Uma pesquisa sobre a representação visual em questões de ciências nos exames de entrada do ensino médio na Turquia entre 1999 e 2022

Volkan Göksu; Alime Kayretli

doi:10.22633/rpge.v29iesp3.20681

Authors

Volkan Göksu Kafkas University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-7730
Alime Kayretli Ministry of National Education https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1951-4859

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22633/rpge.v29iesp3.20681

Keywords:

High School Entrance Exams, Visual Representation, Science questions

Abstract

The study analyzes 610 science questions from Türkiye’s high school entrance exams (1999–2022) to evaluate their visual representations. Using an embedded case study design and descriptive analysis, it examines visuals by subject area, year, placement, and role in problem-solving (ineffective, partial, effective). Findings show that visuals appear mainly in the subject areas “Living Things and Life” and “Physical Phenomena.” Although visual types vary over time, schematic drawings remain the most frequent. Most visuals contribute only partially to solving the questions. Overall, the exams do not present a balanced distribution of visual content across subject areas.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Volkan Göksu , Kafkas University

Kafkas University, Dede Korkut Faculty of Education, Kars, Türkiye.

Alime Kayretli , Ministry of National Education

Ministry of National Education, Türkiye.

References

Açıkgöz, Ü. K. (2003). Aktif öğrenme. Eğitim Dünyası Yayınları.

Altun, E., Şendur, G., & Alpat, Ş. (2016). Comparison of the main features and the chemistry questions of university entrance examinations in China and Turkey. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(2), 857–874.

Anagnostopoulou, K., Hatzinikita, V., & Christidou, V. (2012). Exploring visual material in PISA and school-based examination tests. In 17th Colloque Siest Méditerranée Tunis (pp. 47–56).

Borji, V., & Sánchez, A. (2019). An exploratory analysis of the representations of functions in the university entrance exam in Spain and Iran. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), 1–12.

Böyük, E. T. (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programının TEOG ve TIMSS sınavları kapsamında incelenmesi [Doctoral dissertation, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İstanbul].

Bretschneider, P., Cirilli, S., Jones, T., Lynch, S., & Wilson, S. A. (2017). Document review as a qualitative research data collection method for teacher research. In P. Pringle (Ed.), SAGE Research Methods Cases. Sage Publications.

Çelen, F. K., Çelik, A., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Türk eğitim sistemi ve PISA sonuçları. In 13th Akademik Bilişim Konferansı (pp. 2–4).

Çetin, G. (2004). Değişen değerler ve eğitim. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 161, 5–16.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Demirbaş, M. (2008). Sınıf fen bilgisi ve fen ve teknoloji öğretim programlarının karşılaştırılmalı olarak incelenmesi: öğretim öncesi görüşler. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 21(2), 313–338.

Hançer, A. H., Şensoy, Ö., & Yıldırım, H. İ. (2003). İlköğretimde çağdaş fen bilgisi öğretiminin önemi ve nasıl olması gerektiği üzerine bir değerlendirme. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(13), 80–88.

İnaltekin, T., & Goksu, V. (2020). Analysing science questions in terms of visual content in higher education entrance exams in Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 472–493.

Karazeybek, İ. (2020). Fizik derslerindeki öğretmen ve öğrenci kaynaklı görsel temsillerin ve pedagojik süreçlerin öğrenci defterleri yoluyla incelenmesi [Master’s thesis, Kafkas Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Kars].

MacDonald, K., & Tipton, C. (1996). Using documents. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching Social Life (pp. 187–200). Sage.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study.

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, 1(1), 1–17.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). Education at a glance 2016: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Education at a glance 2022: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en

Rodrigo, A., Peñas, A., Miyao, Y., & Kando, N. (2018). Do systems pass university entrance exams? Information Processing & Management, 54(4), 564–575.

Sırgancı, G. (2023). A machine learning approach to assess differential item functioning of PISA 2018 ICT engagement questionnaire. International Journal of Curriculum & Instruction, 15(3), 2079–2093.

Sönmez, V. (2007). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı. Anı Yayınları.

Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 191–203.

Yeh, Y. F. Y., & McTigue, E. M. (2009). The frequency, variation, and function of graphical representations within standardized state science tests. School Science and Mathematics, 109(8), 443–449.

Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies. In The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (2nd ed., pp. 254–282).