Investigation of primary students’ opinions about using performance assessment in science and technology course with respect to the different variables

The aim of study is to investigate opinions of primary students in different level, gender graduation type of students’ mother and father about using performance assessment in science and technology course. For this aim, the questionnaire was performed students. It is showed that results of the questionnaire have five sub-scales in tables.

Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answer regarding attributions of first sub-scale called on “effects of performance assessment on students” were given in table 1.

Table 1 Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of first sub-scale
	Effects of performance assessment on students (EPS)	Strong Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Strong Agree		Means (x̄)
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	Means (x̄)
1	Performance tasks help to improvement of myself	290	16	130	7.2	132	7.3	426	23.5	832	46	3.76
2	Performance tasks provide produce new ideas for me	242	13.4	120	6.6	208	11.5	460	25.4	780	43.1	3.78
3	Performance tasks develop to computer usage skills of my	396	21.9	284	15.7	310	17.1	334	18.5	486	26.9	3.13
4	Performance tasks provide to execute self-assessment	290	16	162	9	284	15.7	396	21.9	678	37.5	3.56
5	Performance tasks increase relationship my friends	340	18.8	214	11.8	370	20.4	388	21.4	498	27.5	3.28
6	Performance tasks are effective to learning of topics	262	14.5	134	7.4	254	14	340	18.8	820	45.3	3.73
7	Performance tasks provide to me cooperation with my friends	286	15.8	152	8.4	302	16.7	364	20.1	706	39	3.58
8	Performance tasks improve to self-expression skills of my	314	17.3	158	8.7	262	14.5	380	21	696	38.5	3.54
9	Performance tasks improve to presentation skills of my	240	13.3	174	9.6	218	12	440	24.3	738	40.8	3.7
10	Performance tasks improve to inquiry skills of my	286	15.8	142	7.8	220	12.2	372	20.5	790	43.6	3.68

As seen table 1, it can see that mean score of 10 attributions in effects of performance assessment on students subscale are between 3.13 and 3.78. This result revealed that eight attributions in this sub-scale are in “Agree” category and the others are in “Undecided” category. Higher average of these attributions in Agree category are “Performance tasks provide produce new ideas for me” (x̄ = 3.78), “Performance tasks help to improvement of myself” (x̄ = 3.76), “Performance tasks are effective to learning of topics” (x̄ = 3.73), “Performance tasks improve to presentation skills of my” (x̄ = 3.70) and “Performance tasks improve to inquiry skills of my” (x̄ = 3.68). Higher average of these attributions in undecided category are “Performance tasks develop to computer usage skills of my” (x̄ = 3.13) and “Performance tasks increase relationship my friends” (x̄ = 3.28).

Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of second sub-scale called on “positive opinions of students on performance assessment” were given in table 2.

Table 2 Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of second sub-scale
	Positive opinions of students on performance assessment (POSP)	Strong Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Strong Agree		Means (x̄)
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	Means (x̄)
1	I like preparing of performance task	246	13.6	176	9.7	214	11.8	458	25.3	716	39.6	3.68
2	I enjoy when performance task prepare	314	17.3	168	9.3	220	12.2	412	22.8	696	38.5	3.56
3	I think that performance tasks are very useful	318	17.6	130	7.2	196	10.8	352	19.4	814	45	3.67
4	I delight preparing of performance task in classroom	494	27.3	266	14.3	316	17.5	304	16.8	430	23.8	2.95
5	I engage attention course using performance tasks	334	18.5	182	10.1	272	15	394	21.8	628	34.7	3.44
6	Preparing performance tasks are easy	396	21.9	264	14.6	440	24.3	316	17.5	394	21.8	2.92

As a seen table 2, it can determine that mean score of 6 attributions in positive opinions of students on performance assessment subscale are between 2.92 and 3.68. This result revealed that four attributions in this sub-scale are in “Agree” category and the others are in “Undecided” category. Higher average of these attributions in Agree category are “I like preparing of performance task” (x̄ = 3.68), “I think that performance tasks are very useful” (x̄ = 3.67), “I enjoy when performance task prepare” (x̄ = 3.56) and “I engage attention course using performance tasks” (x̄ = 3.56). Higher average of these attributions in undecided category are “I delight preparing of performance task in classroom” (x̄ = 2.95) and “Preparing performance tasks are easy” (x̄ = 2.92).

Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of third sub-scale called on “negative opinions of students on performance assessment” were given in table 3.

Table 3 Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of third sub-scale
	Negative opinions of students on performance assessment (NOSP)	Strong Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Strong Agree		Means (x̄)
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	Means (x̄)
1	Performance tasks are waste of time.	838	46.3	360	19.9	234	12.9	154	8.5	224	12.4	2.21
2	I exhaust to prepared performance tasks	418	23.1	332	18.3	342	18.8	340	18.7	378	20.9	2.96
3	Performance tasks are very expensive.	794	43.9	332	18.3	258	14.3	176	9.7	250	13.8	2.31
4	I slog on obtaining computers and internet when performance tasks are prepared	700	38.7	390	21.5	292	16.1	190	10.5	238	13.1	2.38
5	I don’t believe preparing of performance tasks by himself	626	34.6	382	21.1	326	18	208	11.5	268	14.8	2.51
6	I dislike courses which were wanted to prepare performance tasks	850	47	358	19.8	236	13	144	8	222	12.3	2.19

According to the mean scores in Table 3, it can be say that six attributions in negative opinions of students on performance assessment subscale are between 2.19 and 2.96. This result revealed that five attributions in this sub-scale are in “Disagree” category and the other is in “Undecided” category. Higher average of these attributions in disagree category are “I dislike courses which were wanted to prepare performance tasks” (x̄ = 2.19), “Performance tasks are waste of time” (x̄ = 2.21), “Performance tasks are very expensive” (x̄ = 2.31) and “I slog on obtaining computers and internet when performance tasks are prepared” (x̄ = 2.38). Higher average of these attributions in undecided category is “I exhaust to prepared performance tasks” (x̄ = 2.96).

Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of fourth sub-scale called on “encounter difficulties to preparing performance task” were given in table 4.

Table 4 Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of fourth sub-scale
	Encounter difficulties to preparing performance task (EDPP)	Strong Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Strong Agree		Means (x̄)
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	Means (x̄)
1	Preparing performance tasks embarrass recreational with friends and family	766	42.3	426	23.5	222	12.3	170	9.4	226	12.5	2.26
2	I don’t find topics wanted to preparing performance tasks in internet resource	554	30.6	442	24.6	302	16.7	248	13.7	264	14.6	2.57
3	I don’t attain necessary equipments related to performance task	684	37.8	398	22	276	15.2	216	11.9	236	13	2.4
4	Performance assessment are difficult and trying as much as preparing himself	588	32.5	398	22	524	17.9	190	10.5	310	17.1	2.91
5	I don’t identify anybody to help me for preparing performance tasks	890	49.2	346	19.1	192	10.6	154	8.5	228	12.6	2.16

When it is investigated table 3, it can see that five attributions in encounter difficulties to prepare performance task subscale are between 2.16 and 2.91. This result revealed that five attributions in this sub-scale are in “Disagree” category and the other is in “Undecided” category. Higher average of these attributions in disagree category are “I don’t identify anybody to help me for preparing performance tasks” (x̄ = 2.16), “Preparing performance tasks embarrass recreational with friends and family” (x̄ = 2.26), “I don’t attain necessary equipments related to performance task” (x̄ = 2.4) and “I don’t find topics wanted to preparing performance tasks in internet resource” (x̄ = 2.57). Higher average of these attributions in undecided category is “Performance assessment are difficult and trying as much as preparing himself” (x̄ = 2.91).

Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of fifth sub-scale called on “opinions of students on portfolio” were given in table 5.

Table 5 Frequency, percentage and means of students’ answers regarding attributions of fifth sub-scale
	Opinions of students on portfolio (OSP)	Strong Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Strong Agree		Means (x̄)
		f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	Means (x̄)
1	I enjoy preparing portfolio	364	20.1	174	9.6	276	15.2	364	20.1	632	34.9	3.4
2	Portfolio provide to see all applications of my	302	20.7	164	9.1	346	19.1	410	22.7	588	32.5	3.45
3	Portfolio improve to responsibility emotion of my	308	17	160	8.8	286	15.8	388	21.4	668	36.9	3.52
4	I can see my improvement thanks to portfolio	276	15.2	194	10.7	300	16.6	400	22.1	640	35.4	3.52
5	Collection of studies in portfolio is very difficult	640	35.4	372	20.5	284	15.7	192	10.6	322	17.8	3.45
6	My exam anxiety are decrease with portfolio application	638	35.2	290	16	402	22.2	184	10.2	296	13.4	2.56
7	I can see my friends’ study with portfolio	322	17.8	216	11.9	414	21.9	378	20.9	480	26.5	3.26
8	I obtain different aspect on topic with portfolio	284	15.7	200	11	370	20.4	378	20.9	578	31.9	3.42

As a seen table 5, it can determine that mean score of 8 attributions in opinions of students on portfolio subscale are between 2.56 and 3.52. This result revealed that six attributions in this sub-scale are in “Agree” category, one attribution is in “Undecided” category and one attribution is in “Disagree” category. Higher average of these attributions in Agree category are “I can see my improvement thanks to portfolio” (x̄ = 3.52), “Portfolio improve to responsibility emotion of my” (x̄ = 3.52), “Portfolio provide to see all applications of my” (x̄ = 3.45) and “Collection of studies in portfolio is very difficult” (x̄ = 3.45). Attribution in Undecided category is “I can see my friends’ study with portfolio” (x̄ = 3.26) and Attribution in Disagree category is “My exam anxiety are decrease with portfolio application” (x̄ = 2.56).

In order to determine whether students’ opinions on performance assessment scores differed between genders of students, an independent-sample t-test was conducted. The independent-sample t-test scores can be seen in Table 6.

Table 6 Independent sample t-test scores in terms of genders
Gender variable
	male (n=974)		female (n=836)
		sd		sd	t	p
EPS	35.40	9.363	36.16	9.903	-1.178	.666
POSP	20.09	5.801	20.36	6.296	-0.678	.045
NOSP	21.10	5.143	21.84	5.133	-2.145	.779
EDPP	17.55	4.473	18.57	4.419	-3.421	.709
OSP	26.31	6.679	26.92	6.915	-1.341	.453

The independent-sample t-test scores in table 6 show that there are significant differences between the students’ POSP (t=-0.678; p<0.05) sub-dimensions in terms of gender. However there are no significant differences between the students’ EPS (t=-1.178; p>0.05), NOSP (t=-2.145; p>0.05), EDPP (t=-3.421; p>0.05) and OSP (t=-1.341; p>0.05). According to the scores, female teachers have a little bit more positive opinions (x=20.36) towards performance assessment than males (x=20.09).

In order to see whether students’ opinions about performance assessment scores differed in terms of grade level of students, one-way between-groups ANOVA test was conducted. Table 7 provides the descriptive statistics on grade level of students.

According to the mean scores in Table 7, students in 4th grade level have higher score on NOSP (x̄ =22.62) and EDPP (x̄ =18.98), students in 5th grade level have higher score on EPP (x̄ =38.03), POSP (x̄ =21.86) and OSP (x̄ =28.64) sub-scales than the others students. As seen result in Table 7, The ANOVA test scores showed that in the term of students grade level, there are statistically difference at the p<.05 level in all sub-scales. In order to find out the source of the differences in students’ opinions on performance assessment in the term of grade level of students, LSD test was used and scores are shown in Table 8.

Table 7 Summary of one way ANOVA on grade level of students
Grade level
	4^th (n=500)		5^th (n=452)		6^th (n=274)		7^th (n=292)		8^th (n=292)
		sd		sd		sd		sd		sd	F	p
EPS	37.92	9.487	38.03	8.043	35.76	9.076	31.95	9.751	32.30	10.33	18.01	.000
POSP	21.77	5.616	21.86	5.377	20.39	5.288	17.17	6.353	17.88	6.173	25.62	.000
NOSP	22.62	5.101	22.34	5.112	21.03	5.020	19.84	4.887	20.03	4.911	12.02	.000
EDPP	18.98	4.475	18.23	4.407	17.37	4.686	17.27	4.371	17.41	4.195	5.562	.000
OSP	27.99	6.681	28.64	6.020	27.00	6.054	23.82	6.824	23.43	6.779	24.12	.000

Table 8 LSD test scores on grade level
		EPS		POSP		NOSP		EDPP		OSP
Grade level		Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p
4	5	.851	.904	.526	.864	.461	.545	.407	.064	.594	.271
	6	.986	.028	.609	.024	.534	.003	.471	.001	.688	.151
	7	.966	.000	.597	.000	.524	.000	.461	.000	.674	.000
	8	.966	.000	.597	.000	.524	.000	.461	.001	.674	.000
5	4	.851	.904	.526	.864	.461	.545	.407	.064	.594	.271
	6	1.01	.024	.620	.018	.544	.016	.480	.074	.700	.019
	7	.985	.000	.608	.000	.534	.000	.470	.041	.687	.000
	8	.985	.000	.608	.000	.534	.000	.470	.082	.687	.000
6	4	.986	.028	.609	.024	.534	.003	.471	.001	.688	.151
	5	1.01	.024	.620	.018	.544	.016	.480	.074	.700	.019
	7	1.11	.001	.681	.000	.598	.048	.527	.842	.770	.000
	8	1.11	.002	.681	.000	.598	.097	.527	.941	.770	.000
7	4	.966	.000	.597	.000	.524	.000	.461	.000	.674	.000
	5	.985	.000	.608	.000	.534	.000	.470	.041	.687	.000
	6	1.11	.001	.681	.000	.598	.048	.527	.842	.770	.000
	8	1.09	.748	.671	.288	.588	.745	.519	.782	.757	.606
8	4	.966	.000	.597	.000	.524	.000	.461	.001	.674	.000
	5	.985	.000	.608	.000	.534	.000	.470	.082	.687	.000
	6	1.11	.002	.681	.000	.598	.097	.527	.941	.770	.000
	7	1.09	.748	.671	.288	.588	.745	.519	.782	.757	.606

As a seen in Table 8 source of the difference in EPS and POSP subscales arise from between students in fourth-sixth, fourth-seventh, fourth-eighth grade and fifth-sixth, fifth-seventh, fifth-eighth and sixth- seventh, sixth-eighth grade levels(p<0.05). Besides, source of the difference in NOSP and EDPP subscales arise from between students in fourth-sixth, fourth-seventh, fourth-eighth grade and fifth-seventh grade levels(p<0.05). Furthermore, source of the difference in OSP and NOSP subscales arise from between students in fifth-sixth, fifth-eighth and sixth-seventh grade levels(p<0.05). In addition to source of the difference in OSP subscale arises from between students in fourth-seventh, fourth-eighth grade, fifth-seventh and sixth-eighth grade levels(p<0.05).

In order to determine whether students’ opinions on performance assessment scores differed between graduation type of students’ mother, one-way between-groups ANOVA test was conducted. Table 9 provides the descriptive statistics on graduation type of students’ mother.

Table 9 Summary of one way ANOVA on graduation type of students’ mother
Graduation type of mother
	US (n=82)		ES (n=742)		MS (n=380)		HS (n=380)		Uni (n=226)
	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x ̄	s d	F	p
EPS	34.90	8.130	36.21	9.358	34.59	9.927	35.35	9.988	37.19	9.667	1.71	.146
POSP	18.93	5.777	20.62	5.828	19.90	6.295	19.75	6.324	20.65	5.780	1.45	.217
NOSP	20.76	5.458	21.45	4.899	21.07	5.142	21.43	5.432	22.32	5.332	1.25	.287
EDPP	17.98	4.661	17.88	4.339	17.61	4.616	18.04	4.564	19.16	4.348	2.33	.054
OSP	25.39	6.127	26.55	6.327	25.60	7.051	27.02	7.329	28.12	6.877	2.99	.018

US: Unschooled, ES, Elementary Schools; MS: Middle schools, HS: High Schools and Uni: University

According to the mean scores in Table 9, students mothers graduate from university have higher score on EPS (x̄ =37.19), POSP (x̄ =20.65) (NOSP (x̄ =22.32), EDPP (x̄ =19.16) and OSP (x̄ =28.12) sub-scales than the others students. Besides students mothers unschooled have lover score sub-scales than the others students in these sub-scales.

The ANOVA test scores showed that in the term of students’ mother graduate type, there are statistically difference at the p<.05 level in OSP sub-scale. In order to find out the source of the differences in students’ opinions on performance assessment in the term of students’ mother graduate type, LSD test was used and scores are shown in Table 10.

As a seen in Table 10 source of the difference in OSP sub-scale arise from between students mothers graduate from university and students’ mother graduate from elementary, middle, high schools and unschooled(p<0.05). Besides, source of the difference in the sub-scale arises from between students graduate from high schools and students’ mother graduate from middle schools.

Table 10 LSD test scores on graduation type of mother
		EPS		POSP		NOSP		EDPP		OSP
		Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p
US	ES	1.580	.409	.992	.088	.847	.411	.734	.898	1.113	.297
	MS	1.654	.850	1.038	.349	.886	.725	.768	.635	1.164	.857
	HS	1.654	.788	1.038	.426	.886	.446	.768	.936	1.164	.162
	Uni	1.751	.191	1.099	.116	.938	.096	.813	.146	1.233	.027
ES	US	1.580	.409	.992	.088	.847	.411	.734	.898	1.113	.297
	MS	.857	.059	.538	.181	.459	.403	.398	.496	.603	.115
	HS	.857	.316	.538	.107	.459	.963	.398	.696	.603	.438
	Uni	1.032	.339	.648	.957	.553	.118	.479	.008	.727	.031
MS	US	1.654	.850	1.038	.349	.886	.725	.768	.635	1.164	.857
	ES	.857	.059	.538	.181	.459	.403	.398	.496	.603	.115
	HS	.985	.442	.618	.812	.528	.492	.458	.352	.694	.041
	Uni	1.141	.023	.716	.292	.611	.041	.530	.004	.803	.002
HS	US	1.654	.788	1.038	.426	.886	.446	.768	.936	1.164	.162
	ES	.857	.316	.538	.107	.459	.963	.398	.696	.603	.438
	MS	.985	.442	.618	.812	.528	.492	.458	.352	.694	.041
	Uni	1.141	.106	.716	.208	.611	.147	.530	.034	.803	.170
Uni	US	1.751	.191	1.099	.116	.938	.096	.813	.146	1.233	.027
	ES	1.032	.339	.648	.957	.553	.118	.479	.008	.727	.031
	MS	1.141	.023	.716	.292	.611	.041	.530	.004	.803	.002
	HS	1.141	.106	.716	.208	.611	.147	.530	.034	.803	.170

In order to determine whether students’ opinions on performance assessment scores differed between graduation type of students’ father, one-way between-groups ANOVA test was conducted. Table 11 provides the descriptive statistics on graduation type of students’ father.

According to the mean scores in Table 11, students’ father graduate from university have higher score on (NOSP (x̄ =21.91), and OSP (x̄ =27.48) sub-scales than the others students. Besides students fathers graduate from high schools have higher score on EPS (x̄ =36.21) and EDPP (x̄ =18.37) sub-scales than the others students in these sub-scales. The ANOVA test scores showed that in the term of students’ father graduate type, there are statistically difference at the p<.05 level in NOSP sub-scale. In order to find out the source of the differences in students’ opinions on performance assessment in the term of students’ father graduate type, LSD test was used and scores are shown in Table 12.

Table 11 Summary of one way ANOVA on graduation type of students’ father
graduation type of students’ father
	US (n=46)		ES (n=362)		MS (n=408)		HS (n=596)		Uni (n=398)
	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x̄	sd	x ̄	sd	F	p
EPS	35.30	8.647	34.46	9.323	36.08	9.067	36.21	9.951	35.95	10.01	1.082	.364
POSP	18.78	5.600	19.59	5.837	21.02	5.665	20.29	6.143	20.00	6.394	1.808	.125
NOSP	19.91	5.923	21.34	4.377	20.59	5.164	21.90	5.092	21.91	5.650	2.935	.020
EDPP	16.65	5.175	17.90	4.002	17.50	4.788	18.37	4.321	18.31	4.646	1.949	.100
OSP	26.04	5.612	25.82	6.262	26.16	6.427	26.81	7.101	27.48	7.201	1.759	.135

Table 12 LSD test scores on graduation type of father
		EPS		POSP		NOSP		EDPP		OSP
		Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p	Se	p
US	ES	2.129	.691	1.333	.544	1.135	.210	.988	.209	1.501	.883
	MS	2.115	.714	1.325	.091	1.128	.547	.982	.391	1.491	.937
	HS	2.081	.663	1.303	.247	1.109	.073	.966	.075	1.467	.602
	Uni	2.118	.759	1.326	.359	1.129	.078	.983	.093	1.493	.336
ES	US	2.129	.691	1.333	.544	1.135	.210	.988	.209	1.501	.883
	MS	.982	.099	.615	.120	.523	.156	.456	.381	.692	.625
	HS	.906	.053	.568	.217	.483	.242	.421	.257	.639	.123
	Uni	.988	.130	.619	.509	.527	.281	.459	.370	.696	.117
MS	US	2.115	.714	1.325	.091	1.128	.547	.982	.391	1.491	.937
	ES	.982	.099	.615	.120	.523	.156	.456	.381	.692	.625
	HS	.874	.879	.547	.181	.466	.005	.406	.131	.616	.294
	Uni	.958	.897	.600	.088	.511	.010	.445	.069	.676	.051
HS	US	2.081	.663	1.303	.247	1.109	.073	.966	.075	1.467	.602
	ES	.906	.053	.568	.217	.483	.242	.421	.257	.639	.123
	MS	.874	.879	.547	.181	.466	.005	.406	.131	.616	.294
	Uni	.880	.771	.551	.597	.469	.997	.409	.872	.621	.278
Uni	US	2.118	.759	1.326	.359	1.129	.078	.983	.093	1.493	.336
	ES	.988	.130	.619	.509	.527	.281	.459	.370	.696	.117
	MS	.958	.897	.600	.088	.511	.010	.445	.069	.676	.051
	HS	.880	.771	.551	.597	.469	.997	.409	.872	.621	.278

As a seen in Table 12 source of the difference in NOSP sub-scale arise from between students’ father graduate from middle schools and students’ father graduate from, high schools and University(p<0.05).