Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education: 2005-2016

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 113 - 134, 15.06.2018

Fatma Özüdoğru

Öz

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Analysis of curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education: 2005-2016
This study aimed to analyze curriculum evaluation studies conducted in foreign language education between the years 2005 and 2016 in terms of the levels the studies were conducted in, sample groups, sample size, research methods and curriculum evaluation models via descriptive content analysis. Searching various data bases, 87 studies, which are comprised of 32 articles, 39 master’s theses and 16 Ph.D. dissertations and were conducted between the years mentioned, were accessed. The studies which were accessed were analyzed through descriptive content analysis by utilizing ‘Paper Classification Form’ developed by Sözbilir and Kutu (2008). The data were analyzed through SPSS 22.0 program and presented using descriptive statistical methods. Having analyzed the research findings, it was found that studies were mostly published as master’s theses or articles. Besides, most of the studies focused on the evaluation of elementary school programs, language course programs and preparatory school programs. However, post-graduate degrees, secondary school programs and distance foreign language teaching programs were evaluated in very few studies. Also, sample size between 31-100 was preferred the most frequently and sample size between 1-10 and 1000 and above were preferred the least frequently.  The findings also indicated that most studies were done as mixed research. Besides, in quantitative research, questionnaire was mostly preferred and in mixed research, questionnaire and interview were widely preferred. For data analysis descriptive statistics were used more than the inferential statistics and among descriptive statistics, descriptive analysis (f, %) was widely used. Furthermore, it was determined that more than half of the studies did not utilize a curriculum evaluation model.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Özüdoğru, Fatma
Affiliated institution (University)	Uşak University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	School of Foreign Languages
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Anahtar Kelimeler

Foreign language education; foreign language curricula; curriculum evaluation; evaluation model; descriptive content analysis

Kaynakça

• Alkan, M.F. &Arslan, M. (2014). İkinci sınıf İngilizce öğretim programının değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 87-99.
• Brewer, E. W. (2010). Evaluation models for evaluating educational programs. V. C. X. Wang (Ed.), In Assessing and evaluating adult learning in career and technical education (pp. 129-152). China: Zhejiang University Press.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E.K., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. &Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
• Çalık, M. &Sözbilir, M. (2014). İçerik analizinin parametreleri. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38.
• Çiltaş, A., Güler, G. &Sözbilir, M. (2012). Mathematics education research in Turkey: A content analysis study. Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice, 12(1), 574-578.
• Delice, A. (2010). The sampling issues in quantitative research. Educational Sciences: Theory &Practice, 10(4), 2001-2018.
• Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small scale social research projects. UK: McGraw Hill.
• Erdoğan, M., Güzle-Kayır, Ç., Kaplan, H., Aşık-Ünal, Ü.Ö. &Akbunar, Ş. (2015). 2005 yılı ve sonrasında geliştirilen öğretim programları ile ilgili öğretmen görüşleri; 2005-2011 yılları arasında yapılan araştırmaların içerik analizi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(1), 171-196.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R. & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. USA: Pearson Education.
• Gökmenoğlu, T. (2014). Geniş Açı: Modeller ve yaklaşımlar açısından Türkiye’de program değerlendirme çalışmaları. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(7), 55-70.
• Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacık, Ö., Yildirim, G. and others (2012). Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade. Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice, 12(1), 191-196.
• Gömleksiz, M. N. &Bozpolat, E. (2013). Eğitim programları ve öğretim alanındaki lisansüstü tezlerin değerlendirilmesi. International Journal of Social Science, 6(7), 457-472. Doi number: http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS1769
• Gredler, M. E. (1996). Program evaluation. USA: Pearson Education.
• Gülbahar, Y. &Alper, A. (2009). Öğretim teknolojileri alanında yapılan araştırmalar konusunda bir içerik analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 93-111.
• Hazır-Bıkmaz, F., Aksoy, E., Tatar, Ö. &Atak-Altınyüzük, C. (2013). Eğitim programları ve öğretim alanında yapılan doktora tezlerine ait içerik çözümlemesi (1974-2009). Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(168), 288-303.
• Karadağ, E. (2009). Eğitim bilimleri alanında yapılmış doktora tezlerinin tematik açıdan incelemesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 75-87.
• Koçak, A. & Arun, Ö. (2006). Içerik analizi çalışmalarında örneklem sorunu. Selçuk İletişim, 4(3), 21-28.
• Kurt, A. & Erdoğan, M. (2015). Content analysis and trends of curriculum evaluation research: 2004-2013. Education and Science, 40(178), 199-224.
• Küçükoğlu, A. & Ozan, C. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenliği alanındaki lisansüstü tezlere yönelik bir içerik analizi. Uluslararası Avrasya Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(12), 27-47.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.
• Ornstein. A. &Hunkins, F. (2014). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues (6th Ed.) USA: Pearson International Edition.
• Oruç, Ş. & Ulusoy, K. (2008). Sosyal bilgiler öğretimi alanında yapılan tez çalışmaları. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 121-132.
• Ozan, C. & Köse, E. (2014). Eğitim programları ve öğretim alanındaki araştırma eğilimleri. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4(1), 116-136.
• Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. USA: Sage Publications.
• Posavac, E. J. & Carey, R. G. (2003). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Sözbilir, M. & Kutu, H. (2008). Development and current status of science education research in Turkey. Essays in Education, [Special Edition], 1-22.
• Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation models: New directions for evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Ulutaş, F. & Ubuz, B. (2008). Research and trends in mathematics education: 2000 to 2006. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 614-626.
• Yetkiner, A., Acar, T. & Ünlü, Ş. (2014). Program değerlendirme doktora tezlerine ait içerik çözümlemesi (1996-2012). 3. Ulusal Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Kongresi, Gaziantep Üniversitesi, Gaziantep. (7-9 Mayıs 2014).
• Yücel-Toy, B. (2015). A thematic review of preservice teacher education research in Turkey and reflections of teacher education policies. Education and Science, 40(178), 23-60.