Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds

Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 691 - 710 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds

Öz:
Analysis of the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and student achievement has been prevalent in the literature, yet research focusing on the association between factors and the achievement of school populations with distinct categories of SES is limited. The purpose of the present study was to investigate various relevant student, household, and school factors associated with the performance of students with distinct SES backgrounds in Turkey. Specifically, this study aimed to compare the most disadvantaged students with the most advantaged ones in terms of factors affecting their reading, mathematics, and science achievement. The data for the study was taken from the latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which was conducted in 2012. Several multiple linear regression models were employed in the analysis of the data. Results showed an enormous achievement gap between students in the lowest 25 SES percentile and those in the top 25 SES percentile in all subject areas, and suggested that socioeconomically disadvantaged students benefitted more from home educational resources and ICT availability, as well as reduced class size, compared to their counterparts from higher socio-economic backgrounds. The study provides substantial implications and suggestions for policy makers in general, and for those in Turkey in particular
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Akay, C., & Ültanır, E. (2010). Andragojik temellere dayalı kolaylaştırılmış okuma-yazma eğitimi (KOYE) sürecine yönelik KOYE eğiticilerinin görüşleri [Reading-writing (literacy) education teachers' opinions on andragocigal based facilitated reading-writing (literacy) education (FLE)]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 75-88.
  • Alacacı, C., & Erbaş, A. K. (2010). Unpacking the inequality among Turkish schools: Findings from PISA 2006. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 182-192.
  • Akcaoglu, M., Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., & Boyer, D. M. (2015). Policy, practice, and reality: Exploring a nation-wide technology implementation in Turkish schools. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 477-491.
  • Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2012). The comparative assessment of the results of PISA mathematical literacy between 2003-2006. Education and Science, 37(164), 20-30.
  • Aypay, A. (2010). Information and communication technology (ICT) usage and achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2006. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 116-124.
  • Altinyelken, H. K. (2009). Coping strategies among internal migrant students in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 174-183.
  • Bellibas, M. S., & Gumus, S. (2013). The impact of socio-economic status on parental involvement in Turkish primary schools: Perspective of teachers. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(3), 178-193.
  • Berberoglu, G., & Kalender, I. (2005). Investigation of student achievement across years, school types and regions: The SSE and PISA analyses. Educational Sciences and Practice, 4(7), 21-35.
  • Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1997). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269-277
  • Chandra, V., & Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1087-1098.
  • Crane, J. (1996). Effects of home environment, SES, and maternal test scores on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 305-314.
  • Celce-Murcia, M., & McIntosh, L. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language . Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
  • Çelik, Z., & Gür, B. (2013). Turkey's education policy during the AK Party era (2002- 2013). Insight Turkey, 15(4), 151-176.
  • Daniel, H. C. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558-590.
  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
  • Delen, E., & Bulut, O. (2011). The relationship between students' exposure to technology and their achievement in science and math. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 311-317.
  • Delen, I., & Bellibas, M. S. (2015). Formative assessment, teacher-directed instruction and teacher support in Turkey: Evidence from PISA 2012. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 5(1), 88-102.
  • Desimone, L., & Long, D. A. (2010) Teacher effects and the achievement gap: Do teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between black and white and high- and low-SES students in the early grades? Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3024-3073.
  • FATIH Project. (2012). Fatih project webpage. Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/ tr/english.php
  • Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.
  • Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Gelbal, S. (2008). The effect of socio-economic status of eighth grade students on their achievement in Turkish. Education and Science, 33(150), 1-13.
  • Gumus, S., & Atalmis, E. H. (2011). Exploring the relationship between purpose of computer usage and reading skills of Turkish students: Evidence from PISA 2006. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 129-140.
  • Gumus, S., & Atalmis, E. H. (2012). Achievement gaps between different school types and regions in Turkey: have they changed over time? Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(2), 48-64.
  • of Children, 5(2), 113-127.
  • Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123-151.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Equally prepared for life? How 15-year-old boys and girls perform in school. Paris, France: Author.
  • Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.
  • Perry, L., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137-1162.
  • Pianta, R. C., & Harbers, K. L. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in a problem- solving situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(3), 307-322.
  • Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
  • Roscigno, V. J., & Ainsworth-Darnell, J. W. (1999). Race, cultural capital, and educational resources: Persistent inequalities and achievement returns. Sociology of Education, 72, 158-178.
  • Rothstein, R. (2004).Class and schools: using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
  • Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247-256.
  • Scott-Jones, D. (1987). Mother-as-teacher in the families of high- and low-achieving low- income black first-graders. The Journal of Negro Education, 56(1), 21-34.
  • Tomul, E., & Savasci, H. S. (2012). Socioeconomic determinants of academic achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(3), 175-187.
  • Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2015). İstatistikilerle kadın [Women in statistics]. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18619
  • Undheim, J. O., & Nordvik, H. (1992). Socio-economic factors and sex differences in an egalitarian educational system: Academic achievement in 16-year-old Norwegian students. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(2), 87-98.
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2012). Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2012. Youth and skills: Putting education to work. Paris, France: Author.
  • Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & John, J. Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Leesburg, VA: Jack Kent Cookie Foundation & Civic Enterprises.
  • Yazan, B. (2014). 'Come on girls, let's go to school': An effort towards gender educational equity in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(8), 836-856.
  • Yıldız, S. (2006, October 21). 'Haydi Kızlar Okula' kampanyası ile 175 bin kız eğitime başladı. Zaman Gazetesi. Retrieved from http://www.zaman.com.tr/sehir_haydi-kizlar- okula-kampanyasi-ile-175-bin-kiz-egitime-basladi_440525.html
APA Bellibaş M (2016). Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. , 691 - 710.
Chicago Bellibaş Mehmet Şükrü Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. (2016): 691 - 710.
MLA Bellibaş Mehmet Şükrü Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. , 2016, ss.691 - 710.
AMA Bellibaş M Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. . 2016; 691 - 710.
Vancouver Bellibaş M Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. . 2016; 691 - 710.
IEEE Bellibaş M "Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds." , ss.691 - 710, 2016.
ISNAD Bellibaş, Mehmet Şükrü. "Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds". (2016), 691-710.
APA Bellibaş M (2016). Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 16(2), 691 - 710.
Chicago Bellibaş Mehmet Şükrü Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 16, no.2 (2016): 691 - 710.
MLA Bellibaş Mehmet Şükrü Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, vol.16, no.2, 2016, ss.691 - 710.
AMA Bellibaş M Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2016; 16(2): 691 - 710.
Vancouver Bellibaş M Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2016; 16(2): 691 - 710.
IEEE Bellibaş M "Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds." Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 16, ss.691 - 710, 2016.
ISNAD Bellibaş, Mehmet Şükrü. "Who are the Most Disadvantaged? Factors Associated with the Achievement of Students with Low Socio- Economic Backgrounds". Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 16/2 (2016), 691-710.