Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkiye ve Amerika’da Engelli Öğrenciler için Yapılan Geniş Ölçekli Sınavların Yasal Sorumluluklar, Uygulama Yöntemleri ve Geçerlik Açısından İncelenmesi

Year 2018, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 69 - 83, 20.04.2018

Derya Çobanoğlu Aktan , Gökhan Aksu , Mehmet Taha Eser

https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.322551
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma ile Türkiye
ve Amerika’da (Amerika Birleşik Devletleri) engelli oldukları belirlenen
öğrenciler için yapılan geniş ölçekli sınavların yasal sorumluluklar, uygulama
yöntemleri ve geçerlik açısından karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç
kapsamında Türkiye’de ÖSYM tarafından yapılan sınavlar ile Amerika’da ETS
tarafından gerçekleştirilen büyük ölçekli sınavlarda uygulanan yöntemlerin
belirlenerek iki ülke arasındaki benzer ve farklı yönler ortaya çıkarılmıştır.
Araştırma, Türkiye ve Amerika’da engelli oldukları belirlenen öğrenciler için
gerçekleştirilen geniş ölçekli sınavların dayandıkları yasal sorumluluklar ve
uygulama yöntemleri açısından karşılaştırılmaya çalışıldığı için betimsel
çalışma örneğidir. Çalışmanın ilk bölümünde yurtdışında ve yurt içinde yayınlanan
hakemli dergiler ile basılı kitaplar, ikinci bölümde ise engelli öğrenciler
için şekil-grafik sorularının cevaplanmamasının kapsam geçerliğini nasıl
etkilediğini belirlemek ve bu konuda neler yapılabileceğini ortaya çıkarmak
amacıyla ölçme değerlendirme uzmanları ile engelliler konusunda çalışmaları
bulunan akademisyen ve uzmanlaşmış personelden görüş alınması amacıyla hazırlanmış
sorular kullanılarak görüşme yoluna gidilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda Amerika’da
uygulanan testin sunum şekli, zamanlamada yapılan değişiklikler, cevapların
veriliş formatı ve sınava ilişkin genel düzenlemeler olmak üzere genel olarak
dört başlık altında toplanan uyumsama çalışmalarının Türkiye’de tam olarak bir
karşılığı olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Türkiye’de ekstra süre verme ve sınavı özel
bir ortamda gerçekleştirme dışında diğer uygulamaların hiçbirinin
gerçekleşmediği belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre Amerika’da 1970’li
yıllarda ele alınan engellilere yönelik düzenlemelerin Türkiye’de de de biran
önce yetkililer tarafından ele alınarak yasal düzenlemelerin yerine getirilmesi
gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Engelli öğrenci geniş ölçekli sınav eşitlik

References

  • Abt Associates. (2006). Improving results for students with disabilities: Key findings from the 1997 National Assessment Studies. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Almond, P., Winter, P., Cameto, R., Russell, M., Sato, E., Clarke-Midura, J., Torres,C., Haertel, G., Dolan, R., Beddow, P., &Lazarus, S. (2010). Technology-Enabled and Universally Designed Assessment: Considering Access in Measuring the Achievement of Students with Disabilities—A Foundation for Research. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10(5). Retrieved [date] from http://www.jtla.org.
  • Braun, H., Ragosta, M. ve Kaplan, B. (1988). Predictive Validity: Testing handicapped people, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Brinckerhoff, L. C. ve Banerjee, M. (2007). Misconceptions regarding accommodations on high-stakes tests: Recommendations for preparing disability documentation for test takers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 246–256.
  • Cahalan, C., Mandinach, E. B. ve Camara, W. J. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT: Reasoning Test for Test-Takers with Learning Disabilities and Extended Time Accommodations, Colege Entrance Examination Board, Report No.2002-5,New York: Collage Board Research Report
  • Dolan, R .P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., &Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-a loud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning &Assessment, 3(7), 1–32.
  • Downing, S. M. ve Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of Test Development, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • Gee, J. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment, Assessment in Education, 10(1), 27–46.
  • Gipps, C. ve Stobart, G. (2009). Educational Assessment in the 21st Century: Fairness in Assessment, Netherland: Springer
  • Gregg, N. ve Nelson, J. M. (2012). Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Extra time as a Test Accommodation for Transitioning Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: MoreQuestions Than Answers, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (2), 128-138.
  • Hill, G. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
  • IELTS, (2013). Ensuring quality and fairness in international language testing, Manchester: British Council.
  • Koretz, D. ve Barron, K. (1998). The Validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), Santa Monica: RAND.
  • Koretz, D. ve Barton, K. (2004). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence, Educatinal Assessment,9 (1).
  • Koretz, D. and Barton, K. (2003). Assessing Students with Disabilities: Issues and evidence CSE Technical Report 587. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
  • Koretz, D. and Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing Students with Disabilities in Kentucky: The Effects of Accommodations, Format, and Subject: CSE Technical Report 498. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
  • Kunnan, A. J. (2014). Fairness and justice in language assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.) The Companion to Language Assessment (pp. 1098-1114). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Lazarus, S.S.,&Thurlow, M.L. (2009). The changing lands cape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS): An analysis of early adopters of AA-MASs.Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4).
  • Lesaux, N. K., Pearson, M. R. ve Siegel, L. S. (2006). The effects of timed and untimed testing conditions on the reading comprehension performance of adults with reading disabilities, Reading and Writing, 19, 21-48.
  • Mace, R.L. (1991). Definitions: Accessible, adaptable, and universal design(FactSheet). Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design, NCSU.
  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.,pp. 13–103.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  • No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 1111, 115 Stat. 1449–1452.
  • Özürlülerin Devlet Memurluğuna Alınma Şartları ile Yapılacak Merkezi Sınav ve Kura Usulü Hakkında Yönetmelik, (2011). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 28073, 3 Ekim 2011
  • Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights, Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
  • Pitoniak, M. J. ve Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing Accommodations for Examinees With Disabilities: A Review of Psychometric, Legal, and Social Policy Issues, Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), 53-104.
  • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973). PublicLaw No. 93-112, Section 504, Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.
  • Smarter Balanced Technical Report, SBTR (2015). Technical Report: Test Fairness, http://www.smarterbalanced.org/ adresinden elde edilmiştir.
  • Sireci, S. G., Li, S. ve Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 485, Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  • Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E. ve Li, S. (2005). Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: An Analysis of the Interaction Hypothesis, Review of Educational Research, 75 (4), 457-490.
  • Stobart, G. (2005) Fairness in multicultural assessment systems, Assessment in Education, 12 (3), 275-287.
  • Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In S. Downing, S.,Haladyna, T. (Eds), Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 653-673.
  • Tucker, B. (2009). Beyond the bubble: Technology and the future of student assessment. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
  • Wigtman, L. F. (1993). Test takers with diabilities: A summary of data from special administration of the LSAT. (Research Report No. 93-03) Newton, PA: Law School Admission Council.
  • Wood, R. (1987). Assessment and equal opportunities, public lecture at ULIE, 11 November.
  • Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. (2nd edition is in preparation).
  • Zuriff, G. E. (2000) Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of maximum potential thesis. Apllied Measurement in Education, 21, 261-267.
  • http://www.gormeengelliogrenciler.com/node/25
  • Resmi Gazete, 2009. Milletler arası sözleşme, Karar Sayısı : 2009/15137
  • http://www.egitimdegormeengelliler.org/node/47
  • http://engelsizerisim.com/eeeh/yazi/18/amerika_birlesik_devletlerinde_engelli_yuksek_ogrenim_ogrencisi_olmak

Year 2018, Volume: 14 Issue: 1, 69 - 83, 20.04.2018

Derya Çobanoğlu Aktan , Gökhan Aksu , Mehmet Taha Eser

https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.322551
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • Abt Associates. (2006). Improving results for students with disabilities: Key findings from the 1997 National Assessment Studies. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Almond, P., Winter, P., Cameto, R., Russell, M., Sato, E., Clarke-Midura, J., Torres,C., Haertel, G., Dolan, R., Beddow, P., &Lazarus, S. (2010). Technology-Enabled and Universally Designed Assessment: Considering Access in Measuring the Achievement of Students with Disabilities—A Foundation for Research. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10(5). Retrieved [date] from http://www.jtla.org.
  • Braun, H., Ragosta, M. ve Kaplan, B. (1988). Predictive Validity: Testing handicapped people, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Brinckerhoff, L. C. ve Banerjee, M. (2007). Misconceptions regarding accommodations on high-stakes tests: Recommendations for preparing disability documentation for test takers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 246–256.
  • Cahalan, C., Mandinach, E. B. ve Camara, W. J. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT: Reasoning Test for Test-Takers with Learning Disabilities and Extended Time Accommodations, Colege Entrance Examination Board, Report No.2002-5,New York: Collage Board Research Report
  • Dolan, R .P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., &Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-a loud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning &Assessment, 3(7), 1–32.
  • Downing, S. M. ve Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of Test Development, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • Gee, J. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment, Assessment in Education, 10(1), 27–46.
  • Gipps, C. ve Stobart, G. (2009). Educational Assessment in the 21st Century: Fairness in Assessment, Netherland: Springer
  • Gregg, N. ve Nelson, J. M. (2012). Meta-analysis on the Effectiveness of Extra time as a Test Accommodation for Transitioning Adolescents with Learning Disabilities: MoreQuestions Than Answers, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (2), 128-138.
  • Hill, G. A. (1984). Learning disabled college students: The assessment of academic aptitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
  • IELTS, (2013). Ensuring quality and fairness in international language testing, Manchester: British Council.
  • Koretz, D. ve Barron, K. (1998). The Validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), Santa Monica: RAND.
  • Koretz, D. ve Barton, K. (2004). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence, Educatinal Assessment,9 (1).
  • Koretz, D. and Barton, K. (2003). Assessing Students with Disabilities: Issues and evidence CSE Technical Report 587. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
  • Koretz, D. and Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing Students with Disabilities in Kentucky: The Effects of Accommodations, Format, and Subject: CSE Technical Report 498. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
  • Kunnan, A. J. (2014). Fairness and justice in language assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.) The Companion to Language Assessment (pp. 1098-1114). Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Lazarus, S.S.,&Thurlow, M.L. (2009). The changing lands cape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS): An analysis of early adopters of AA-MASs.Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4).
  • Lesaux, N. K., Pearson, M. R. ve Siegel, L. S. (2006). The effects of timed and untimed testing conditions on the reading comprehension performance of adults with reading disabilities, Reading and Writing, 19, 21-48.
  • Mace, R.L. (1991). Definitions: Accessible, adaptable, and universal design(FactSheet). Raleigh, NC: Center for Universal Design, NCSU.
  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.,pp. 13–103.). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
  • No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 1111, 115 Stat. 1449–1452.
  • Özürlülerin Devlet Memurluğuna Alınma Şartları ile Yapılacak Merkezi Sınav ve Kura Usulü Hakkında Yönetmelik, (2011). T.C. Resmi Gazete, 28073, 3 Ekim 2011
  • Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights, Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
  • Pitoniak, M. J. ve Royer, J. M. (2001). Testing Accommodations for Examinees With Disabilities: A Review of Psychometric, Legal, and Social Policy Issues, Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), 53-104.
  • Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973). PublicLaw No. 93-112, Section 504, Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.
  • Smarter Balanced Technical Report, SBTR (2015). Technical Report: Test Fairness, http://www.smarterbalanced.org/ adresinden elde edilmiştir.
  • Sireci, S. G., Li, S. ve Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodations on test performance: A review of the literature. Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 485, Amherst, MA: School of Education, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  • Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E. ve Li, S. (2005). Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: An Analysis of the Interaction Hypothesis, Review of Educational Research, 75 (4), 457-490.
  • Stobart, G. (2005) Fairness in multicultural assessment systems, Assessment in Education, 12 (3), 275-287.
  • Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In S. Downing, S.,Haladyna, T. (Eds), Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 653-673.
  • Tucker, B. (2009). Beyond the bubble: Technology and the future of student assessment. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
  • Wigtman, L. F. (1993). Test takers with diabilities: A summary of data from special administration of the LSAT. (Research Report No. 93-03) Newton, PA: Law School Admission Council.
  • Wood, R. (1987). Assessment and equal opportunities, public lecture at ULIE, 11 November.
  • Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. (2nd edition is in preparation).
  • Zuriff, G. E. (2000) Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of maximum potential thesis. Apllied Measurement in Education, 21, 261-267.
  • http://www.gormeengelliogrenciler.com/node/25
  • Resmi Gazete, 2009. Milletler arası sözleşme, Karar Sayısı : 2009/15137
  • http://www.egitimdegormeengelliler.org/node/47
  • http://engelsizerisim.com/eeeh/yazi/18/amerika_birlesik_devletlerinde_engelli_yuksek_ogrenim_ogrencisi_olmak
There are 41 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Studies on Education
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Derya Çobanoğlu Aktan

Gökhan Aksu

Mehmet Taha Eser

Publication Date April 20, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 14 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Çobanoğlu Aktan, D., Aksu, G., & Eser, M. T. (2018). Türkiye ve Amerika’da Engelli Öğrenciler için Yapılan Geniş Ölçekli Sınavların Yasal Sorumluluklar, Uygulama Yöntemleri ve Geçerlik Açısından İncelenmesi. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 69-83. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.322551

Cited By

Views of academician examiners on the testing accommodations of the measurement, selection and placement center for disabled test takers
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1084501

Once articles are published in the journal, the publishing rights belong to the journal. All articles published in the journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, which permits sharing by others.