The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model

Nevin Avcı; Begum Erıkcı; Ahmet Ok

The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model

Abstract

The major aim of this study is to evaluate the 11th grade Basic Mathematics (BM) Curriculum implemented at a Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School (Tourism and Hotel Management) through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model, and to depict to what extent it responds to the needs and career plans of its students. In this study, qualitative case study design and criterion sampling methods were employed. The data were gathered via observation schedules, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews with 43 participants. Data were analysed via systematic content analysis, inductive coding, and thematising. The results showed that the implementation of the 11th grade BM Curriculum, to a large extent, did not respond to the needs of this specific school, and the students were not able to transfer their math skills to other courses. Though the students used their math skills in their daily lives to an extent, their utilisation of mathematics in their vocations was quite limited. Implications suggest that teachers in the school (micro-level) need interdisciplinary cooperation, setting school performance criteria relevant to vocational high schools at the district level (mezzo-level) and creating and implementing relevant curricula for vocational high schools at the state level (macro-level).

Keywords

Kaynakça

Abma, T. A. (2006). The practice and politics of responsive evaluation. American journal of evaluation, 27(1), 31-43.
Abma, T. A., Greene, J. C., Karlsson, O., Ryan, K., Schwandt, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. (2001). Dialogue on dialogue. Evaluation, 7(2), 164-180.
Abma, T. A., & Stake, R. E. (2001). Stake’s responsive evaluation: Core ideas and evolution. New directions for evaluation, 2001(92), 7-22.
Aydin, M., Lacin, S., & Keskin, I. (2018). Teacher opinions on the implementation of the secondary school mathematics curriculum. International e-Journal of Educational Studies (IEJES), 2(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.31458/iejes.413967
Becker, H.S., Geer, B. & Hughes, E.C. (1968). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. John Wiley and sons, Inc.
Bennell, P., & Segerstrom, J. (1998). Vocational education and training in developing countries: Has the World Bank got it right? International Journal of Educational Development, 18(4), 271-287.
Berkant, H. G. & Gencoglu, S. S. (2015). Mathematics teachers’ views working in different types of high school on mathematics education. KSU Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1).
Bertocchi, G., & Spagat, M. (2004). The evolution of modern educational systems: Technical vs. general education, distributional conflict, and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 73(2), 559-582.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research methods for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bucheister, K., Jackson, C., & Taylor, C. E. (2017). Math games: A universal design approach to mathematical reasoning. APMC, 22(4).
Ciftci, O., & Tatar, E. (2015). Guncellenen ortaogretim matematik ogretim programi hakkinda ogretmen gorusleri. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 6 (2), 285-298.
Coombs, P. H. (1985). The world crisis in education: The view from the eighties. Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Ernest, P. (2000). Why teach mathematics?. In S. Bramall and J. White (Eds.), Why Learn Maths? (pp. 1-14). Bedford Way Papers.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Allyn & Bacon.
Glatthorn, A. A., (2000). The Principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught & tested (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Gray, L. (1993). The role of training providers in manpower planning. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 45(3), 251-263.
Gredler, E. M. (1996). Program evaluation. Pearson Education Company, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Greene, J. C., & Abma, T. A. (Eds.). (2001). Responsive evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 92, 1-5.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage.
Hoeckel, K. (2008). Costs and benefits in vocational education and training. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 8, 1-17.
Hoeckel, K., & Schwartz, R. (2010). Learning for jobs OECD reviews of vocational education and training. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087460-en
Hurst, C. (2007). Finding the maths: Helping students connect their mathematical knowledge to other contexts. APMC, 12(2), 25-29.
Ismail, A., & Hassan, R. (2013). Issue and challenges of technical and vocational education and training in Malaysia for knowledge worker driven. Proceedings of National Conferences on Engineering Technology (NCET) 1-11.
Kotsikis, V. (2007). Educational administration and policy. Ellin.
Kreysing, M. (2001). Vocational education in the United States: Reforms and results. Vocational Training: European Journal, 23, 27-35.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52(1), 31-60.
Lewin, K. (1993). Investing in technical and vocational education: A review of the evidence. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 45(3), 217-227.
McNeir, G. (1994). Applied learning: Strategies for integrating academic and vocational education. Oregon School Study Council (OSSC Bulletin), 38(1).
Meer, J. (2007). Evidence on the returns to secondary vocational education. Economics of education review, 26(5), 559-573.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organisation in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
MoNE (2017).Ortaogretim Matematik Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12.Sınıflar) Ogretim Programı. MEB, Ankara. Revised in 2018 January.
Mumcu, H. Y., Mumcu, I., & Aktas, M. C. (2012). Meslek lisesi ogrencileri icin matematik. Amasya Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 1(2), 180-195.
OECD (2010). Learning for jobs. OECD reviews of vocational education and training: Options for China. https://www.oecd.org/china/ 45486493.pdf
OECD (2014). OECD reviews of vocational education and training: Key massages and country summaries. http://www.oecd.org/education/skillsbeyond- school/OECD_VET_Key_Messages_and_Country_ Summaries_2015.pdf
Ogbu, J. U. (1974). The next generation: An ethnography of education in an urban neighborhood. Academic Press.
Olkun, S. & Simsek, H. (1999, April 19-23,). An assessment of school-to-work transition in a vocational and technical high school in Ankara, Turkey [Paper Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the AERA, Montreal, Canada.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Oxtoby, R. (1993). Planning technical and vocational education and training in developing countries: editorial introduction. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 45(3), 195-200.
Said, A. (2018). Vocational teaching-learning through the eyes of undergraduate vocational students in Malta: A qualitative exploratory study. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, 5(1), 42-63. https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.5.1.3
Sasongko, W. D., Widiastuti, I. (2019). Virtual lab for vocational education in Indonesia: A review of the literature. AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2194, No.1, p. 020113). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139847
Ozer, M. (2018). 2023 Egitim vizyonu ve mesleki ve teknik egitimde yeni hedefler. Journal of Higher Education & Science/Yuksekogretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 12(3).
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Psacharopoulos, G. (1991). Education and work: The perennial mismatch and ways to solve it. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 43(1), 127-132.
Psacharopoulos, G., & Patrinos, H. A. (1993). Secondary vocational education and earnings in Latin America. The Vocational Aspect of Education, 45(3), 229-238.
Smith, L. M., & Geoffrey, W. (1968). The complexities of an urban classroom: An analysis toward a general theory of teaching. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1973). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation [Paper presentation] New Trends in Evaluation Conference. Goteborg, Sweden.
Stake, R. E. (1975). To evaluate an arts program. In E. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in Education: Responsive approach (pp. 13-31). Merrill.
Stake, R. E. (1990). Responsive evaluation. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), The International encyclopaedia of educational evaluation (pp. 75-77). Pergamon Press.
Vanderlaan A. (2011). Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. In S. Goldstein, J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer.
Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2016). Global trends in TVET: A framework for social justice. Education International. https://www.ei-ie.org/media_gallery/GlobalTrendsinTVET.pdf
Wolcott, H. F. (1977). Teachers versus technocrats: An educational innovation in anthropological perspective. Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon.
Yin, R. K., (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods: Applied Social Research and Methods Series. (2nd ed). Sage Publications.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Nevin Avcı ^* Bu kişi benim
Türkiye

Begum Erıkcı Bu kişi benim
Türkiye

Ahmet Ok Bu kişi benim
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

31 Temmuz 2021

Gönderilme Tarihi

31 Temmuz 2021

Kabul Tarihi

-

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2021 Sayı: 27

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Avcı, N., Erıkcı, B., & Ok, A. (2021). The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 27, 1-25. https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS

AMA

1.Avcı N, Erıkcı B, Ok A. The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2021;(27):1-25. https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS

Chicago

Avcı, Nevin, Begum Erıkcı, ve Ahmet Ok. 2021. “The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, sy 27: 1-25. https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS.

EndNote

Avcı N, Erıkcı B, Ok A (01 Temmuz 2021) The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi 27 1–25.

IEEE

[1]N. Avcı, B. Erıkcı, ve A. Ok, “The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model”, Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı, sy 27, ss. 1–25, Tem. 2021, [çevrimiçi]. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS

ISNAD

Avcı, Nevin - Erıkcı, Begum - Ok, Ahmet. “The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi. 27 (01 Temmuz 2021): 1-25. https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS.

JAMA

1.Avcı N, Erıkcı B, Ok A. The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı. 2021;:1–25.

MLA

Avcı, Nevin, vd. “The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model”. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, sy 27, Temmuz 2021, ss. 1-25, https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS.

Vancouver

1.Nevin Avcı, Begum Erıkcı, Ahmet Ok. The Evaluation of Secondary Education Basic Mathematics Curriculum through Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Model. Derginin Amacı ve Kapsamı [Internet]. 01 Temmuz 2021;(27):1-25. Erişim adresi: https://izlik.org/JA82EM53XS