An Analysis of the Studies Conducted in the Field of Curriculum Evaluation from a “Methodology” Perspective

Esra Doğan, Erdal Bay, Bülent Döş
{"title":"An Analysis of the Studies Conducted in the Field of Curriculum Evaluation from a “Methodology” Perspective","authors":"Esra Doğan, Erdal Bay, Bülent Döş","doi":"10.5539/ies.v16n1p24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study analyzed studies done in Turkey in the context of curriculum evaluation (CE) by asking, “How is it made? The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the document analysis method used 215 theses written between 1991 and 2020 on CE were analyzed according to the “thesis review form.” In the second stage, depth analysis was made through semi-structured interviews with the authors (students) and the field experts (supervisors of the authors) of the theses to make the results of the first stage more understandable. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants. A maximum sampling method was used to determine the participants. The data analysis calculated percentage and frequency values for the data obtained in the first stage. In the second stage, descriptive analysis and content analysis were carried out with the MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis program. The majority of theses did not employ a CE model as a consequence of the research, and the CIPP model was the most popular CE model. Many of the theses were not justified in using the CE model. Model usage increased as time passed to the present day. Many theses used quantitative models but did not explicitly state the sampling technique. Teachers were mainly used in this research as a source for data gathering, and participant numbers ranged from 10 to 50. Additionally, most studies used questionnaires and interviews as the primary data-gathering tools. All of these findings suggest that CE studies have several flaws.","PeriodicalId":299098,"journal":{"name":"International Education Studies","volume":"21 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Education Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v16n1p24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyzed studies done in Turkey in the context of curriculum evaluation (CE) by asking, “How is it made? The study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the document analysis method used 215 theses written between 1991 and 2020 on CE were analyzed according to the “thesis review form.” In the second stage, depth analysis was made through semi-structured interviews with the authors (students) and the field experts (supervisors of the authors) of the theses to make the results of the first stage more understandable. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants. A maximum sampling method was used to determine the participants. The data analysis calculated percentage and frequency values for the data obtained in the first stage. In the second stage, descriptive analysis and content analysis were carried out with the MAXQDA 2020 qualitative data analysis program. The majority of theses did not employ a CE model as a consequence of the research, and the CIPP model was the most popular CE model. Many of the theses were not justified in using the CE model. Model usage increased as time passed to the present day. Many theses used quantitative models but did not explicitly state the sampling technique. Teachers were mainly used in this research as a source for data gathering, and participant numbers ranged from 10 to 50. Additionally, most studies used questionnaires and interviews as the primary data-gathering tools. All of these findings suggest that CE studies have several flaws.
“方法论”视角下的课程评价研究探析
本研究分析了土耳其在课程评估(CE)背景下所做的研究,并提出了以下问题:“它是如何制定的?”这项研究分两个阶段进行。第一阶段采用文献分析法,根据“论文审查表”对1991年至2020年在CE上发表的215篇论文进行分析。在第二阶段,通过对论文作者(学生)和领域专家(作者的导师)的半结构化访谈进行深度分析,使第一阶段的结果更容易理解。对32名参与者进行了访谈。采用最大抽样法确定研究对象。数据分析计算了第一阶段获得的数据的百分比和频率值。第二阶段采用MAXQDA 2020定性数据分析程序进行描述性分析和内容分析。由于研究的结果,大多数论文没有采用CE模型,CIPP模型是最流行的CE模型。许多论文在使用CE模型时是不合理的。随着时间的推移,模型的使用越来越多。许多论文使用了定量模型,但没有明确说明抽样技术。本研究主要使用教师作为数据收集来源,参与人数从10人到50人不等。此外,大多数研究使用问卷调查和访谈作为主要的数据收集工具。所有这些发现都表明,CE研究存在一些缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信