Öğretmenlerin Performans Görevlerini Hazırlarken ve Uygularken Karşılaştığı Sorunlar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe aim of study is to determi nate the difficulties of teachers in preparation and implementation of performance task. This study was carried out with 25 teachers (5 science and technology, 5 primary, 5 mathematic, 5 so- cial science and 5 Turkish teachers] who working at elementary schools in Artvin. Sample of study is selected randomly. Case study research method was used in the study. Data gathered with interview, observation and documentary data collection tolls. Obtained data were analyzed with content analyses method. At the end of the study, it is ascertained that teachers do not determine appropriate topics for students' level and appropriate criteria for topics and have i nsufficient knowledge about how prepared rubrics. Besides, it is seen that teachers encounter some difficulties such as crowded classroom, insufficient ti me for assessment, insufficient learning environment and technological opportunity and they do not do objective assessment.Key WordsPrimary Teaching Curriculum, Measurement and Assessment, Alternative Assessment, Performance Assessment, Performance Task, Teachers' Difficulties.Curriculum composed of four dimensions such as aim, content, organization of learning activities and evaluation (Demirel, 2008). While determining aims and contents of curriculum, it is benefited from educational philosophy and also as composing organization of learning activities of curriculum it is made use of educational psychology (Cepni & Cil, 2010). In Turkey, while behaviorist approach was considered in the past, now cognitive approach is adopted in curriculums (Cepni & Cil, 2010). It is seen that this preference is effective to changing of teaching methods and techniques in organizations of learning activities and measurement and assessment approaches in evaluations component of curriculums.Measurement and assessment have important role that determine to development of students' cognitive, affective and psychometric skills, resolve to learning deficiencies of unsuccessful students and motivate to successful students (Semerci, 2007). Measurement and assessment is used different purpose in different phases of instructional activities. These assessment types are diagnostic assessment (Pluss, 2002; Wright, 2001), formative assessment (Bryant & Timmins, 2002; Metin & Biricci, 2009; Metin & Ozmen, 2010a) and summative assessment (Birgin, 2003; Pluss, 2002; Wright, 2001). Summative assessment have commonly used in education systems.Summative assessment is sufficient that students are classified into successful or unsuccessful or de- termining whether students learn some knowledge and skills in units or not (Calik, 2007). Validity of summative assessment which only assessed to stu- dents' outputs is reviewed together new curriculum and chancing of learning approach is effected to changed measurement and assessment approach (Fourie & Van Niekerk, 2001).New curriculum have been defended that opportu- nity of multi-type assessment is presented by stu- dents in order to demonstrating their knowledge, skills and attitude (Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB], 2005). It is impossible that this situation is carried out by summative assessment. So, it is adopted to alternative assessment instead of summative assess- ment in the new curriculum. One of the differences of alternative assessment from summative assess- ment is the assessment of student performance. This mentions the importance of performance as- sessment.Performance assessment tries to establish what students can do as district from what he/his knows (Mehrens, 1992). It focuses on doing something, not merely knowing, and on process as well as product (Linn & Gronlund, 2000). Performance assessments are defined as concrete and authentic tasks that require students to do something with their knowledge and skills, such as give a demonstration or presentation, or write a report (Nitko, 2004; Shavelson, 1994). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".