Affiliation:
1. KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ
Abstract
In education, examining students' learning in detail, determining their strengths and weaknesses and giving effective feedback have gained importance over time. The aim of this study is to determine the distribution of students’ answers to the reading comprehension achievement test items which were written at different cognitive levels and to investigate the affective variables that are effective in classifying students based on their incorrect, blank, and unrelated answers identified via rubric. For this purpose, a reading comprehension achievement test, a student information form, the perceived academic self-efficacy scale and the learned helplessness tendency scale were used to collect data. The student information form included perseverance, achievement motivation, exposure to bullying and test anxiety subscales. A rubric was used to determine the students’ response categories. According to the findings of the study, the rate of blank and incorrect answers increases as the cognitive level of the items become more complex. While the most correct response rates are decreasing, partially-correct answers are increasing relatively. While students' learned helplessness tendencies were effective in classifying their blank and unrelated answers at the most basic reading comprehension level, as the cognitive process became more complex, the affective characteristics classifying the student responses increased in number. It was concluded that these variables are important in improving the students’ answers and in leading them to the partially correct and the most correct answer. It can be suggested to create trainings and classroom environments that will equip and improve students’ features about these variables.
Publisher
International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education
Reference35 articles.
1. Badger, E. & Thomas, B. (1991) Open-Ended questions in reading. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.7275/fryf-z044
2. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
3. Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children's bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(5), 545 553. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819cb017
4. Cassady, J.C., & Johnson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270 295. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
5. Chapell, M.S., Blanding, Z.B., Silverstein, M.E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.268