Yükseköğretimde Program Değerlendirme: ABD, Avustralya, İngiltere ve Kanada Yükseköğretim Sistemlerinden Bazı Uygulamaların Karşılaştırmalı Analizi

Abstract

Bireyleri kalkınmanın temeli olan bilgiyle buluşturarak onları dönüştüren en nitelikli kurumlar olan üniversiteler, bilgi teknolojilerindeki gelişmeler ile yeni ortaya çıkan endüstrilerin yarattığı değişim ve dönüşümden önemli ölçüde etkilenmiştir. Yükseköğretimde eğitim programlarının yeni ihtiyaçlara göre geliştirilmesi maksadıyla yapılan reformlar ile program değerlendirme süreçleri önem kazanmış ve dünyanın önde gelen üniversitelerinin birçoğu sistematik ve döngüsel program değerlendirme süreçlerini uygulamaya yönelmiştir. Karşılaştırmalı bir eğitim araştırması olan bu nitel ve betimsel çalışma, James Cook Üniversitesi (Avustralya), Toronto Üniversitesi (Kanada), Londra Şehir Üniversitesi (İngiltere) ve Oregon Üniversitesindeki (ABD) program değerlendirme süreçlerinin ön hazırlık, planlama, uygulama ve sonuçlandırma aşamalarının özelliklerini belirleyerek karşılaştırmayı ve bu süreçlerin işleyişini analiz etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Araştırmanın verileri doküman incelemesi yöntemiyle toplanmış ve doküman analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamındaki üniversitelerde; kapsamlı, planlı, yapılandırılmış, sistematik ve döngüsel program değerlendirme süreçleri bulunduğu; program değerlendirmenin akademik ve kurumsal gelişimi amaçlayarak uygulandığı; değerlendirme süreçlerinde üst yönetimin öncü olduğu ve kurumun her basamağının sürece katkı sağladığı; tüm paydaşların değerlendirme sürecine katılımının önemsendiği; program değerlendirme süreçlerinde bilimsel yöntemler ve çok çeşitli veri toplama araçlarının kullanıldığı; değerlendirme süreçlerinin her aşamasında ayrıntılı raporlar ile paydaşların bilgilendirildiği sonuçlarına ulaşılmıştır. Bu araştırmanın Türk üniversitelerine program değerlendirme süreçleri tasarlamak ve uygulamak amacıyla kapsamlı ve sistemli bir kaynak sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Yükseköğretim
• üniversite; eğitim programı
• program geliştirme
• program değerlendirme

Curriculum Evaluation in Higher Education: Examples from Australia, Canada, The United Kingdom, and the United StatesCurriculum Evaluation in Higher Education: Comparative Analysis of Some Practices from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Abstract

Rapid developments in information technologies and social transformation generated by new emerging industries have dramatically affected higher education. There have been reforms in higher education curricula and curriculum evaluation processes have gained importance – triggering many of the world’s leading universities to adopt systematic and cyclical curriculum evaluation processes. This qualitative, descriptive, and comparative study aims to explore and compare the characteristics of preparation, planning, application, and finalization stages of curriculum evaluation processes in James Cook University (Australia), University of Toronto (Canada), City University of London (UK), and University of Oregon (US) in addition to analyze the structures of their evaluation processes. The data was collected through document review and analyzed by document analysis. It is found that the universities have comprehensive, planned, structured, systematic, and cyclical program evaluation processes; evaluation is implemented with the aim of academic and institutional development; the top management is the leader of the process and every member of the institution contributes to it; participation of all stakeholders in the evaluation process is considered important; scientific methods and various data collection tools are used in the process, and the stakeholders were informed with detailed reports at every stage of evaluation. The study is believed to provide a comprehensive and systematic insight to Turkish universities in terms of curriculum evaluation.

Keywords

• higher education
• curriculum evaluation
• curriculum assessment
• program review
• university

References

1. Akdeniz Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitimi Programı 2017–2018 program değerlendirme planı. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from http://tip.akdeniz.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2017-2018-program-değerlendirmeplan.pdf
2. Altheide, D., Coyle,M., DeVriese,K., & Schneider,C. (2013). Emergent qualitative document analysis. S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of emergent methods içinde. New York: The Guilford.
3. Bakah, M. A. B., Voogt, J. M., & Pieters, J. M. (2012). Curriculum reform and teachers’ training needs: The case of higher education in Ghana. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00389.x
4. Bay, E., & Karakaya,Ş. (2006). Program değerlendirme sürecinde karşılaşılan sorunlar. Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 104–112.
5. Beltekin, N. (2018). Veri toplama araçları. K. Beycioglu, N. Özer, & Y. Kondakçı (Ed.), Eğitim yönetiminde araştırma (1.baskı) içinde. Ankara: Pegem.
6. Bridges, D. (2000). Back to the future: the higher education curriculum in the 21st century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640050005762
7. Buker, M., & Niklason,G. (2019). Curriculum evaluation & improvement model. The Journal of Health Administration Education, (435), 37–56.
8. Burgess, H. (2004). Redesigning the curriculum for social work education: complexity, conformity, chaos, creativity, collaboration? Social Work Education, 23(2), 163-183

9. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi. (2021, November 23). Program Değerlendirme ve Geliştirme Kurulu. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from http://tip.uludag.edu.tr/program-degerlendirme-ve-gelistirme-kurulu
10. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi program değerlendirme matrisi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://cdn.comu.edu.tr/cms/tipfak/files/2193-2021-2022-egitim-yili-program-degerlendirme-matris.pdf
11. Chen, S., Hsu, I. C., & Wu, C. (2009). Evaluation of undergraduate curriculum reform for interdisciplinary learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902757203
12. City University of London. (2014). Credit Framework. Retrieved from https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/386432/Credit_framework.pdf
13. City University of London. (2018). Periodic Review Policy. Retrieved from https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/68989/Periodic_review.pdf
14. City University of London. (2018a). Programme Terminations & Suspensions Policy. Retrieved from https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/133702/Programme-Terminations-and-Suspensions-Policy.pdf
15. City University of London. (2021). Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) Policy. City University of London. Retrieved from https://staffhub.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/377566/Annual-Programme-Evaluation-APE.pdf
16. City University of London. (2021a). Guidance for Annual Programme Evaluation (Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Programmes). Retrieved from https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/423287/Guidance-for-Annual-Programme-Evaluation-taught-programmes.pdf
17. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: California, Sage.
18. Creswell, J.W. (2017). Nitel yöntemler. S.B.Demir (Ed.), Y. Dede (Trans.), Araştırma Deseni: Nitel, nicel ve karma yöntem yaklaşımları (4.baskı) içinde. Ankara: Eğiten.
19. Creswell, J.W. (2019). Nitel araştırmacılar için 30 temel beceri. (H. Özcan, Çev.) (2.baskı). Ankara: Anı.
20. Davenport, N.C., Spath, M. L., & Blauvelt, M. J. (2009). A step-by-step approach to curriculum review. Nurse Educator, 34(4), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3181aaba80
21. Demir, F., İlhan, E., & Kalaycı, N. (2019). Yükseköğretimde hedeflenen dönüşümü gerçekleştirme araçlarından eğitim programı 4.0. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(28), 432–466. https://doi.org/10.35675/befdergi.643291
22. Devine, S. M., Daly,K., Lero,D., & MacMartin,C. (2015). Aile ilişkileri ve uygulamalı beslenme alanında yeni bir program tasarlama. M. T. Atay (Çev.Ed.), N. Kalaycı & E. İlhan (Çev.), Yükseköğretimde eğitim programı geliştirme: Öğretim üyeleri tarafından yürütülen süreçler ve uygulamalar içinde. Ankara: Edge.
23. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Denizcilik Fakültesi Program Değerlendirme Komisyonu. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://denizcilik.deu.edu.tr/program-degerlendirme-komisyonu/
24. Donaldson, G. (2014). Teacher education and curriculum change in Scotland. European Journal of Education, 49(2), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12077
25. Erden, M. (1998). Eğitimde program değerlendirme (3.baskı). Ankara: Anı.
26. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
27. Esson, J. (2020). “The why and the white”: Racism and curriculum reform in British geography. Area, 52(4), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12475
28. Fallows, S., & Steven,C. (2000). Building employability skills into the higher education curriculum: a university-wide initiative. Education Training, 42(2), 75–82.
29. Fischel, J. E., Olvet, D. M., Iuli, R. J., Lu, W. H., & Chandran, L. (2019). Curriculum reform and evolution: Innovative content and processes at one US medical school. Medical Teacher, 41(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1444268
30. Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4. baskı). New Jersey: Pearson.
31. Garaway, G. (2003). Evaluating educational programs and projects in the third world. T.Kellaghan & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation içinde. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
32. Gilbert, R. (2004). A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000188258
33. Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2019). Curriculum and teacher evaluation. Curriculum leadership: strategies for development and ımplementation (5th ed.) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260136810010106
34. Gleason, N. W. (Ed.). (2018). Higher education in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0194-0
35. 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.
36. Goodwin, A., Chittle, L., Dixon, J. C., & Andrews, D. M. (2018). Taking stock and effecting change: curriculum evaluation through a review of course syllabi. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412397
37. Green, J. L. (1975). Models for curriculum evaluation in higher education. California Journal of Teacher Education, 2(3), 22–42.
38. Günay, D. (2019). Üniversite Felsefesi. İstanbul: Büyüyen Ay.
39. Harden, R. M. (2001). AMEE Guide No. 21: Curriculum mapping: A tool for transparent and authentic teaching and learning. Medical Teacher, 23(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120036547
40. Harris, L., Driscoll, P., Lewis, M., Matthews, L., Russell, C., & Cumming, S. (2010). Implementing curriculum evaluation: Case study of a generic undergraduate degree in health sciences. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862883
41. Hicks, O. (2018). Curriculum in higher education: Confusion, complexity and currency. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 5, 5–30.
42. Holden, D., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). A practical guide to program evaluation planning: theory and case examples. California, USA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226507
43. House, E.R. & Howe, K.R. (2003). Deliberative democratic evaluation. T.Kellaghan & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation içinde. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
44. Hsih, K. W., Iscoe, M. S., Lupton, J. R., Mains, T. E., Nayar, S. K., Orlando, M. S., … Goldberg, H. R. (2015). The student curriculum review team: How we catalyze curricular changes through a student-centered approach. Medical Teacher, 37(11), 1008–1012. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.990877
45. İlhan, E., & Kalaycı, N. (2019). Yükseköğretimde öğretim programları nasıl değerlendirilmelidir? Dört aşamalı değerlendirme ve farklar modellerine dayalı tasarımlar. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 9(3), 349. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2019.337
46. Innes, R. (2004). Reconstructing undergraduate education: Using learning science to design effective courses. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Jacobs, P. M., & Koehn, M. L. (2004). Curriculum evaluation: Who, when, why, how? Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(1), 30–35.
48. James Cook University. (2017). Academic plan 2018-2022. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/589776/JCU-Academic-Plan.pdf
49. James Cook University. (2017a). JCU Curriculum Framework. James Cook University. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/347225/JCU-Curriculum-Framework.pdf
50. James Cook University. (2020). Graduate Outcomes Surveys. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/teaching-evaluation/graduate-outcomes-surveys
51. James Cook University. (2020a). Student Experience Survey. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/teaching-evaluation/student-experience-survey
52. James Cook University. (2020b). The JCU Model. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/learning-design/curriculum-framework/the-jcu-model
53. James Cook University. (2021). Comprehensive course review procedure. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/procedures/academic-management-procedures/academic-course-review-procedure
54. James Cook University. (2021a). Comprehensive course review quality indicators. James Cook University. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/665472/Attachment-1-Comprehensive-Course-Review-Quality-Indicators.pdf
55. James Cook University. (2021b). Course performance reports and Division Academic Program Reports Policy. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/archived-policies/course-performance-reports-and-division-academic-program-reports-policy
56. James Cook University. (2021c). Course performance reports procedures. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/procedures/academic-management-procedures/course-performance-reports-procedures
57. James Cook University. (2021d). Curriculum approval, accreditation, monitoring, review and improvement policy. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/learning-and-teaching/courses-majors-and-subjects-approval-process
58. James Cook University. (2021e). Curriculum approval, monitoring, review and improvement procedures. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/procedures/learning-and-teaching-procedures/curriculum-approval-monitoring-review-and-improvement-procedures
59. James Cook University. (2021f). Curriculum design process and resources. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/learning-design/curriculum-framework/curriculum-design-process-and-resources
60. James Cook University. (2021g). Curriculum enhancement priorities. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/learning-design/curriculum-framework/curriculum-enhancement-priorities
61. James Cook University. (2021h). Evaluation & feedback. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/teaching-evaluation
62. James Cook University. (2021i). Learning design. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/learning-and-teaching/learning-design
63. James Cook University. (2021j). Learning, teaching and assessment policy. JCU Australia. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/learning-and-teaching/learning-teaching-and-assessment-policy-01jan2021
64. James Cook University. (2021k). The 4Q model of evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/124212/JCU-4Q-Model.pdf
65. James Cook University. (2021l). The six principles of the JCU Model. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/104234/Six_principles.pdf
66. James Cook University. (2021m). YourJCU Subject and Teaching Survey guidelines for survey data interpretation and use. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/481782/YourJCU-Survey-Data-Guidelines.pdf
67. James Cook University. (2021n). YourJCU University Subject and Teaching Report - SP 2, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1266934/Study-Period-2-2020.pdf
68. Kaya, Z. (1997). Eğitimde program değerlendirme sürecinin temel işlemleri. Gazi Üniversitesi Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (5), 59–72.
69. Keating, S. B. (2015). Curriculum development and evaluation in nursing (3rd ed.). New York: Springer.
70. Kellegan, T., Stufflebeam, D. L., & Wingate, L. A. (Eds.). (2003). International handbook of educational evaluation part one: Perspectives. Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
71. Kiely, R., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2005). Program evaluation in language education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511224
72. Kocaeli Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Kocaeli Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitimi program değerlendirme stratejisi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from http://tip.kocaeli.edu.tr/docs/MEZON_ProgramDegerlendirmeStrateji_2015.pdf
73. Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School.
74. Kurt, A., & Erdoğan, M. (2015). Content analysis and trends of curriculum evaluation research: 2004-2013. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4167
75. Kürüm Yapıcıoğlu, D., Atik Kara, D., & Sever, D. (2016). Türkiye’de program değerlendirme çalışmalarında eğilimler ve sorunlar: Alan uzmanlarının gözüyle. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 6(12), 91–113.
76. Lam, B. H., & Tsui, K. T. (2013). Examining the alignment of subject learning outcomes and course curricula through curriculum mapping. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n12.8
77. Leathwood, C., & Phillips, D. (2000). Developing curriculum evaluation research in higher education: Process, politics and practicalities. Higher Education, 40(3), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004183527173
78. Lewy, A. (1973). The practice of curriculum evaluation. Curriculum Theory Network, 3(11), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179344
79. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315418810
80. Maher, A. (2004). Learning outcomes in higher education: Implications for curriculum design and student learning. The Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism, 3(2), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.3794/johlste.32.78
81. Marmara Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Hemşirelik Bölümü program değerlendirme sistemi. Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://sbf.marmara.edu.tr/dosya/sbf/bölümler/HEMŞİRELİK/YeniKlasor/Program%20değerlendirme%20süreci.pdf
82. Medipol Üniversitesi. (n.d.). İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi program değerlendirme raporu. Medipol Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://www.medipol.edu.tr/medium/Document-File-369.vsf
83. Melrose, M. (1998). Exploring paradigms of curriculum evaluation and concepts of quality. Quality in Higher Education, 4(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832980040105
84. Merriam, S. B. (2018). Nitel verilerin analizi. S. Turan (Ed.), S. İşçi & Ö. Öztekin (Çev.), Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. baskı) içinde. Ankara: Nobel.
85. Merritt, B. K., Blake, A. I., McIntyre, A. H., & Packer, T. L. (2012). Curriculum evaluation: Linking curriculum objectives to essential competencies. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2012.79.3.7
86. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2. baskı). California, USA: Sage.
87. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi program değerlendirme. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from http://www.tip.mu.edu.tr/tr/formlar-11280
88. Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015). Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed.). New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
89. Nichols, B., Shidaker, S., Johnson, G., & Singer, K. (2006). Managing curriculum and assessment: a practitioner’s guide. Ohio: Linworth.
90. Nkwake, A. M. (2015). Credibility, validity, and assumptions in program evaluation methodology. Switzerland: Springer.
91. Norris, N. (1998). Curriculum evaluation revisited. Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(2), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764980280206
92. Oliva, P. F., & Gordon, I. W. R. (2018). Programın değerlendirilmesi. K. Gündoğdu (Çev.Ed.), H. Akar (Çev.), Program geliştirme (8. baskı) içinde. Ankara: Pegem.
93. Oliver, S. L., & Hyun, E. (2011). Comprehensive curriculum reform in higher education: collaborative engagement of faculty and administrators. Journal of Case Studies in Education, 2, 1–20.
94. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi program değerlendirme rehberi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Kalite Koordinatörlüğü. Retrieved from https://s3.omu.edu.tr/kalem/lvfbs7dbhbknlzeq3etsmk6pf3ma
95. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (7th ed.). England: Pearson.
96. Özcan, B. (2020). Türk, Avrupa ve Amerika yükseköğretim sistemlerinde uygulanan kurumsal değerlendirme süreçlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Retrieved from Ulusal Tez Merkezi (634209).
97. Patton (2003). Utilization-focused evaluation. T.Kellaghan & D.L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation içinde. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
98. Plaza, C. M., Draugalis, J. L. R., Slack, M. K., Skrepnek, G. H., & Sauer, K. A. (2007). Curriculum mapping in program assessment and evaluation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(2). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj710220
99. Rawle, F., Bowen, T., Murck, B., & Hong, R. (2017). Curriculum mapping across the disciplines: Differences, approaches, and strategies. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 10, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v10i0.4765
100. Rowe, A. D., & Zegwaard, K. E. (2017). Developing graduate employability skills and attributes: Curriculum enhancement through work-integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 18(2), 87–99.
101. Saldaña, J. (2019). Kod ve kodlama sürecine giriş. A. Tüfekci Akcan & S. N. Şad (Ed.), S. Şad (Çev.), Nitel araştırmacılar için kodlama el kitabı (3. Baskı) içinde. Ankara: Pegem.
102. Shay, S. (2015). Curriculum reform in higher education: a contested space. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1023287
103. Silverman, D. (2018). Veri analizi. E. Dinç (Ed. & Çev.), Nitel verileri yorumlama (5. baskı) içinde. Ankara: Pegem.
104. Sperhac, A. & Goodwin, L. (2003). Using multiple data sources for curriculum review. J Pediatr Health Care, 17(4), 169-175.
105. Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Reimann, R. (2006). Evaluation of curricula in higher education: Challenges for evaluators. Evaluation Review, 30(4), 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X05285077
106. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dekanlığı Program Değerlendirme Kurulu. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi. Retrieved from https://tip.sdu.edu.tr/tr/kurullar/program-degerlendirme-kurulu-p-d-k-10188s.html
107. Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi. (n.d.). Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi program değerlendirme (geliştirme) komisyonu. Tekirdağ Namık Kemal Üniversitesi Program Değerlenirme Komisyonu. Retrieved from http://tip.nku.edu.tr/ProgramDegerlendirmeKomisyonu/0/s/4091/16264
108. Turgut Özal Üniversitesi. (2021, July 9). Program değerlendirme. Turgut Özal Üniversitesi Kalite Birimi. Retrieved from https://kalite.ozal.edu.tr/homepage-main/program-degerlendirme/
109. Tyler, R. W. (2014). Eğitim programlarının ve öğretimin temel ilkeleri. (M. E. Rüzgâr & B. Aslan, Çev.). Ankara: Pegem.
110. University of Oregon. (2016). Assessment report template. Retrieved from https://teaching.uoregon.edu/annual-assessment-report-template
111. University of Oregon. (2016a). Guidelines for undergraduate assessment. Retrieved from https://teaching.uoregon.edu/undergrad-assessment-guidelines
112. University of Oregon. (2017). Department of Education Educational Foundations undergraduate assessment plan. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/files/edst_ug_assessment_plan3_0.pdf
113. University of Oregon. (2018). College of Education annual assessment reports for undergraduate programs. College of Education Annual Assessment Report. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/files/2016-2017_aar_coe.pdf
114. University of Oregon. (2018a). Guidelines for Graduate Assessment. Retrieved from https://teaching.uoregon.edu/grad-program-assessment-guidelines
115. University of Oregon. (2021). Academic program review self-study outline for programs and departments. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/sites/provost1.uoregon.edu/files/2022-02/Feb22_Program%20Review%20Self%20Study%20Outline%20final%5B43%5D_0.docx
116. University of Oregon. (2021a). CourseLeaf. Office of The Provost New & Revised Programs. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/new-revised-programs
117. University of Oregon. (2021b). Improve curricula. Office of the Provost Teaching Support and Innovation. Retrieved from https://teaching.uoregon.edu/improve-curricula
118. University of Oregon. (2021c). Program assessment. Office of the Provost Teaching Support and Innovation. Retrieved from https://teaching.uoregon.edu/program-assessment
119. University of Oregon. (n.d.-a). Curriculum assessment resources. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/curriculum-assessment-resources
120. University of Oregon. (n.d.-b). Curriculum assessment. Office of the Provost. Retrieved from https://provost.uoregon.edu/curriculum-assessment
121. University of Oregon. (n.d.). Committee on courses. Retrieved from https://senate.uoregon.edu/committees/committee-courses
122. University of Toronto. (2017). Curriculum renewal guide. Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation. Retrieved from https://teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching-support/curriculum-renewal/
123. University of Toronto. (2017a). Peer observation of teaching: Effective practices. Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation. Retrieved from https://teaching.utoronto.ca/teaching-support/peer-observation-of-teaching/key-considerations/
124. University of Toronto. (2018). Course evaluation framework. U of T Course Evaluations. Retrieved from https://courseevaluations.utoronto.ca/framework/
125. University of Toronto. (2018a). University of Toronto’s cascaded course evaluation framework: Validation study of the institutional composite mean (ICM). Retrieved from https://courseevaluations.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Validation-Study_CTSI-September-2018.pdf
126. University of Toronto. (2020). Standardized Data Set description of data elements for 2020-21 Review. Retrieved from https://www.vpacademic.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/225/2020/03/standardized-data-set-descriptions-2020-21.pdf
127. University of Toronto. (2020a). U of T course evaluations. Retrieved from https://courseevaluations.utoronto.ca/
128. University of Toronto. (2020b). Winter 2020 course evaluation data. Retrieved from https://teaching.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Winter-2020-Course-Evaluations-Letter-2020-03-23.pdf
129. University of Toronto. (2021). A guide to curriculum renewal at the University of Toronto. University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://teaching.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/A-Guide-to-Curriculum-Renewal-at-the-University-of-Toronto-2017.pdf
130. University of Toronto. (2021a). Current evaluation periods. U of T Course Evaluations. Retrieved from https://courseevaluations.utoronto.ca/important-dates/evaluation-sessions/
131. University of Toronto. (2021b). Major modifications. Major Modifications – Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs, University of Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.vpacademic.utoronto.ca/academic-change/major-modifications/
132. Uşun, S. (2016). Eğitimde program değerlendirme süreçler-yaklaşımlar ve modeller (2. baskı). Ankara: Anı.
133. Varış, F. (1994). Eğitimde program geliştirme teori ve teknikler (5. baskı). Ankara: Alkım.
134. Walkington, J. (2002). A process for curriculum change in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 27(2), 133-148.
135. Wang, C. L. (2015). Mapping or tracing? Rethinking curriculum mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1550–1559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.899343
136. Wong, B. M., Etchells, E.E, Kuper, A., Levinson W., & K. Shojania. (2010). Teaching quality improvement and patient safety to trainees: A systematic review. Academic Medicine 85 (9), 1425–1439.
137. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin.
138. YÖKAK. (2019). Genel değerlendirme raporu. Ankara.
139. YÖKAK. (2019a). Programların izlenmesi ve güncellenmesi. Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu. Retrieved from https://portal.yokak.gov.tr/makale/programlarin-surekli-izlenmesi-ve-guncellenmesi/
140. YÖKAK. (n.d.). Yükseköğretim Kalite Kurulu akreditasyon kuruluşları. Yüksek Öğretim Kalite Kurulu Web Sitesi. Retrieved from https://yokak.gov.tr/akreditasyon-kuruluslari/tescil-suresi-devam-edenler
141. Yusof, R., Yin, K. Y., Norwani, N. M., & Jaafar, H. (2018). Conceptualizing curriculum evaluation in education degree programmes in higher education institutions. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(6), 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i6/4299
142. Zhao, D., Ma, X., & Qiao, S. (2017). What aspects should be evaluated when evaluating graduate curriculum: Analysis based on student interview. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.11.003