PISA 2018 Verilerine Göre Kore ve Türkiye'deki Öğrencilerin Matematik Başarısı Arasındaki Farkı Açıklayan Olası Faktörler

Year 2024, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 157 - 186, 29.03.2024

Begüm Öztorun , Feyza Karagöz , Sevda Yerdelen-damar

https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1346568

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kore ve Türkiye'deki öğrencilerin matematik başarısını etkileyen potansiyel faktörler (bir okul haftasında matematik dersleri sırasında dijital cihazların kullanım süresi, algılanan geri bildirim ve öğrencilerin rekabetçiliği) arasındaki farkı incelemektir. Çalışmanın örneklemini Kore ve Türkiye'de 7. sınıfta (ya da daha üst sınıfta) okuyan 15 yaşındaki 13440 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma PISA 2018 verilerinin kullanıldığı nedensel karşılaştırmalı bir araştırmadır. Kore ve Türkiye'deki öğrenciler bağımsız örneklem t-testleri kullanılarak ilgili değişkenlere göre karşılaştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarında her kategoride Türkiye ve Kore arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur. Türkiye'deki öğrencilerin Kore'deki öğrencilere göre bir okul haftasında matematik derslerinde dijital cihazlarla geçirdikleri sürenin daha fazla olduğu ve daha rekabetçi oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte, sonuçlar Kore'deki öğrencilerin Türkiye'deki öğrencilere göre daha fazla geri bildirim algıladığını göstermiştir. Mevcut çalışmada aynı zamanda elde edilen bulgulara ve literatüre dayalı olarak çıkarım ve öneriler ele alınmıştır.

Keywords

Matematik Başarısı, Türkiye, Kore, Rekabetçilik, Geri Bildirim, Teknoloji

Potential Factors That Explain the Difference Between Mathematics Achievement of Students in Korea and Turkey According to PISA 2018

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the difference between the potential factors (time spent using digital devices during mathematics lessons in a school week, perceived feedback, and competitiveness of students) influencing mathematics achievement of students in Korea and Turkey. The study sample was comprised of 13440 students who were 15 years old and in grade 7 (or above) in Korea and Turkey. As the data were obtained from the PISA 2018 dataset to compare independent variables at one single time, the design of the study was causal-comparative research. Students in Korea and Turkey were compared according to the variables by using independent sample t-tests. There was a significant difference between Turkey and Korea in each category. It was found that the time spent using digital devices during mathematics lessons in a school week of students in Turkey was higher than that of students in Korea. Students in Turkey were more competitive than those in Korea. However, the results showed that students in Korea perceived more feedback than students in Turkey. The current study also discusses the implications and recommendations based on the findings and literature.

Keywords

Math Achievement, Turkey, Korea, Competitiveness, Feedback, Technology

References

• Ajello, A. M., Caponera, E., & Palmerio, L. (2018). Italian students’ results in the PISA mathematics test: Does reading competence matter? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-018-0385-x
• Aktaş, F., Yakıcı-Topbaş, E. S., & Dede, Y. (2019). The Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Values Underlying Teacher noticing: The context of polygons. In ICME-13 monographs (pp. 209–222). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16892-6_15
• Ammermueller, A. (2004). Pisa: What Makes the Difference? Explaining the Gap in Pisa Test Scores between Finland and Germany. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.555954
• Arıkan, S. (2014). A regression model with a new tool: IDB analyzer for identifying factors predicting mathematics performance using PISA 2012 indices. US-China Education Review, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623x/2014.10a.004
• Arıkan, S. (2017). TIMSS 2011 verilerine göre türkiye’deki ev ödevi ve matematik başarısı arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between homework and mathematics achievement in Turkey according to TIMSS 2011]. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 8(26), 256–276.
• Arıkan, S., Van De Vijver, F. J. R., & Yağmur, K. (2017). PISA mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and Turkish immigrant students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9260-6
• Atmacasoy, A. (2017). K-12 Education in Germany: Curriculum and PISA 2015. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577138
• Baki, A. (2013, Ekim 21). Öğrenciler neden sayısal derslerde başarılı olamıyor? [Why are students not successful in numerical studies?] Hürriyet, http://www.hurriyet.com.tr.
• Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample. Computers & Education, 50(1), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.002
• Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students'“connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of primary prevention, 24, 243-262.
• Baumann, C., & Winzar, H. (2014). The role of secondary education in explaining competitiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.924387
• Bulut, O., & Cutumisu, M. (2018). When technology does not add up: ICT use negatively predicts mathematics and science achievement for Finnish and Turkish students in PISA 2012. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(1), 25-42.
• Bütüner, S. Ö., & Güler, M. (2017). Gerçeklerle yüzleşme: Türkiye’nin TIMSS matematik başarısı üzerine bir çalışma [Facing the Reality: A Study on TIMSS Mathematics Achievement of Turkey]. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 161–184.
• Carvalho, C., Santos, J., Conboy, J., & Martins, D. (2014). Teachers’ feedback: Exploring differences in students’ perceptions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 169-173.
• Cheng-Huan C, Chiung-Hui C (2016) Employing intergroup competition in multitouch desing-based learning to foster student engagement, learning achievemet, and creativity. Comput Educ 103:99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.007
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001
• Delen, E., & Bulut, O. (2011). The relationship between students’ exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 311–317.
• Delice, A., & Karaaslan, G. (2015). Dinamik geometri yazılımı etkinliklerinin öğrenci performansları bağlamında i̇ncelenmesi: Analitik düzlemde doğru denklemleri [Investigation of the effects of the dynamic geometry software tasks on students’ performance: Lineer equations]. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 41(41), 35. https://doi.org/10.15285/ebd.42152
• Demir, İ., Kılıç, S., & Ünal, H. (2010). Effects of students’ and schools’ characteristics on mathematics achievement: findings from PISA 2006. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3099–3103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.472
• Ding, H., & Homer, M. (2020). Interpreting mathematics performance in PISA: Taking account of reading performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101566
• Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., & Koop, C. (2017). ICT use in mathematics lessons and the mathematics achievement of secondary school students by international comparison: Which role do school level factors play? Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1527–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9498-5
• Ekici, S., & Yılmaz, B. (2013). FATİH projesi üzerine bir değerlendirme [An evaluation of FATIH project]. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 27(2), 317–339.
• Eyyam, R., & Yaratan, H. (2014). Impact of use of technology in mathematics lessons on student achievement and attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 31S-42S. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.s31
• Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 36(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2018). How to Design and Evaluate Research in education. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2012). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1094.
• Gambari, A. I., Shittu, A. T., Daramola, F. O., & James, M. (2018). Effects of video-based cooperative, competitive and individualized instructional strategies on the performance of senior secondary schools students in geometry. MOJES: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(4), 31-47.
• Geesa, R. L., Izci, B., Song, H. S., & Chen, S. (2019). Exploring factors of home resources and attitudes towards mathematics in mathematics achievement in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108487
• Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., Montejo-Gamez, J., Marin-Jimenez, A., & Campaña, J. (2019). Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning?. Virtual Reality, 23, 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0358-z
• Guzeller, C. O., & Akin, A. (2014). Relationship between ICT variables and mathematics achievement based on PISA 2006 database: International evidence. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 13(1), 184-192.
• Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269-290.
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
• Heinze, A., Reiss, K., & Franziska, R. (2005). Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective. Zentralblatt Für Didaktik Der Mathematik, 37(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-005-0011-7
• Hossain, A., & Tarmizi, R. A. (2013). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ achievement and attitudes in secondary mathematics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 473-477.
• Karim, Z. A., Rashid, R. A., & Mohamed, Z. (2019). Factors affecting students’ achievement in mathematics. Jurnal Intelek, 14(2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.24191/ji.v14i2.235
• Kennewell, S., Parkinson, J., & Tanner, H. (2002). Developing the ICT capable school. Routledge.
• Koka, A., & Hein, V. (2005). The effect of perceived teacher feedback on intrinsic motivation in physical education. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36(2), 91.
• Lewis, M. A., & Cooney, J. B. (1987). Attributional and performance effects of competitive and individualistic feedback in computer-assisted mathematics instruction. Computers in human behavior, 3(1), 1-13.
• Li, H. (2016). How is formative assessment related to students’ reading achievement? Findings from PISA 2009. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(4), 473-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1139543
• McLean, L., & Connor, C. M. (2018). Relations between third grade teachers’ depressive symptoms and their feedback to students, with implications for student mathematics achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000225
• Mohd, N., Mahmood, T. F. P. T. & İsmail, M. N. (2011). Factors that influence students in mathematics achievement. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(3), 49-54.
• National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10126.
• NCEE. (May, 2021). NCEE.
• OECD (2001), Knowledge and skills for life: First results from PISA 2000, PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195905-en
• OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world first results from PISA 2003, PISA. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2007), Science competencies for tomorrow's world: Volume 1: Analysis, PISA. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2010), PISA 2009 results: Executive summary, PISA. OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2014), PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do – student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I, Revised edition, February 2014), PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264208780-en
• OECD (2016), PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, PISA, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
• OECD (2019), PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en
• OECD (2019), PISA 2018 results (Volume I, II & III): Combined executive summaries. PISA, OECD Publishing.
• OECD (2020), PISA 2018 results (Volume VI): Are students ready to thrive in an ınterconnected world?, PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679-en
• OECD. (2022). Programme for international student assessment. OECD
• Özkan, U. B. (2022). Predictors of mathematics achievement of students in Turkey: An analysis of the variables of information and communication technologies familiarity. Pamukkale Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 54, 272-296.
• Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065002129
• Papanastasiou, E., & Ferdig, R. E. (2006). Computer use and mathematical literacy: An analysis of existing and potential relationships. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4), 361-371.
• Plass, J. L., O’Keefe, P. A., Homer, B. D., Case, J. M., Hayward, E. O., Stein, M., & Perlin, K. (2013). The impact of individual, competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1050–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032688
• Ravitz, J., Mergendoller, J., & Rush, W. (2002, April). What's school got to do with it? Cautionary tales about correlations between student computer use and academic achievement [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, United States.
• Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223
• Saritas, T., & Akdemir, O. (2009). Identifying factors affecting the mathematics achievement of students for better instructional design. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(12), 21-36.
• Savaş, E., Taş, S., & Duru, A. (2010). Matematikte öğrenci başarısını etkileyen faktörler [Factors affecting mathematics achievement]. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 113-132.
• Shewbridge, C., Ikeda, M., & Schleicher, A. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world?: What PISA studies tell us. OECD.
• Shin, J., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2009). Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement. School Psychology International, 30(5), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034309107070
• Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and Global Educational Governance – A Critique of the Project, its Uses and Implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1310a
• Smeets, E., & Mooij, T. (2001). Pupil‐centred learning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: observations in educational practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00210
• Son, J., Han, S. W., Kang, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2016). A Comparative Analysis of the Relationship among Quality Instruction, Teacher Self-efficacy, Student Background, and Mathematics Achievement in South Korea and the United States. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(7). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1532a
• Srijamdee, K., & Pholphirul, P. (2020). Does ICT familiarity always help promote educational outcomes? Empirical evidence from PISA-Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2933-2970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10089-z
• Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2017). Self-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and intelligence. Intelligence, 61, 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.12.001
• Uysal, Ş. (2015). Factors affecting the Mathematics achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2012. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1670–1678. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2014.2067
• Yaşar, C., & Akbaş, U. (2019). The effect of feedback timing on mathematics achievement. Ilkogretim Online, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.630657
• Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, H. H. (2019). Predicting mathematics achievement: The role of perceived feedback, teacher support and self-beliefs. Turkish Journal of Education, 8(2), 71-85.
• Vattøy, K. D., & Smith, K. (2019). Students' perceptions of teachers' feedback practice in teaching English as a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.024
• Velasquez, M. E. B. (2014). South Korea’s successful education system: lessons and policy implications for Peru. Korean Social Science Journal, 41(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40483-014-0019-0
• Volante, L. (Ed.). (2017). The PISA effect on global educational governance. Routledge.
• Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2005). A surprising effect of feedback on learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.001
• Zhang, Q., Barkatsas, T., Law, H. Y., Leu, Y. C., Seah, W. T., & Wong, N. Y. (2016). What primary students in the Chinese Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan value in mathematics learning: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 907-924.
• Zhao, H., & Akiba, M. (2009). School expectations for parental involvement and student mathematics achievement: a comparative study of middle schools in the U.S. and South Korea. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(3), 411-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701603347