Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Evaluation of High School Curricula Considering Teachers’ Views

Year 2023, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 644 - 665, 22.08.2023

Arzu Karagül İsmail Kinay Behçet Oral

https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1286278

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate and determine the functionality of each element of the high school curricula used in Turkey according to teachers’views. The study took a convergent parallel design, which is one of the mixed research methods. The participants included 366 high school teachers working in 21 public schools determined by random sampling technique. The quantitative data obtained through the "The Curriculum Evaluation Scale" developed by Baş (2016), while the qualitative data obtained through the semi-structured interview form. Descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, arithmetic mean and standard deviation analysis techniques were used to analyse quantitative data, while content analysis method was used to analyse qualitative data. The results of the analysis of quantitative data showed that teachers' views on the curricula functionality is at the undecided level, but the Information Technology teachers’ views are at the agree level. Teachers’ views classified under different themes as positive and negative. The findings showed that the curricula’ functionality is at the midlevel and addressed within different themes. As positive themes, tachers mostly referred to the functionality, teacher competence, and consistency, while as negative themes, they mostly referred to the inappropriate for students, not functional, and inefficacy. The themes were stated and discussed in unity and suggestions were made in scope of the findings. To conclude, it is thought that the study provides a guiding contribution for all educational stakeholders in the curricula evaluating and developing processes.

Keywords

Curricula evaluation curricula functionality teacher role in evaluating curricula mixed-research method

References

  • Aközbek, A. (2008). Lise 1. sınıf matematik öğretim programının Cipp değerlendirme modeli ile öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (genel liseler, ticaret meslek liseleri, endüstri meslek liseleri) (Publication No. 230917) [Masters dissertation, University of Yıldız Teknik]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Akpınar, B. (2014). Eğitimde program geliştirme. (2. baskı). Data Yayıncılık.
  • Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095725
  • Altrichter, H. (2006). Curriculum implementation, limiting and facilitating factors. In P. Nentwing & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant: Context based learning of science (pp. 35-62).Waxmann Verlag.
  • Baş, G. (2016). Curriculum evaluation scale: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 53-80. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/402952
  • Başar, E. (2010). Türkiye’deki eğitimin tarihsel gelişimi. Ö. Demirel & Z. Kaya (Eds.), Eğitim bilimine giriş içinde (ss. 23-66). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be- the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8,14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177151
  • Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice. (3rd ed.). Juta & Company Ltd.
  • Carlgren, I. (2020). Powerful knowns and powerful knowings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3),323-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1717634
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed). SAGE.
  • Çiftci, O., & Tatar, E. (2015). Teachers’ opinions about the updated secondary mathematics curriculum. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(2), 285-298. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.15375
  • Çiftçi, Z. B., Akgün, L., & Deniz, D. (2013). Teachers’ opinions and solution suggestions regarding encountered issues on the ninth grade mathematics curriculum. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1). 1-21. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ajesi/issue/1528/18743
  • Çoban, E. (2020). Evaluation of 2017 Turkish curriculum according to teacher opinions (Publication No. 641966) [Masters dissertation, University of Necmettin Erbakan]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  • Demir, S., & Demir, A. (2012). New high school instructional programs in Turkey: Problems, expectations and suggestions. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 35-50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/90597
  • Demir, T. (2021). Evaluation of secondary education 9th grade mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 689041) [Masters dissertation, University of Balıkesir]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Demirel, M. (2010). An evaluation of elementary and secondary schools’ class guidance curriculum. Education and Science, 35(156), 45- 60. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/72/11
  • Demirel, Ö. (2015). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya. (1. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Demirtaş, Z. (2017). A general view to program evaluation approaches in education. Sakarya University Journal Of Education, 7(4), 756-768. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.388616
  • Deniz, E. (2020). The evaluation and skill development of geography secondary education program in terms of gifted education programs skills (Publication No. 647303) [Masters dissertation, University of Marmara]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Drake, C., Land, T.J., & Tyminski, A.M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  • Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
  • Eisner, E. W. (1967). Franklin Bobbitt and the" science" of curriculum making. American Journal of Education, 75(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/442792
  • Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002449
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed.). Teachers College.
  • Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.005
  • *Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation. OECD Education Working Papers, 239. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en
  • Guàrdia, L., Clougher, D., Anderson, T., & Maina, M. (2021). IDEAS for transforming higher education: An overview of ongoing trends and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5206
  • Gültekin, M. (2017). Program geliştirmeye ilişkin temel kavramlar. B. Oral, & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 2-37). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Gültekin, M., Gürdoğan-Bayır, Ö., & Yaşar, E. (2020). Karma araştırma yöntemi. B. Oral & A. Çoban (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya: Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (ss. 317-354). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Felsefe-yöntem-analiz. (1. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Güven, M., & Alan, B. (2017). Eğitim durumlarının düzenlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi. B. Oral & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 2-37). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59-69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03217369
  • Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for trasparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547
  • Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Sage Publications. İzci, E., & Eroğlu, M. (2018). Yenilenen 9. sınıf kimya dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.322892
  • Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher development, 11(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701414779
  • Johnson, J. A. (2001). Principles of effective change: Curriculum revision that works. The Journal of Research for Educational Leaders,1(1), 5-18. https://www2.education.uiowa.edu/archives/jrel/fall01/fall01_number1.htm
  • Kabaoğlu, K. (2015). Predictors of curriculum implementation level in elementary mathematics education: Mathematics-related beliefs and teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Publication No. 399920) [Masters dissertation, The Middle East Technical University]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Keskin, İ., & Yazar, T. (2019). Evaluation of secondary mathematics teaching program according to teacher opinions. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23, 1-28. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/402631/
  • Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development accociated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714557519
  • Kocayiğit, A., Aykaç, N. (2019). Evaluation of primary school Turkish curriculum in terms of educational program elements (1923-2017). Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 16(44), 251-279. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/49680/549461
  • Koçakoğlu, M. (2016). The evaluation of high school biology curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.276943
  • Korkmaz, İ. (2020). Nicel araştırmalarda evren, örneklem, örnekleme teknikleri. B. Oral, & A. Çoban (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya: Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (ss.147-159). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Kozikoğlu, İ., & Uygun, N. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between teachers’ philosophies of education beliefs and curriculum design approaches. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 411-438). https://dx.doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.404297
  • Lewy, A. (1991). National and school-based curriculum development. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Imprimerie Gauthier-Villars. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000090127
  • Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022
  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.com.tr/
  • Merter, F., Kartal, Ş., & Çağlar, İ. (2012). Ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi yeni öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(23), 43-58. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maeuefd/issue/19396/206008
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2019). Nitel veri analizi. (3. baskı). (S. Akbaba-Altun, & A. Ersoy, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Núñez Paris, F. (2004). Évaluation des programmes pour définir et organiser l’enseignement des langues vivantes étrangères. Revista de Filologia de la Universidad de la Laguna, 2, 215-232. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/19538
  • Oral, B., & Süer, S. (2017). Program değerlendirmede kullanılan araştırma yöntemleri ve veri toplama araçları. B. Oral & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 510-536). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Özdemir, M. (2014). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve program geliştirme süreçlerinin unsurları. O. Gürbüz (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde (ss. 59-116). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Öztekin, A., & Er, K. O. (2014). Evaluation of secondary school 10th grade chemistry instructional curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8(1), 128-152. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12462/4251
  • Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (3. baskı). (M. Bütün, & B. Demir, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Ramparsad, R. (2001). A strategy for teacher involvement in curriculum development. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 287-292. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/24917
  • Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180
  • Sağ, R. (2017). İçerik tasarımı. B. Oral, & T. Yazar (Eds.). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 300-329). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. Routledge.
  • Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F.G. (2015). Örnekleriyle eğitimde program değerlendirme. Anı Yayıncılık. Stabback, P. (2016). What makes a quality curriculum? In Progress reflection no.2 on “Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum and Learning”. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243975
  • Süer, S. (2022). A sytematic review of English curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey (Between 2005-2021). e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 528-544. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.963984
  • Süer, S., & Kinay, İ. (2022). Investigation of primary teachers' curriculum fidelity. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 12(1). 191-214. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2022.009
  • Tan, Ş. (2011). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. (7. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Tan, Ş. (2013). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. (8. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Tanrıseven, I. (2015). Öğretimde planlama. T. Yanpar-Yelken, & C. Akay (Eds.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde (ss. 43-76). Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Tanuğur, B., Bekiroğlu, F. O., Gürel, C., & Süzük, E. (2012). Yeni ortaöğretim fizik programının günlük hayatla ilişkilendirilmesinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 167-187. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yalovasosbil/issue/21788/615748
  • Tedesco, J.C., Opertti, R. & Amadio, M. (2014). The curriculum debate: Why it is important today. Prospects 44, 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9326-x
  • Türkkan, M. (2011). Evaluation of ninth grade science curriculums according to teachers' views (Publication No. 287911) [Masters dissertation, University of Eskişehir Osmangazi]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Tyler, R.W. (2014). Eğitim programlarının ve öğretimin temel ilkeleri. (M. E. Rüzgar, & B. Aslan, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Varış, F. (1988). Eğitimde program geliştirme. (4. baskı). Ankara Üniversitesi.
  • Vatanartıran, S. (2008). The perceptions of teachers and administrators on the relationship between some non-curricular school factors and the potential success of the new basic education curriculum (Publication No. 228536) [Doctoral dissertation, The Middle East Technical University]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Visvizi, A., Lytras, M.D., & Daniela, L. (2018). (Re) defining smart education: Towards dynamic education and information systems for innovation networks. In Enhancing knowledge discovery and innovation in the digital era (pp. 1-12). IGI Global.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yüce, E. (2018). Evaluation of the high school 9th grade English language curriculum of Turkey in relation to the CEFR principles (Publication No. 515660) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hacettepe]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Yücel, E., Dimici, K., Yıldız, B., & Bümen, N. (2017). Son 15 yılda yayımlanan ilk ve ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programları üzerine bir analiz. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 702-737. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.305922

Eğitim Programlarının Lise Öğretmenlerinin Görüşlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2023, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 644 - 665, 22.08.2023

Arzu Karagül İsmail Kinay Behçet Oral

https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1286278

Abstract

Bu araştırma, Türkiye’de kullanılan öğretim programlarının her ögesinin işlevselliğinin öğretmenler tarafından değerlendirmesini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma deseni, karma araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan yakınsayan paralel desendir. Katılımcılar, tesadüfi örnekleme tekniğiyle belirlenen 21 okulda görev yapan 154 kadın ve 212 erkek olmak üzere toplamda 366 lise öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. Nicel veriler, Baş (2016) tarafından geliştirilen "Öğretim Programlarını Değerlendirme Ölçeği"yle elde edilirken nitel veriler, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formuyla elde edilmiştir. Nicel verilerin analizi için betimsel istatistik, frekans, yüzde, aritmetik ortalama ve standart sapma analiz teknikleri kullanılırken, nitel verilerin analizi için içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonuçları, programların işlevselliği hakkında öğretmen görüşlerinin kararsız düzeyde olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, Bilişim Teknolojisi öğretmenlerinin görüşlerinin katılıyorum düzeyde olduğu görülmektedir. Öğretmen görüşleri, olumlu-olumsuz olmak üzere farklı temalar altında toplanmıştır. Bulgular, öğretim programlarının işlevselliğinin orta düzeyde olduğunu ve farklı temalar açısından ele alındığını göstermektedir. Olumlu görüşler olarak, öğretmenlerin çoğunlukla işlevsellik, öğretmen yeterliği ve tutarlılık temalarını ele aldıkları görülürken, olumsuz görüşler olarak, çoğunlukla öğrenciye göre değil, işlevsel değil ve yetersiz temalarının ele alındığı görülmüştür. Temalar bir bütünlük içinde ifade edilmiş, tartışılmış ve bulgular kapsamında önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırmanın program değerlendirme ve geliştirme süreçlerinde tüm eğitim paydaşları için yönlendirici bir katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

Curricula evaluation curricula functionality teacher role in evaluating curricula mixed-research method

References

  • Aközbek, A. (2008). Lise 1. sınıf matematik öğretim programının Cipp değerlendirme modeli ile öğretmen ve öğrenci görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi (genel liseler, ticaret meslek liseleri, endüstri meslek liseleri) (Publication No. 230917) [Masters dissertation, University of Yıldız Teknik]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Akpınar, B. (2014). Eğitimde program geliştirme. (2. baskı). Data Yayıncılık.
  • Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum development: Teacher involvement in curriculum development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095725
  • Altrichter, H. (2006). Curriculum implementation, limiting and facilitating factors. In P. Nentwing & D. Waddington (Eds.), Making it relevant: Context based learning of science (pp. 35-62).Waxmann Verlag.
  • Baş, G. (2016). Curriculum evaluation scale: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 3(1), 53-80. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/402952
  • Başar, E. (2010). Türkiye’deki eğitimin tarihsel gelişimi. Ö. Demirel & Z. Kaya (Eds.), Eğitim bilimine giriş içinde (ss. 23-66). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be- the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8,14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177151
  • Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice. (3rd ed.). Juta & Company Ltd.
  • Carlgren, I. (2020). Powerful knowns and powerful knowings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3),323-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1717634
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed). SAGE.
  • Çiftci, O., & Tatar, E. (2015). Teachers’ opinions about the updated secondary mathematics curriculum. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 6(2), 285-298. https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.15375
  • Çiftçi, Z. B., Akgün, L., & Deniz, D. (2013). Teachers’ opinions and solution suggestions regarding encountered issues on the ninth grade mathematics curriculum. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1). 1-21. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ajesi/issue/1528/18743
  • Çoban, E. (2020). Evaluation of 2017 Turkish curriculum according to teacher opinions (Publication No. 641966) [Masters dissertation, University of Necmettin Erbakan]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  • Demir, S., & Demir, A. (2012). New high school instructional programs in Turkey: Problems, expectations and suggestions. Elementary Education Online, 11(1), 35-50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/90597
  • Demir, T. (2021). Evaluation of secondary education 9th grade mathematics curriculum (Publication No. 689041) [Masters dissertation, University of Balıkesir]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Demirel, M. (2010). An evaluation of elementary and secondary schools’ class guidance curriculum. Education and Science, 35(156), 45- 60. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/72/11
  • Demirel, Ö. (2015). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Kuramdan uygulamaya. (1. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Demirtaş, Z. (2017). A general view to program evaluation approaches in education. Sakarya University Journal Of Education, 7(4), 756-768. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.388616
  • Deniz, E. (2020). The evaluation and skill development of geography secondary education program in terms of gifted education programs skills (Publication No. 647303) [Masters dissertation, University of Marmara]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Drake, C., Land, T.J., & Tyminski, A.M. (2014). Using educative curriculum materials to support the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 154-162. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528039
  • Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268608559933
  • Eisner, E. W. (1967). Franklin Bobbitt and the" science" of curriculum making. American Journal of Education, 75(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/442792
  • Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449-460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002449
  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed.). Teachers College.
  • Gallagher, C., Hipkins, R., & Zohar, A. (2012). Positioning thinking within national curriculum and assessment systems: Perspectives from Israel, New Zealand and Northern Ireland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.005
  • *Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation. OECD Education Working Papers, 239. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en
  • Guàrdia, L., Clougher, D., Anderson, T., & Maina, M. (2021). IDEAS for transforming higher education: An overview of ongoing trends and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 166-184. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5206
  • Gültekin, M. (2017). Program geliştirmeye ilişkin temel kavramlar. B. Oral, & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 2-37). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Gültekin, M., Gürdoğan-Bayır, Ö., & Yaşar, E. (2020). Karma araştırma yöntemi. B. Oral & A. Çoban (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya: Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (ss. 317-354). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Felsefe-yöntem-analiz. (1. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Güven, M., & Alan, B. (2017). Eğitim durumlarının düzenlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi. B. Oral & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 2-37). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59-69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03217369
  • Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for trasparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547
  • Hewitt, T. W. (2006). Understanding and shaping curriculum: What we teach and why. Sage Publications. İzci, E., & Eroğlu, M. (2018). Yenilenen 9. sınıf kimya dersi öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. E-Uluslararası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 14-35. https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.322892
  • Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher development, 11(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530701414779
  • Johnson, J. A. (2001). Principles of effective change: Curriculum revision that works. The Journal of Research for Educational Leaders,1(1), 5-18. https://www2.education.uiowa.edu/archives/jrel/fall01/fall01_number1.htm
  • Kabaoğlu, K. (2015). Predictors of curriculum implementation level in elementary mathematics education: Mathematics-related beliefs and teacher self-efficacy beliefs (Publication No. 399920) [Masters dissertation, The Middle East Technical University]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Keskin, İ., & Yazar, T. (2019). Evaluation of secondary mathematics teaching program according to teacher opinions. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23, 1-28. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/402631/
  • Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development accociated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714557519
  • Kocayiğit, A., Aykaç, N. (2019). Evaluation of primary school Turkish curriculum in terms of educational program elements (1923-2017). Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 16(44), 251-279. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/49680/549461
  • Koçakoğlu, M. (2016). The evaluation of high school biology curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 65-91. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.276943
  • Korkmaz, İ. (2020). Nicel araştırmalarda evren, örneklem, örnekleme teknikleri. B. Oral, & A. Çoban (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya: Eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri içinde (ss.147-159). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Kozikoğlu, İ., & Uygun, N. (2018). Investigation of the relationship between teachers’ philosophies of education beliefs and curriculum design approaches. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 47(2), 411-438). https://dx.doi.org/10.14812/cuefd.404297
  • Lewy, A. (1991). National and school-based curriculum development. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Imprimerie Gauthier-Villars. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000090127
  • Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022
  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. University of Chicago Press. https://books.google.com.tr/
  • Merter, F., Kartal, Ş., & Çağlar, İ. (2012). Ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi yeni öğretim programının öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(23), 43-58. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maeuefd/issue/19396/206008
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2019). Nitel veri analizi. (3. baskı). (S. Akbaba-Altun, & A. Ersoy, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Núñez Paris, F. (2004). Évaluation des programmes pour définir et organiser l’enseignement des langues vivantes étrangères. Revista de Filologia de la Universidad de la Laguna, 2, 215-232. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/19538
  • Oral, B., & Süer, S. (2017). Program değerlendirmede kullanılan araştırma yöntemleri ve veri toplama araçları. B. Oral & T. Yazar (Eds.), Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 510-536). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Özdemir, M. (2014). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve program geliştirme süreçlerinin unsurları. O. Gürbüz (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde (ss. 59-116). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Öztekin, A., & Er, K. O. (2014). Evaluation of secondary school 10th grade chemistry instructional curriculum. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 8(1), 128-152. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12462/4251
  • Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. (3. baskı). (M. Bütün, & B. Demir, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Ramparsad, R. (2001). A strategy for teacher involvement in curriculum development. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 287-292. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/24917
  • Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180
  • Sağ, R. (2017). İçerik tasarımı. B. Oral, & T. Yazar (Eds.). Eğitimde program geliştirme ve değerlendirme içinde (ss. 300-329). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. Routledge.
  • Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F.G. (2015). Örnekleriyle eğitimde program değerlendirme. Anı Yayıncılık. Stabback, P. (2016). What makes a quality curriculum? In Progress reflection no.2 on “Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum and Learning”. UNESCO International Bureau of Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243975
  • Süer, S. (2022). A sytematic review of English curriculum evaluation studies in Turkey (Between 2005-2021). e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 528-544. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.963984
  • Süer, S., & Kinay, İ. (2022). Investigation of primary teachers' curriculum fidelity. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 12(1). 191-214. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2022.009
  • Tan, Ş. (2011). Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. (7. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Tan, Ş. (2013). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. (8. baskı). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Tanrıseven, I. (2015). Öğretimde planlama. T. Yanpar-Yelken, & C. Akay (Eds.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri içinde (ss. 43-76). Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Tanuğur, B., Bekiroğlu, F. O., Gürel, C., & Süzük, E. (2012). Yeni ortaöğretim fizik programının günlük hayatla ilişkilendirilmesinin öğretmen görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 167-187. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yalovasosbil/issue/21788/615748
  • Tedesco, J.C., Opertti, R. & Amadio, M. (2014). The curriculum debate: Why it is important today. Prospects 44, 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9326-x
  • Türkkan, M. (2011). Evaluation of ninth grade science curriculums according to teachers' views (Publication No. 287911) [Masters dissertation, University of Eskişehir Osmangazi]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Tyler, R.W. (2014). Eğitim programlarının ve öğretimin temel ilkeleri. (M. E. Rüzgar, & B. Aslan, Çev.). Pegem Yayıncılık.
  • Varış, F. (1988). Eğitimde program geliştirme. (4. baskı). Ankara Üniversitesi.
  • Vatanartıran, S. (2008). The perceptions of teachers and administrators on the relationship between some non-curricular school factors and the potential success of the new basic education curriculum (Publication No. 228536) [Doctoral dissertation, The Middle East Technical University]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Visvizi, A., Lytras, M.D., & Daniela, L. (2018). (Re) defining smart education: Towards dynamic education and information systems for innovation networks. In Enhancing knowledge discovery and innovation in the digital era (pp. 1-12). IGI Global.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yüce, E. (2018). Evaluation of the high school 9th grade English language curriculum of Turkey in relation to the CEFR principles (Publication No. 515660) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hacettepe]. Counsil of Higher Education.
  • Yücel, E., Dimici, K., Yıldız, B., & Bümen, N. (2017). Son 15 yılda yayımlanan ilk ve ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programları üzerine bir analiz. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 702-737. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.305922
There are 74 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Arzu Karagül 0000-0003-0670-7050

İsmail Kinay 0000-0001-8963-8411

Behçet Oral 0000-0002-6885-1683

Early Pub Date August 19, 2023
Publication Date August 22, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 20 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Karagül, A., Kinay, İ., & Oral, B. (2023). The Evaluation of High School Curricula Considering Teachers’ Views. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 644-665. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1286278
 Download Cover Image