Üniversitelerin Lisans Programlarında Uygulanan Çekirdek Programların Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2018, , 264 - 281, 24.12.2018

Elif İlhan , Nurdan Kalaycı

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.18.014

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, üniversitelerin lisans programlarında uygulanan çekirdek programlar değerlendirilmiş ve çekirdek programın etkili bir şekilde geliştirilip uygulanmasına ilişkin öneriler belirlenmiştir. Araştırma, tarama modelindedir ve nitel araştırmalardan durum çalışması özelliği göstermektedir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Türkiye'de üç farklı vakıf üniversitesinde çekirdek program kapsamında dersler vermiş/vermekte olan toplam 37 öğretim elemanı oluşturmaktadır. Görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilen veriler, içerik analizi yöntemi ve bazı betimsel (tanımlayıcı) istatistikler ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, öğretim elemanları üniversitelerinde uygulanmakta olan çekirdek programın, öğrencilerin temel beceri alanlarında gelişimlerini desteklediğini, buna karşılık, temel bilgi alanlarındaki gelişimlerini desteklemediğini belirtmişlerdir. Aynı zamanda çekirdek programın; öğrencilerin akademik, mesleki ve sosyal-kişisel amaçlarını gerçekleştirmelerine de katkı sağladığını ifade etmişlerdir. Öğretim elemanları, programın içeriğinin, programın amacıyla örtüşen, öğrenciye uygun, aktarılabilir ve disiplinlerarası özelliklere sahip olduğunu açıklamışlardır. Öğretim elemanları tarafından programın eğitim durumu boyutuna ilişkin, derslerde çoğunlukla sunuş yoluyla nadiren araştırma-inceleme ve buluş yoluyla öğretim stratejilerinin uygulandığı ifade edilmiştir. Değerlendirme boyutunda ise çoğunlukla kâğıt-kalem testlerinin kullanıldığı, süreç ve performans değerlendirmesinin daha az yapıldığı açıklanmıştır. Son olarak, öğretim elemanları özellikle eğitim durumu ve içerik boyutlarına odaklanarak bu programın etkili bir şekilde geliştirilip uygulanmasına ilişkin önerilerde bulunmuşlardır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, değerlendirilen çekirdek programların eğitim durumunda öğrencilerin aktif öğrenmelerini destekleyecek strateji/yöntem/tekniklerin uygulanması ve değerlendirme boyutunda alternatif ölçme araçlarının kullanılması öneriler arasındadır.

Keywords

Eğitim programı, çekirdek program, yükseköğretimde program değerlendirme, yükseköğretimde program geliştirme

Evaluating core curricula implemented at undergraduate programs of universities

Abstract

Core curricula implemented at undergraduate programs of universities were evaluated and suggestions made in order to implement the curricula in an effective way were examined in that study. The study model is survey and it is a qualitative case study. The study group consisted of a total of thirty-seven academicians who have given/been giving core courses at three different foundation universities in Turkey. The data obtained from interviews was analyzed via content analysis and some basic descriptive analysis. According to findings of the study, the academicians stated that the core curricula, which were evaluated via views of the academicians, supported students' progress in core skills, but not in core knowledge areas. As they indicated, core curriculum sustained academic, professional and social-individual aims of the students. Based on their opinions, it can be said the content had the features like suitability with aims, student-appropriateness, and transferability, interdisciplinary. The academicians also stated that at learning experiences of core curricula, expository teaching strategy was mostly applied while research and discovery learning strategies were rarely used. For the evaluation of core curricula, they explained that paper and pencil exams were mostly used, but process and performance evaluation were less frequently implemented. Lastly, the academicians made some suggestions focusing on the learning experiences and content of the core curricula. Based on the results of the study, it can be suggested that on the learning experiences of the evaluated core curricula, various strategies/methods/techniques which enhance students' active learning should be applied and on the evaluation, alternative assessment tools should be used.

Keywords

Core curriculum, curriculum, curriculum development in higher education, curriculum evaluation in higher education

References

• Alberty, H. (1938). The development of the core curricula in the schools of the eight-year study. In H. Rugg, (Ed.), Democracy and the curriculum. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century.
• Allen, M. J. (2006). Assessing general education programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2010). The clinical preparation of teachers – A policy brief. 12 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <https://coe.uni.edu/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/AACTE_-_Clinical_Prep_Paper.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Arnold, F. (2016). İşi ustasından öğrenin, başarının püf noktaları (I. Arda, Çev.). İstanbul: NTV Yayınları.
• Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2007). College learning for the new global century. 10 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2009). Trends and emerging practices in general education. 11 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://www.aacu.org/membership/documents/ 2009MemberSurvey_Part2.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2015). Recent trends in general education design, learning outcomes, and teaching approaches. 10 Ocak 2016 tarihinde <https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report2_GEtrends.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Banta, T. W. (1991). Contemporary approaches to assessing student achievement of general education outcomes. The Journal of General Education, 40, 203–2.
• Banta, T. W. (2007). Assessing student achievement in general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Banta, T. W., and Mzumara, H. R. (2007). Assessing information literacy and technological competence. In T. W. Banta (Ed.), Assessing student achievement in general education (pp. 30–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Curriculum in higher education: The historical roots of contemporary issues. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, and P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic challenges (pp. 60–83). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
• Blight, J. (1995). Identifying the core curriculum: The Liverpool Approach. Medical Teacher, 17(4), 383–391.
• Boning, K. (2007). Coherence in general education: A historical look. Journal of General Education, 56(1), 1–16.
• Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn—Brain, mind, experience and school: Expanded edition. Washington: National Academies.
• Burnett, L. W. (1951). Core programs in Washington State Junior High Schools. The School Review, 59, 97–100.
• Büyükkaragöz, S. (1997). Program geliştirme. Konya: Kuzucular.
• Capehart, B. E., Hodges, A., and Roth, R. (1953). Evaluating the core curriculum: A further look. The School Review, 61(7), 406–412.
• Caskey, M., and Anfara, V. (2006). The evidence for the core curriculum-past and present. Middle School Journal, 3(37), 48–54.
• Cheney, L. V. (1989). A core curriculum for college students. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.
• Core Curriculum Assessment Committee (CCAC) (2010). Core curriculum assessment committee review of core assessment results. 12 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde <http://www.sfasu.edu/acadaffairs/images/CCAC_Review_of_Core_Assessment_Results_2006-2009 (2).pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st Century skills. In J. Bellanca, and R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
• Demirel, Ö. (2016). Eğitimde program geliştirme kuramdan uygulamaya (22. baskı). Ankara: Pegem A.
• Denholm, J., Giovannetti, M., Kummen, K., McLeod, K., and Snaydon, J. (2015). Report of the general education committee. 6 mart 2016 tarihinde <https://www.capilanou.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=48008> adresinden erişildi.
• Dewar, J. (2017). Call for tertiary sector to gear toward university 4.0. 5 Mart 2017 tarihinde <http://www.ceda.com.au/2016/10/call-for-tertiary-sector-to-gear-toward-university-40> adresinden erişildi.
• Duncan, A. G. (2014). General education in the 21st century: Aspirational goals and institutional practice. 11 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/18484> adresinden erişildi.
• Dweyer, P. M. (2017). Transforming a core curriculum. Liberal Education, 4, 46-51.
• Ernst & Young (2012). University of the future. Enhancing higher education, theory and scholarship. 1 Eylül 2016 tarihinde <http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_ut ure_2012.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• European Commission (EC). (2014). High level group on the modernisation of higher education: New modes of learning and teaching in higher education. Luxembourg: EU.
• European Science Foundation (2012). Higher education and social change. 2 Eylül 2016 tarihinde <http://archives.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/eurohesc_highlights_04.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Fliegel, R., and Holland, J. (2013). Quantifying learning in critical thinking. Journal of General Education: A Curricular Commons of the Humanities and Sciences, 62(2–3), 160–203.
• Fontana, A., and Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 695–728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Gaff, J. G. (1991). New life for the college curriculum: Assessing achievements and furthering progress in the reform of general education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Gaff, J., and Ratcliff, J. (1997). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Galle, J. K., and Galle, J. (2010). Building an integrated student learning outcomes assessment for general education: Three case studies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 121, 79–87.
• Gillmore, G. M. (2004). The evaluation of general education: Lessons from the USA State of Washington Experience. 12 Ekim 2016 tarihinde <http://www.washington.edu/oea/pdfs/reports/OEAReport0403.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all administrative university and why it matters. New York, NY: Oxford University.
• Goodland, J. I. (1987). A new look at an old idea: Core curriculum. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 8–16.
• Harper, S. R., and Kuh, G. D. (2007). Myths and misconceptions about using qualitative methods in assessment. New Directions for Institutional Research, 137, 5–14.
• Hawthorne, J., Kelsch, A., and Steen, T. (2010). Making general education matter: Structures and strategies. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 121, 23–33.
• Hayırsever, F., and Kalaycı, N. (2017). A comparative analysis of general culture courses within the scope of knowledge categories in undergraduate teacher education program “Turkey and the USA”. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(1), 1–18.
• Humphreys, D. (2006). Making the case for liberal education: Responding to challenges. 12 Ekim 2016 tarihinde <http://www.aacu.org/resources/liberaleducation/index.cfm> adresinden erişildi.
• Johnsone, B. L. (1952). General education in action. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
• Kalaycı, N., Atay, T., & İlhan, E. (2015). Yükseköğretimde çekirdek program tasarımı ve uygulamalarının karşılaştırılması. III. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Kongresi, 22–24 Ekim, Adana. Bildiri Kitabı, 368–369.
• Kalaycı, N. ve İlhan, E. (2017). Yükseköğretimde çekirdek program. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 7(1), 118–131.
• Karacaoğlu, Ö. C. (2011). Online eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: İhtiyaç.
• Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (27. baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
• Kazu, İ. Y. (2006). İçeriğin belirlenmesi, M. Gürol (Ed.), Öğretimde planlama, öğretimde değerlendirme (s. 63–72). Ankara: Akış.
• Keeling, R. P., and Hersh, R. H. (2012). We’re losing our minds. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Koç Üniversitesi (2017). Çekirdek program. 20 Nisan 2017 tarihinde <https://adaylar.ku.edu.tr/node/32> adresinden erişildi.
• Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, CA: American Association of Colleges and Universities.
• Laird, T. F. N., Niskode-Dossett, A. S., and Kuh, G. D. (2009). What general education courses contribute to essential learning outcomes? The Journal of General Education, 58(2), 65-84.
• Laptevа, A. V., and Efimov, V. S. (2016). New generation of universities. University 4.0. Journal of Siberian Federal University Humanities & Social Sciences, 11(9), 2681– 2696.
• Lattuca, L. R., and Stark, J. S. (2014). External influences on curriculum: Sociocultural context. In S. R. Harper, and J. F. L. Jackson (Eds.), Introduction to American higher education (pp. 93–128). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Latzer, B. (2004). The hollow core: Failure of the general education curriculum. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535786> adresinden erişildi.
• Light, R. J. (1992). The Harvard assessment seminars: Second report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School of Education and Kennedy School of Government.
• Lounsbury, J. H., and Vars, G. F. (1978). A curriculum for the middle schools. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman, and D., J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2015). Job Outlook 2015. 16 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://www.umuc.edu/documents/upload/nace-job-outlook-2015.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise (NLC LEAP). (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
• New Media Consortium (NMC). (2014). New horizon report 2014. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <https://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• New Media Consortium (NMC). (2015). New horizon report 2015. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• New Media Consortium (NMC). (2016). New horizon report 2016. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• New Media Consortium (NMC). (2017). New horizon report 2017. 15 Mart 2017 tarihinde <http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-HE-EN.pdf> adresinden erişildi.
• OECD (2007). Four future scenarios for higher education. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2008). Higher education to 2030: Demography. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2009). Higher education to 2030: Globalisation. Paris: OECD.
• Oliva, P. (2009). Developing the curriculum (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Ornstein, A. C., and Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum foundations, principles and issues (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• Özaydınlık, K. (2012). İçeriğin ve eğitim durumlarının düzenlenmesi. H. Şeker (Ed.), Eğitimde program geliştirme (s. 163–181). Ankara: Anı.
• Özdemir, S. M. (2009). Eğitimde program değerlendirme ve Türkiye’de eğitim programlarını değerlendirme çalışmalarının incelenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 126–149.
• Posner, G. J. (1995). Anaylzing the curriculum. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Pregitzer, M., and Clements, S. (2013). Bored with the core: Stimulating student interest in online general education. Educational Media International, 50(3), 162–176.
• Rhodes, T. (2010). Since we seem to agree, why are the outcomes so difficult to achieve? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 121, 13–21.
• Rutgers University (2016). Core curriculum rubrics. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://sas.rutgers.edu/documents/core-requirements/636-crc-rubrics-for-core-goals/file> adresinden erişildi.
• Saadeddine, R. (2013). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of general education: A mixed methods approach. Unpublished doctoral thesis, College of Education, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA. 20 Eylül 2016 tarihinde <https://rdw.rowan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1389&context=etd> adresinden erişildi.
• Sabancı Üniversitesi (2017). Üniversite dersleri. 20 Nisan 2017 tarihinde <http://fdd.sabanciuniv.edu/tr> adresinden erişildi.
• Sönmez, V. (2010). Program geliştirmede öğretmen el kitabı (16. baskı). Ankara: Anı.
• Salmi, J. (2009). Dünya çapında üniversiteler kurmanın zorluğu (K. Yamaç, Çev.). Ankara: Eflatun.
• Sopper, R. J. (2015). Rebundling undergraduate teaching scholarship, instruction, and advising. The Journal of General Education, 64(2), 139–145.
• Stannard-Stockton, S. (2009). T-shaped people & philanthropy. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <http://www.ssireview.org/opinion/entry/t_shaped_people_philanthropy/> adresinden erişildi.
• Stufflebeam, D. L., and Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). The nature of program evaluation theory. In D. L. Stufflebeam, and A. J. Shinkfield (Eds.), Evaluation: Theory, models and applications (pp. 685–686). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Taşpınar, M. (2017). Kuramdan uygulamaya öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem A
• TEDMEM (2016). OECD yetişkin becerileri araştırması: Türkiye ile ilgili sonuçlar. Ankara: TEDMEM.
• TEDU (2016). Academic catalogue. Ankara: TED University.
• TEPAV (2014). Analysis of national needs related to teaching English language in public schools in Turkey. 10 Şubat 2016 tarihinde <www.tepav.org.tr> adresinden erişildi.
• Unal, M., and Ilhan, E. (2017). A case study on the problems and suggestions in foreign language teaching and learning at higher education. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(6), 64–72.
• Van Note Chism, N., and Banta, T. W. (2007). Enhancing institutional assessment efforts through qualitative methods. New Directions for Institutional Research, (136), 15–26.
• Varış, F. (1977). Eğitimde program geliştirme. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi.
• Vars, G. F. (2001). Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high-stakes testing? Middle School Journal, 33(3), 7–17.
• Wells, C. (2016). Special issue: Realizing general education: Reconsidering conceptions and renewing practice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 42(2), 1–85.
• White, C. R. (1994). A model for comprehensive reform in general education: Portland State University. The Journal of General Education, 43(3), 168–237.
• Wisconsin University (2017). General education requirements. 15 Ağustos 2016 tarihinde <https://gened.wisc.edu/> adresinden erişildi.
• Yenen, V. ve Gözlü, S. (2005). İş çevresinin üniversite mezunlarından ve üniversite eğitiminden beklentileri. “Düşünceden Uygulamaya Değer Yaratma” V. Ulusal Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı (s. 415–420), 25–27 Kasım 2005, İstanbul.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin.
• Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford.
• YÖK (2014). Büyüme, kalite, uluslararasılaşma: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için bir yol haritası. 10 Nisan 2016 tarihinde <https://yolharitasi.yok.gov.tr/docs/YolHaritasi.pdf> adresinden erişildi.