, A. ve Locke E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87-99.
  • Baumert, J. ve Köller, O. (1998). Interest research in secondary level I: An overview. L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger ve J. Baumert (Ed.), Interest and learning içinde (s. 241-256). Kiel: IPN.
  • Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A. ve Kelly, D. L. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school yeras: IEA’s third international mathematics and science study (TIMMS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Center for the Study Testing, Evaluating, and Educational Policy.
  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A. ve Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided ınquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577- 616.
  • Bouhlila, D. S. (2011). The quality of secondary school education in The Middle East and North Africa: What can we learn from TIMSS’ results?. Compare, 41(3), 327-352.
  • Boztunç, N. (2010). An investigating about mathematics and science achivement of Turkish students parcipating in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2003 and 2006 (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Britner, S. L. ve Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485-499.
  • Butler, J. ve Adams, R. J. (2007). The impact of differential investment of student effort on the outcomes of international studies. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(3), 279-304.
  • Bybee, R. W. (2002). Learning science and the science of learning: Science educators’ essay collection. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Ceylan, E. ve Berberoğlu, G. (2007). Factors related with students’ science achievement: A modeling study. Education and Science, 32(144), 36-48
  • Cheema, J. ve Kitsantas, A. (2016). Predicting high school student use of learning strategies: The role of preferred learning styles and classroom climate. Educational Psychology, 36(5), 845-862.
  • Cheung, H. Y. ve Chan, A. W. (2008). Understanding the relationships among PISA scores, economic growth and employment in different sectors: A cross-country study. Research in Education, 80(1), 93-106.
  • Chi, S., Liu, X., Wang, Z. ve Won Han, S. (2018). Moderation of the effects of scientific inquiry activities on low SES students’ PISA 2015 science achievement by school teacher support and disciplinary climate in science classroom across gender. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1476742
  • Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J. ve Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352-365.
  • Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113-143.
  • Çalışkan, M. (2008). The impact of school and student related factors on scientific literacy skills in the Programme for International Student Assessment-PISA 2006 (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Dancis, J. (2014). What does the iınternational PISA math test really tell us?. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 10(4), 31-42.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-1966.
  • Demir, E. (2016). Characteristics of fifteen-year-old students predicting scientific literacy skills in Turkey. International Education Studies, 9(4), 99.
  • Demir, İ., Kılıç, S. ve Ünal, H. (2010). Effects of students and schools characteristics on mathematics achievement: Findings from PISA 2006. Procedia Socialand Behavioral Science, 2, 3099-3103.
  • Demirtaşlı, N. Ç. ve Ulutaş, S. (2015). A study on detecting of differential item functioning of PISA 2006 science literacy items in Turkish and American samples. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 58, 41-60.
  • Dempsey, T. L. (2008). School disciplinary climate and student engagement in school: A mediation analysis of public school social climate (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
  • Den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M. ve Wubbels, T. (2005). The effect of teacher interpersonal behaviour on students’ subject-specific motivation. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40, 20-33.
  • Dietrich, J., Dicke, A. L., Kracke, B. ve Noack, P. (2015). Teacher support and its influence on students’ intrinsic value and effort: Dimensional comparison effects across subjects. Learning and Instruction, 39, 45-54.
  • Duman, M. Z. (2008). İnternet kullanımının öğrencilerin sosyal ilişkileri ve okul başarıları üzerindeki etkisi. Toplum ve Demokrasi, 2(3), 93-112.
  • Durant, J. R. (1993). What is scientific literacy?. J. R. Durant ve J. Gregory (Ed.), Science and culture in Europe içinde (s. 129- 137). London: Science Museum.
  • Echazarra, A., Salinas, D., Méndez, I., Denis, V. ve Rech, G. (2016). How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school (OECD Education Working Papers. 130). Paris: OECD Publications.
  • Elliott, J. G. ve Phuong-Mai, N. (2008). Western influences on the East, Eastern influences on the West: Lessons for the East and West. O. S. Tan, D. M. McInerney, A. D. Liem ve A. G. Tan (Ed.), What the West can learn from the East: Asian perspectives on the psychology of learning and motivation içinde (s. 31-58). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age.
  • Erbaş, K. C. (2005). Factors affecting scientific literacy of students in Turkey in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Ercikan, K., Roth, W. M. ve Asil, M. (2015). Cautions about inferences from international assessments: The case of PISA 2009. Teachers College Record, 117, 1-28.
  • Fan, F. A. (2012). Teacher: Students’ interpersonal relationships and students’ academic achievements in social studies. Teachers and Teaching, 18(4), 483-490.
  • Feniger, Y. ve Lefstein, A. (2014). How not to reason with PISA data: An ironic investigation. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 845-855.
  • Figlio, D. (2007). Boys named sue: Disruptive children and their peers. Education Finance and Policy, 2(4), 376-394.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. ve Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Frempong, G., Ma, X. ve Mensah, J. (2012). Access to postsecondary education: Can schools compensate for socioeconomic disadvantage?. Higher Education, 63(1), 19-32.
  • Furrer, C. ve Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.
  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H. ve Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300-329.
  • Gamoran, A. ve Nystrand, M. (1992). Taking students seriously. F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in american schools içinde (s. 40-61). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Garson, G. D. (2013). Hierarchical linear modeling: Guide and applications. Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Grabau, L. J. ve Ma, X. (2017). Science engagement and science achievement in the context of science instruction: A multilevel analysis of U.S. students and schools. International Journal of Science Education, 39(8), 1045-1068. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1313468
  • Greenberg, E., Rhodes, D., Ye, X. ve Stancavage, F. (2004, Nisan). Prepared to teach: Teacher preparation and student achievement in eighth-grade mathematics. Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association sunuşmuş bildiri, San Diego, CAGreenwald, R., Hedges, L. V. ve Lain, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361-396.
  • Gümüş, S. ve Atalmış, E. H. (2012). Achievement gaps between different school types and regions in Turkey: Have they changed over time?. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(2), 50-66.
  • Gürsakal, S. (2012). Lojistik regresyon analizi ile PISA 2009 öğrenci başarı düzeylerini etkileyen faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 441-452.
  • Güzel, Ç. İ. (2006). A cross cultural comparison of the impact of human and physical resource allocations on students’ mathematical literacy skills in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2003 (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Hampden-Thompson, G. ve Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and learning activities and students' engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8),1325 1343.
  • Hamre, B. K. ve Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. London: Routledge.
  • Häussler, P. ve Hoffmann, L. (1998). Qualitative differences in students’ ınterest in physics and the dependence on gender and age. I. L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger ve J. Baumert (Ed.), Interest and learning içinde (s. 280-289). Kiel: IPN.
  • Hedges, L. V., Lain, R. D. ve Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange: Part I: Does money matter? A metaanalysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5-14.
  • Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A. ve Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognition functioning. D. Y. Dai ve R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Motivation, emotion and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development içinde (s. 89-115). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Hopfenbeck, T. N., Lenkeit, J., El Masri, Y., Cantrell, K., Ryan, J. ve Baird, J. A. (2017). Lessons learned from PISA: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on the programme for international student assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(3), 1-21.
  • Hox, J. J. (1995). Applied multi level analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: TTublikaties. Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., Kwok, O., Villarreal, V. ve Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher-student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 350-365.
  • International Monetary Fund. (2016). World economic outlook database. https://www.imf.org/~/media/.../IMF/.../external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/pdf/_textpdf.ashx adresinden erişildi.
  • Jen, T. H., Lee, C. D., Chien, C. L., Hsu, Y. S. ve Chien, K. M. (2013). Perceived social relationships and science learning outcomes for Taiwanese eighth graders: Structural equation modeling with a complex sampling consideration. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 575-600.
  • Jenkins, A. ve Ueno, A. (2017). Classroom disciplinary climate in secondary schools in England: What is the real picture?. British Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 124-150.
  • Jinks, J. L. ve Morgan, V. L. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72(4), 224-230.
  • Kalender, I. ve Berberoğlu, G. (2008). An assessment of factors related to science achievement of Turkish students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1-16.
  • Karabay, E. (2012). Examination of the predictive powers of socio- cultural variables for PISA science literacy by years (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Karasar, N. (2005). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.Kartal Kula, S. ve Kutlu, Ö. (2017). Identifying the relationships between motivational features of high and low performing students and science literacy achievement in PISA 2015 Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(12), 146-154.
  • Kaya, V. H. ve Doğan, A. (2017). Determination & comparison of Turkish student characteristics affecting science literacy in Turkey according to PISA 2012. Research Journal of Business and Management, 4(1), 34-51.
  • Kaytan, E. (2007). Türkiye, Singapur ve İngiltere matematik öğretim programlarının karşılaştırılması (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Klieme, E. ve Kuger, S. (2014). PISA 2015 draft questionnaire framework. Paris: OECD Publications. Koller, O., Baumert, J. ve Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448- 470.
  • Krapp, A. ve Prenzel, M. (2011). Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27-50.
  • Ladd, G. W. ve Burgess, K. B. (2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment?. Child Development, 72(5), 1579-1601. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00366
  • Lam, T. Y. P. ve Lau, K. C. (2014). Examining factors affecting science achievement of Hong Kong in PISA 2006 using hierarchical linear modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2463- 2480.
  • Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M. ve Sailor, W. (2006). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(6), 701- 712.
  • Lau, S. ve Roeser, R.W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment, 8, 139-162.
  • Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuss, S., Glaser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P. ve Von Rhoneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 489-507.
  • Lavonen, J. ve Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922-944.
  • Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S. ve Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry ascontexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
  • Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P. ve Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857-887.
  • Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 32, 125-141.
  • Leung, F. K. S. (2014). What can and should we learn from international studies of mathematics achievement?. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(3), 579-605.
  • Levent, F. ve Yazıcı, E. (2014). Singapur eğitim sisteminin başarısına etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 39, 121-143.
  • Lin, C., Tzou, H., Shyu, C., Hung, P. ve Huang, H. (2008). Comparison of effect size of social and cultural status (escs) on literacy in various subject areas and different grades at school and student levels--multilevel analysis of 2006 PISA data for Taiwan. PISA Taiwan National Center Publication.
  • Lind, K. K. (2005). Exploring science in early childhood: A Development Approach. USA: Thomson Delmar Learning.Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C. ve Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 912-946.
  • Ma, X., Jong, C. ve Yuan, J. (2013) Reasons for the East Asian Success in PISA. H. D. Meyer ve A. Benavot (Ed.), PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of Global Educational Governance içinde (s. 117-140). Oxford: Symposium Books.
  • Ma, X. ve Williams, J. D. (2004). School disciplinary climate: characteristics and effects on eightgrade achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 169-188.
  • Marks, G. N. (2010). What aspects of schooling are important? School effects on tertiary entrance performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 267-287.
  • Marks, G. N., Cresswell, J. ve Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socio-economic inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school factors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(2), 105- 128.
  • Marzano, R. J. ve Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
  • McCormick, M. P., O’Connor, E. E., Cappella, E. ve McClowry, S. G. (2013). Teacher-child relationships and academic achievement: A multilevel propensity score model approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51(5), 611-624.
  • McGraw, B. (2008). The role of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 223-243.
  • Mikk, J., Krips, H., Säälik, Ü. ve Kalk, K. (2016). Relationships between student perception of teacherstudent relations and PISA results in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(8), 1437-1454.
  • Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499- 1521.
  • Miller, J. D. (1996). Scientific literacy for effective citizenship. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2005). Fen ve teknoloji programı. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu. Ankara: MEB Yayınları. http://odsgm.meb.gov.tr/test/analizler/docs/PISA/PISA2015_Ulusal_Rapor.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019). Sınavla öğrenci alacak ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezî sınav başvuru ve uygulama kılavuzu. https://www.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_04/03134315_Kilavuz2019.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J. ve Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
  • Murray, C. (2009). Parent and teacher relationships as predictors of school engagement and functioning among low-income urban youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(3), 376-404.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Nehring, A., Nowak, K. H., Zu Belzen, A. U. ve Tiemann, R. (2015). Predicting students’ skills in the context of scientific inquiry with cognitive, motivational, and sociodemographic variables. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1343-1363.
  • Ng, K. T., Lay, Y. F., Areepattamannil, S., Treagust, D. F. ve Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2012). Relationship between affect and achievement in science and mathematics in Malaysia and Singapore. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(3), 225-237.
  • Niemann, D., Martens, K. ve Teltemann, J. (2017). PISA and its consequences: Shaping education policies through international comparisons. European Journal of Education, 52, 175-183.
  • Ning, B., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Vanlaar, G. ve Gielen, S. (2015). What makes the difference in reading achievement? Comparisons between Finland and Shanghai. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(5), 515-537.
  • Nowak, K. H., Nehring, A., Tiemann, R. ve Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2013). Assessing students’ abilities in processes of scientific ınquiry in biology using a paper-and-pencil test. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 182-188.
  • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrows world. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • OECD. (2012). PISA in focus: Does money buy strong performance in PISA?. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris: OECD Publications. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • OECD. (2015). Education at a glance 2015. Paris: OECD Publications.
  • OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publications. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volumei_9789264266490-en adresinden erişildi.
  • OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris: OECD Publications. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/ adresinden erişildi.
  • OECD. (2018). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA. Paris: OECD Publications. doi:10.1787/9789264301603-en
  • Olsen R., V., Prenzel, M. ve Martin, R. (2011). Interest in science: Amany‐faceted picture painted by data from the OECD PISA study. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 1-6.
  • Onwumere, E. A. (2003). The relationship between urban middle school students’ ınterest in science, perceptions of science teachers, and achievement in science (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Texas Southern University, USA.
  • Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Essentials of educational psychology: Big ideas to guide effective teaching. Boston: Pearson.
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S. ve Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
  • Osborne, J. W. (2000). Advantages of hierarchical linear modeling. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(1), 1-4.
  • ÖSYM. (2018). 2018 yükseköğretim kurumları sınavı (YKS) kılavuzu. http://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,13683/2018-yuksekogretim-kurumlari-sinavi-yks-kilavuzu.html adresinden erişildi.
  • Özberk, E., H., Atalay Kabasakal, K. ve Boztunç Öztürk, N. (2017). Investigating the factors affecting Turkish students PISA 2012 mathematics achievement using hierarchical linear modeling. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 32(3), 544-559.
  • Özer, Y. (2009). Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı (PISA) verilerine göre Türk öğrencilerin matematik ve fen bilimleri başarıları ile ilişkili faktörler (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Özer, Y. ve Anıl, D. (2011). Öğrencilerin fen ve matematik başarılarını etkileyen faktörlerin yapısal eşitlik modeli ile incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 313-324.
  • Özkan, E. A. (2006). Türkiye, Belçika (Flaman) ve Singapur matematik öğretim programları üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.Özkan, M. (2015). PISA 2012 Türkiye verilerine göre okul değişkenlerinin öğrenci başarısını yordama gücü. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(5), 477-489.
  • Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578.
  • Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self efficacy of pre-service primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-671.
  • Paolucci, J. J. (2001). Gender roles and science beliefs and their relationship to science interest (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Rhode Island, USA.
  • Perry, L. B. ve McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.
  • Pons, X. (2017). Fifteen years of research on PISA effects on education governance: A critical review. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 131-144.
  • Raudenbush, S. W. ve Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. ve Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L. ve Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective teacher student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
  • Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M. ve Von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142- 151. doi:10.3102/0013189X10363170
  • Sakar, Ç. (2010). Araştırmaya dayalı kimya öğretiminin öğrencilerin akademik başarı ve tutumları üzerine etkisi (Unpublished master's thesis). Selçuk University, Konya.
  • Sanders, M. G. ve Jordan, W. J. (2000). Student-teacher relations and academic achievement in highschool. M. G. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents içinde (s. 65-82). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Sarıer, Y. (2010). An evaluation of equal opportunities in education in the light of high school entrance exams (OKS-SBS) and PISA results. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education Faculty, 11(3), 107-129.
  • Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. K. A. Wentzel ve A. Wigfield (Ed.), Handbook of motivation at school içinde (s. 197-222). New York: Routledge.
  • Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. ve Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
  • Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B. ve Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagementin high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.
  • Shumow, L., Schmidt, J. A. ve Zaleski, D. J. (2013). Multiple perspectives on student learning, engagement, and motivation in high school biology labs. High School Journal, 96(3), 232-252.
  • Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and global educational governance-A critique of the project, its uses and implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 111-127.
  • Spiezia, V. (2010). Does computer use increase educational achievements? Student-level evidence from PISA. OECD Journal, Economic Studies, 1, 127-148.
  • Swaak, J., De Jong T. ve Van Joolingen W. (2004). The effects of discovery learning and expository instruction on the acquisition of definitional and intuitive knowledge: Discovery learning vs. expository instruction. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(4), 225-234. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2004.00092.x
  • Şaşmazel, A. G. (2006). Factors that affecting success of scientific literacy on students in turkey that participate Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S. ve Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enacting project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745.
  • Tighezza, M. (2014). Modeling relationships among learning, attitude, self-perception, and science achievement for grade 8 Saudi students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 721-740.
  • Tsai, L.T. ve Yang, C. C. (2015). Hierarchical effects of school-, classroom-, and student-level factors on the science performance of eighth-grade taiwanese students. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1166-1181. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1022625
  • UNESCO. (2016). Dataset for education, government expenditure per student in constant US dollars. http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=181# adresinden erişildi.
  • United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2015). World population prospects: The 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Human development report. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report. pdf adresinden erişildi.
  • Usta, H. G. (2009). PISA 2006 sınav sonuçlarına göre Türkiye’deki öğrencilerin fen okuryazarlığını etkileyen faktörler (Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Von Davier, M., Gonzalez, E. J. ve Mislevy, R. J. (2009). What are plausible values and why are they useful?. M. Von Davier ve D. Hastedt (Ed.), IERI monograph series: Issues and methodologies in largescale assessments içinde (s. 9-36). Hamburg: IER Institute.
  • Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L. ve Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers andpeers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193- 202.
  • Wise, K., C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works?. Clearing House, 69(1996), 337-338.
  • Wolf, S. J. ve Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 321- 341.
  • Woods-McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R. ve Maor, D. (2013). Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for indigenous and non-indigenous students in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 233-252. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9265-y
  • 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.
  • Yıldırım, K. (2012). PISA 2006 verilerine göre Türkiye’de eğitimin kalitesini belirleyen temel faktörler. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 10(2), 229-255.
  • YÖK. (2018). Yükseköğretim Kurumları Sınavı ile ilgili sıkça sorulan sorular (1 Mart 2018). http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/yks-sss-ve-cevaplari-ile-puan-turleri adresinden erişildi.
APA alatlı b (2020). Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. , 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
Chicago alatlı betül Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. (2020): 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
MLA alatlı betül Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. , 2020, ss.17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
AMA alatlı b Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. . 2020; 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
Vancouver alatlı b Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. . 2020; 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
IEEE alatlı b "Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması." , ss.17 - 49, 2020. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
ISNAD alatlı, betül. "Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması". (2020), 17-49. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8188
APA alatlı b (2020). Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. Eğitim ve Bilim, 45(202), 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
Chicago alatlı betül Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. Eğitim ve Bilim 45, no.202 (2020): 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
MLA alatlı betül Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. Eğitim ve Bilim, vol.45, no.202, 2020, ss.17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
AMA alatlı b Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2020; 45(202): 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
Vancouver alatlı b Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2020; 45(202): 17 - 49. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
IEEE alatlı b "Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması." Eğitim ve Bilim, 45, ss.17 - 49, 2020. 10.15390/EB.2020.8188
ISNAD alatlı, betül. "Öğrencilerin Fen Okuryazarlığı Performanslarının Aşamalı Doğrusal Modelleme ile İncelenmesi: PISA 2015 Türkiye ve Singapur Karşılaştırması". Eğitim ve Bilim 45/202 (2020), 17-49. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8188
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 15:7

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları