Assessment of TEOG Examination Success: Topsis Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method Practice

Abstract

Turkey held various examinations with different names under the name of system of transition to secondary education in the last 30 years. However, each examination method was found inadequate and Turkish education system could not reach the desired success in PISA examination in which student levels of countries that are members of OECD are assessed. For this reason, it was embarked on new quests. TEOG examination was prepared according to semester curriculum, unlike antecedents which are consisted of single day and sessions. Thus, subjective error was minimized in the assessment by reducing the negative effect of the anxiety level factor in assessment of the student. Also, influence degree of school success points was increased. Hence, creation of a process-oriented education model was targeted not result-oriented. In this study; it was started to be searched whether TEOG examination is different from Institutions' Examination, LGS, OKS, SBS, OGES examinations used in transition to the secondary education in the previous years or not. The essential point in the research is to present success performances of schools. As measurement means, TOPSIS which is Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Technique (MCDM) was used and course were weighted by this method. Successes of 18 secondary schools operating at education-training in Pasinler country which was selected as the p8ilot region in Erzurum were examined in order to show difference of TEOG examination from the other examinations. 6 courses taught in pilot schools within the scope of TEOG central examination were selected. Success averages of courses selected were weighted and pointed with TOPSIS method. Points were mixed and a ranking was formed. Significant differences were found between the ranking obtained as a result of the study and ranking published by Ministry of National Education. While there is no change in lower and upper ranks in the both rankings, great ranking differences were found in midranks. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.