Eğitsel Değerlendirmeyi Tanımlamada Avrupa Standartlarının Kullanımı: Öğretmen-Ölçen Yordamı ve Yönetici Kontrolü

Year 2018, Issue: 40, 171 - 190, 24.12.2018

Nurdan Kavaklı , İsmail Hakkı Mirici

https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.515260

Abstract

Bu çalışma, yaygın eğitim veren İngilizce kurslarının ölçme ve
değerlendirme uygulamalarında Avrupa ölçütleri kullanımını irdelemeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Karma yönteme dayalı olan bu çalışmada, nicel veri Türkiye’de
en yüksek katılımcı kapasitesine, belli bir kaliteye ve sayıca en fazla şubeye
sahip İngilizce kurslarında aynı zamanda sınav hazırlayıcı olarak çalışan
İngilizce öğretmenlerinden toplanmıştır. Öte yandan, nitel veri ise aynı
kurumlardaki yöneticilerden toplanmıştır. Nicel veri ile öğretmen-ölçen yordamına
ulaşmak hedeflenmiş, nitel veri ile de yönetici kontrolünün sürece etkisi
dikkate alınmıştır. Buna göre, çalışmanın sonuçları göstermiştir ki (1)
kullanılan ölçme yöntemleri halihazırdaki eğitim sistemi hakkında geribildirim
sağlamaktadır; (2) müfredatın tamamının ve eğitim sisteminin değerlendirilmesi
bir noktaya kadar dikkate alınmaktadır; (3) ölçme sürecinde bireyin iyiliği
için yapılanlar Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Hakları Konvansiyonu ile tam bir uyum
içinde değildir; (4) belirlenen İngilizce kurslarında yürütülen ölçme ve
değerlendirme faaliyetleri ölçünleştirilmiş sınav uygulamalarından uzaktır.
Çalışmanın sonuçları tartışılmış ve güncel ölçme ve değerlendirme
uygulamalarının kalitesinin geliştirilmesi için çeşitli tavsiyeler sunulmuştur.
Bu noktada, ilgili kurumları Türkiye eğitim ekonomisinin arterleri olarak
görerek Avrupa Eğitsel Değerlendirme Birliği‘nin sunduğu çerçeveye (AEA- Europe
2012) başvurulabileceği önerilmiştir.

Keywords

Ölçme ve değerlendirme, eğitsel değerlendirme, ölçünleştirilmiş sınav, yaygın eğitim, İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğretimi

The Utilization of the European Standards for Defining Educational Assessment: Teacher-Tester Attributes and Directors’ Control

Abstract

This study aims to scrutinize the
utilization of the European guidelines in testing and assessment practices of
non-formal English language schools. Providing insights from a mixed-methods
research design, the quantitative data were gathered from the English language
teachers, who were also working as test (-item) developers at three private institutions
renowned for quality with the highest course attendee capacity and branches in
Turkey to reveal teacher-tester attributes, whereas qualitative data were
gathered from the directors of these private institutions to screen directors’
control. The results have yielded that (1) the kinds of assessment in use allow
for feedback on the performance of the on-going educational system; (2) the
overall evaluation of the total program, and assessment of educational systems
are taken into consideration in testing procedures to some extent; (3) what is
good for the individual in assessment does not thoroughly align with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; (4) the assessment applied in
the selected private institutions does not mainly cover standardized tests. The
results are discussed, and laced with suggestions to improve the quality of
current testing and assessment practices by the exploitation of the European
Framework of Standards for Educational Assessment (AEA- Europe 2012) regarding
non-formal private institutions as the arteries of Turkish education economy.

Keywords

Language testing, educational assessment, AEA- Europe, non-formal education, EFL

References

• Association for Educational Assessment in Europe (AEA- Europe). (2012). European Framework of Standards for Educational Assessment (Version 1.0). Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura.
• Banerjee, Jay (2004). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: Section D: Qualitative analysis methods. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Bogdan, Robert C.- Biklen, Sari Knopp (2003). Qualitative research of education: An introductive to theories and methods (4th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Colardyn, Danielle (ed.) (2002). Lifelong learning: Which ways forward? Utrecht: Lemma.
• Council of Europe (CoE). (1999). “A report on non-formal education”. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Committee on Culture and Education. assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=8807&lang=en. [20.06.2017.]
• Council of Europe (CoE). (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Council of Europe (CoE). (2011). Manual for language test development and examining: For use with the CEFR. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Council of Higher Education (CoHE). (2007). “Türkiye’nin yükseköğretim stratejisi” [Higher education strategy of Turkey]. Ankara: Council of Higher Education. www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/30217/yok_strateji_kitabi/27077070-cb13-4870-aba1-6742db37696b [25.06.2017.]
• Dancey, Christine P. - Reidy, John. (2004). Statistics without Maths for psychology: Using SPSS for windows. London, UK: Prentice Hall.
• Davison, Chris - Leung, Constant (2009). “Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment”. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 393-415.
• De Jong, John Hal (2004). “Comparing the psycholinguistic and the communicative paradigm of language proficiency”. International Workshop Psycholinguistic and Psychometric Aspects of Language Assessment in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
• Deluca, Christopher, Lapointe-Mcewan, Danielle et al. (2015). “Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures”. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(3), 251-272.
• Demirer, Derya Keskin (2015). “Reproduction of inequality through private out-of-school education”. Education Applications and Development: Advances in Education and Educational Trends. ed. Mafalda Carmo. World Institute for Advanced Research and Science (WIARS), Lisbon: The Science Press. 259-269.
• Dolgunsöz, Emrah (2016). “A sudden change in Turkish education system: Public attitude towards dershane debates in Turkey”. E-International Journal of Educational Research (E-IJER), 7(2), 56-75.
• Dörnyei, Zoltán (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Eckes, Thomas (2009). Reference Supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the Manual for Relating Language examinations to the CEF: Section H: Many-Facet Rasch Measurement. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Elliott, Naomi- Jordan, Joanne (2010). “Practical strategies to avoid the pitfalls in grounded theory research”. Nurse Researcher, 17(4), 29-40.
• Fordham, Paul E. (1993). Informal, non-formal and formal education programmes in YMCA George Williams College ICE301 Lifelong Learning Unit 2. London, UK: YMCA George Williams College.
• Glaser, Barney G.- Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
• Graddol, David (2006). English Next: Why global English may mean the end of “English as a foreign language”. The United Kingdom: The British Council.
• Halbherr, Tobias-Schlienger, Claudia, et al. (2014). “Assessments for a digital world”. The Annual AEA- Europe Tallinn Conference: Assessment of students in a 21st century world. Tallinn, Estonia.
• Hubley, Anita M.- Zumbo, Bruno D. (2011). “Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use”. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 219-230.
• Hulstijn, Jan H. (2007). “The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency”. The Modern Language Journal (MLJ), 91(4), 663-667.
• Jones, Neil- Saville, Nick (2014). Learning oriented assessment: A systemic approach (Studies in Language Testing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jones, Neil-Saville, Nick (2009). “European language policy: Assessment, learning, and the CEFR”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51-63.
• Kaftandjieva, Felianka (2004). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: Section B: Standard setting. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Kavaklı, Nurdan (2018). CEFR oriented testing and assessment practices in non-formal English language schools in Turkey. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ankara: Hacettepe University.
• La Belle, Thomas J. (1982). “Formal, non-formal and informal education: A holistic perspective on lifelong learning”. International Review of Education, 28(2), 159-175.
• Little, David (2005). “The common European framework and the European language portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process”. Language Testing, 22(3), 321-336.
• Marín, Gerardo-Marín, Barbara VanOss (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Menken, Kate (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Mirici, İsmail Hakkı (2008). “Development and validation process of a European language portfolio model for young learners”. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 9(2), 26-34.
• Mirici, İsmail Hakkı-Kavaklı, Nurdan (2017). “Teaching the CEFR-oriented practices effectively in the MA program of an ELT department in Turkey”. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 4(1), 74-85.
• National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nunan, David (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Özel Öğretim Kurslar, Dershaneler ve Etüt Eğitim Merkezleri Birliği Derneği. (ÖZ-KUR-DER). (2011). “Kamuoyuna açıklama”. [Declaration to the Public]. The Association of Private Educational Establishments and Study Centers of Turkey. www.ozkurder.com/bilgilendirme/kamuya_bilgi.htm. [02.05.2017.]
• Patton, Michael Quinn (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4th edition.
• Pearson English. (2014). “English: The world’s language (infographic)”. Pearson. www.english.com/english_learning_infographic [17.09.2016.]
• Romi, Shlomo-Schmida, Mirjam (2009). “Non-formal education: A major educational force in the postmodern era”. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 257-273.
• Sarıçoban, Arif (2011). “A Study on the English language teachers’ preparation of tests”. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 398-410.
• Schäerer, Rolf (2005). European language portfolio: Interim report 2005 with executive summary. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Shute, Valerie J.-Leighton, Jacqueline P. et al. (2016). “Advances in the science of assessment”. Educational Assessment, 21(1), 34-59.
• Silova, Iveta-Budiene, Virginija, et al. (eds.). (2006). Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring. New York, NY: Open Society Institute.
• Sleeter, Christin E.-Carmona, Judith Flores (2017). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 2nd edition.
• Southgate, Darby (2009). Determinants of shadow education: A cross-national analysis. Unpublished PhD Thesis. The USA: The Ohio State University.
• Spinelli, Cathleen G. (2007). “Addressing the issue of cultural and linguistic diversity and assessment: Informal evaluation measures for English language learners”. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24(1), 101-118.
• Taber, Keith S. (2000). Case studies and generalizability: “Grounded theory and research in science education”. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 469‐487.
• United Nations (UN). (1990). “Convention on the Rights of the Child”. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, the United Nations. www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx [20.11.2016.]
• United Nations Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO.
• Van Nijlen, Daniël- Janssen, Rianne (2014). “Measuring 21st century skills through national assessments: The case of information processing skills”. AEA- Europe Tallinn Conference: Assessment of students in a 21st century world. Tallinn, Estonia.
• Verhelst, Norman (2004a). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: section C: Classical test theory. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Verhelst, Norman (2004b). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: section E: Generalizability theory. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Verhelst, Norman (2004c). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: section F: Factor analysis. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Verhelst, Norman (2004d). Reference supplement to the preliminary pilot version of the manual for relating language examinations to the CEF: Section G: Item response theory. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
• Walvoord, Barbara E.-Anderson, Virginia Johnson (2010). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 2nd edition.
• Wiggins, Grant (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessment to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
• Wools, Saskia (2015). All about validity: An evaluation system for the quality of educational assessment. Enschede: University of Twente.
• Zengin, Buğra-Hacıfazlıoğlu, Özge (2013). “Profile of preparatory school administrators at universities”. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(3), 351-360.
• Zumbo, Bruno D. (2015). “Consequences, side effects and the ecology of testing: Keys to considering assessment in ‘In Vivo’”. The annual meeting of the Association for Educational Assessment - Europe (AEA-Europe). Glasgow, Scotland.