BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 7 - 18, 01.05.2013

Hanife Çakıcı

Öz

The purpose of this study is to evaluate Education for All in Turkey. EFA set highy ambitious goals in education for all citizens around the World. These goals include specific time frames such as 2015 goals for countries to determine how effective and efficient in realizing these goals. International organizations provide technical and financial support for countries to determine how well they are progressing in terms of these goals. However, conducting evaluations of these goals are usually independent of cultural, historical, politics and local value systems and this create problems in respective countries in terms of ownership. This case study focuses on whether evaluations conducted with the required decision-making systems tailored to their own specific needs. For the analysis, policy and project documents concerning Education for All in Turkey were critically evaluated. The study concludes when evaluations are carried without taking local culture, social-political and economic structures into account, they are likely to fail to reach the goals. Countries needs to develop evaluation frameworks tailolerd to their own needs and structures. This in turn will likely to help in achieving goals set as in the case of Education for All

Anahtar Kelimeler

Education for all evaluation international organizations Turkey

Kaynakça

  • Aydagul, B. (2008). No shared vision for achieving Education for All: Turkey at risk. Prospects, 38 (3), 401-107.
  • Bamberger, M. (1991). The politics of evaluation in developing countries. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (4), 325-339.
  • Bhola, H. S. (2003). Social and cultural contexts of educational evaluation: A global perspective. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 397-414). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Carden, F. (2010). Introduction to the forum on evaluation field building in South Asia. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 219-221.
  • Carden, F., & Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation roots: An international perspective. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 102-118.
  • Chelimsky, E. (2006). The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. In I. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation (pp. 33-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Dabelstein, N. (2003). Evaluation capacity development: Lessons learned. Evaluation. 9(3), 365-369.
  • Dincer, O., & Yilmaz, C. (2003). Kamu yonetiminde yeniden yapilanma 1: Degisimin yonetimi icin yonetimde degisim [Restructuring in public management 1: Management of change for change in management]. Ankara: T.C. Basbakanlık.
  • Education Reform Initiative. (2013). Education monitoring report 2012. Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative Publishing.
  • Erguder, U. (2013). The indispensable role of education for the centennial goals of the Turkish Republic. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 12 (2), 49-63.
  • Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation. Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd Ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Furubo, J.E., Rist, R., & Sandahl, R. (Eds.). (2002). International atlas of evaluation. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.
  • Giovannini, E. (2009). Bringing statistics to citizens: A ‘must’ to build democracy in the XXI century. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 135-157). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Gur, B., Celik, Z., & Ozoglu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: a critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27 (1), 1-21.
  • Hay, K. (2010). Evaluation field building in South Asia: Reflections, anecdotes, and questions. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 222-231.
  • Hay, K. (2011, June). Building the field of evaluation in South Asia: A framework and ideas. Community of Evaluators, Working Paper Series, 3.
  • Hopson, R., Kirkhart, K. E., & Bledsoe, K. L. (2011). Decolonizing evaluation in a developing world: Implications and cautions for equity-focused evaluation. In M. Segone (Eds.), Evaluation for equitable results (pp. 59-82). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Kawakami, A. J., Aton, K., Cram, F., Lai, M. K., & Porima, L. (2008). Improving the practice of evaluation through indigenous values and methods: Decolonizing evaluation practice – Returning the gaze from Hawai’i and Aotearoa. In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 219-242). New York, NY: Guilford.
  • Kirkhart, K. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens: Reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. The role of culture and cultural context, 21-38.
  • Kumar, A. K. (2010). A comment on “evaluation field building in South Asia: Reflections, anecdotes, and questions”. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 238-240.
  • LaFrance, J. (2004). Culturally competent evaluation in Indian country. New Directions for Evaluation, 102, 39-50.
  • LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2008). Reframing evaluation: Defining an Indigenous evaluation framework. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(2), 13-32.
  • Mackay, K. (2009). Building monitoring and evaluation systems to build government performance. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 169-187). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Mathur, K. (2009). Policy research organizations in South Asia. Working Papers Series of the Centre for Law and Governance, Jawaharlal University. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.jnu.ac.in/CSLG/WorkingPapers.html
  • Merryfield, M. M. (1985). The challenge of cross‐ cultural evaluation: Some views from the field. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 25, 3-17.
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Basic education in Turkey: Background report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved October, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/39642601.pdf
  • Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation. (2006). The challenge of capacity development: Working towards good practice. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/governanceanddevelopment/36326495.pdf
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Evaluation in development agencies: Better aid. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved January, 2013, from http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4310171e.pdf?expires=1360103322&id=id&accname =ocid195223&checksum=0F4B043908D923E90FDFEE22AD6DCCD0
  • Rai, K. (2001, November). Mainstreaming logic model: vision and contradictions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, St. Louis.
  • Riddell, A. (1999). Evaluations of educational reform programmes in developing countries: Whose life is it anyway? International Journal of Educational Development, 19(6), 383-394.
  • Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased?. Educational researcher, 26(4), 4-16.
  • Schiavo-Campo, S. (2005). Building country capacity for monitoring and evaluation in the public sector: Selected lessons of international experience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.
  • Segone, M. (Eds.). (2008). Bridging the gap: The role of monitoring and evaluation in evidence-based policy making. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Segone, M., Sakvarelizde, G., & Vadnais, D. (2009). Strengthening country data collection systems: The role of the multiple indicator cluster surveys. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 238-251). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd Ed.). London: Zed Books.
  • Smith, P. (2008, June). Building a world of learning for all. Retrieved October, 2013 from, http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/go.php?q=Building+a+World+of+Learning+for+All
  • Sridharan, S., & De Silva, S. (2010). On ambition, learning, and co-evolution: Building evaluation as a field. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 246-251.
  • Turk, E., Yalcin, M., & Unsal, N. (2006). Milli Egitim Bakanligi yoneticilerinin goruslerine dayali stratejik planlama arastirmasi. Ankara: Milli Egitim Bakanligi Strateji Gelistirme Baskanligi. Retrieved October, 2012, from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/str_yon_planlama_V2/stratejik_planlama_arastirmasi.pdf
  • UNESCO. (1999). The EFA assessment: Turkey report. Retrieved November 2013 from, http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/turkey/contents.html
  • UNESCO. (2002a). Education for all: Is the world on track? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
  • UNESCO. (2002b). Turkey’s national EFA plan of action. Retrieved November, 2013 from. http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Turkey/Turkey%20EFA%20NPA.pdf
  • UNESCO. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
  • United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Assessment of development results: Turkey. Evaluation of UNDP contribution to development results in Turkey. Washington, D.C.: Evaluation Office. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/Files/Raporlar/ASSESSMENT%20OF%20DEVELOPM ENT%20RESULTS%20Turkey.pdf
  • USAID. (2001). Best practices in monitoring and evaluation: Lessons learned from the USAID Turkey population program. Retrieved September, 2012, from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/sr-01-11
  • Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33.
  • World Bank. (2002). 2002 annual report on evaluation capacity development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585672- 1252437578683/AREC_2002.pdf
  • World Bank. (2004). Evaluation capacity development: OED self-evaluation. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585664- 1253892707805/ecd_self_evaluation.pdf
  • World Bank. (2007). Turkey: Higher education policy study. Volume 1: Strategic directions for higher education in Turkey. Retrieved October, 2012, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7628
  • World Bank. (2011). Improving the quality of equity of basic education in Turkey: Challenges and http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TURKEYEXTN/Resources/361711- Retrieved October, 2012, from 1216301653427/5218036-1326807255367/EducationQualityReport2011-en.pdf
  • World Bank. (2013a). Global monitoring report 2013: Rural-urban dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  • World Bank. (2013b). Education for all (EFA). Retrieved November, 2013 from, http://go.worldbank.org/I41DLBA8C0
  • World Bank. (2013c). Projects and operations: Turkey. Retrieved December, 2013 from, http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey

“Herkes İçin Eğitim” Ama Kimin İçin Değerlendirme? Türkiye Örneği

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 7 - 18, 01.05.2013

Hanife Çakıcı

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Herkes İçin Eğitim’in dünyada tüm toplumlarda tüm bireylere nitelikli adil bir eğitim sağlamak gibi, çok zor bir hedefin 2015 yılına kadar ne düzeyde etkili ve verimli bir biçimde gerçekleştirildiğini belirlemektir. Bu hedefleri gerçekleştirmek için uluslararası örgütler ilgili ülkelere teknik ve finansal destek sağlamaktadırlar. Ancak, bu değerlendirmelerin yerel kültür, tarih, politik yapı ve değer sistemlerinden bağımsız olarak yapılması, ilgili ülkelerin bu hedefleri yeterince benimsememesine yol açabilmektedir. Bu örnek olay çalışması, Türkiye’de Herkes İçin Eğitim ile ilgili proje ve politika dökümanlarını eleştirel bir biçimde incelemektedir. Uluslararası örgütlerin ilgili ülkelere, gelişimlerini izlemek üzere sağladığı teknik ve ekonomik desteğin ülkelerin kendi ihtiyaçlarına ne kadar uygun olduğu konusunda kendi karar verme ve değerlendirme yöntemleriyle ele alabilmelerinin gerekli olabilir. Ancak, bu genellikle ihmal edilmektedir. Son olarak, EFA’nın küresel olarak önemi, eleştirileri ve bağlam faktörleri ile birlikte, Türkiye’deki EFA uygulamalarının geliştirilmesi konusunda önerilerde bulunulmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Herkes için eğitim değerlendirme uluslararası örgütler Türkiye

Kaynakça

  • Aydagul, B. (2008). No shared vision for achieving Education for All: Turkey at risk. Prospects, 38 (3), 401-107.
  • Bamberger, M. (1991). The politics of evaluation in developing countries. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14 (4), 325-339.
  • Bhola, H. S. (2003). Social and cultural contexts of educational evaluation: A global perspective. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 397-414). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Carden, F. (2010). Introduction to the forum on evaluation field building in South Asia. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 219-221.
  • Carden, F., & Alkin, M. C. (2011). Evaluation roots: An international perspective. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 102-118.
  • Chelimsky, E. (2006). The purposes of evaluation in a democratic society. In I. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation (pp. 33-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Dabelstein, N. (2003). Evaluation capacity development: Lessons learned. Evaluation. 9(3), 365-369.
  • Dincer, O., & Yilmaz, C. (2003). Kamu yonetiminde yeniden yapilanma 1: Degisimin yonetimi icin yonetimde degisim [Restructuring in public management 1: Management of change for change in management]. Ankara: T.C. Basbakanlık.
  • Education Reform Initiative. (2013). Education monitoring report 2012. Istanbul: Education Reform Initiative Publishing.
  • Erguder, U. (2013). The indispensable role of education for the centennial goals of the Turkish Republic. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 12 (2), 49-63.
  • Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation. Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3rd Ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Furubo, J.E., Rist, R., & Sandahl, R. (Eds.). (2002). International atlas of evaluation. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers.
  • Giovannini, E. (2009). Bringing statistics to citizens: A ‘must’ to build democracy in the XXI century. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 135-157). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Gur, B., Celik, Z., & Ozoglu, M. (2012). Policy options for Turkey: a critique of the interpretation and utilization of PISA results in Turkey. Journal of Education Policy, 27 (1), 1-21.
  • Hay, K. (2010). Evaluation field building in South Asia: Reflections, anecdotes, and questions. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 222-231.
  • Hay, K. (2011, June). Building the field of evaluation in South Asia: A framework and ideas. Community of Evaluators, Working Paper Series, 3.
  • Hopson, R., Kirkhart, K. E., & Bledsoe, K. L. (2011). Decolonizing evaluation in a developing world: Implications and cautions for equity-focused evaluation. In M. Segone (Eds.), Evaluation for equitable results (pp. 59-82). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Kawakami, A. J., Aton, K., Cram, F., Lai, M. K., & Porima, L. (2008). Improving the practice of evaluation through indigenous values and methods: Decolonizing evaluation practice – Returning the gaze from Hawai’i and Aotearoa. In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 219-242). New York, NY: Guilford.
  • Kirkhart, K. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens: Reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. The role of culture and cultural context, 21-38.
  • Kumar, A. K. (2010). A comment on “evaluation field building in South Asia: Reflections, anecdotes, and questions”. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 238-240.
  • LaFrance, J. (2004). Culturally competent evaluation in Indian country. New Directions for Evaluation, 102, 39-50.
  • LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2008). Reframing evaluation: Defining an Indigenous evaluation framework. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(2), 13-32.
  • Mackay, K. (2009). Building monitoring and evaluation systems to build government performance. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 169-187). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Mathur, K. (2009). Policy research organizations in South Asia. Working Papers Series of the Centre for Law and Governance, Jawaharlal University. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://www.jnu.ac.in/CSLG/WorkingPapers.html
  • Merryfield, M. M. (1985). The challenge of cross‐ cultural evaluation: Some views from the field. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 25, 3-17.
  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Basic education in Turkey: Background report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved October, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/39642601.pdf
  • Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation. (2006). The challenge of capacity development: Working towards good practice. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://www.oecd.org/dac/governanceanddevelopment/36326495.pdf
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Evaluation in development agencies: Better aid. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved January, 2013, from http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4310171e.pdf?expires=1360103322&id=id&accname =ocid195223&checksum=0F4B043908D923E90FDFEE22AD6DCCD0
  • Rai, K. (2001, November). Mainstreaming logic model: vision and contradictions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, St. Louis.
  • Riddell, A. (1999). Evaluations of educational reform programmes in developing countries: Whose life is it anyway? International Journal of Educational Development, 19(6), 383-394.
  • Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased?. Educational researcher, 26(4), 4-16.
  • Schiavo-Campo, S. (2005). Building country capacity for monitoring and evaluation in the public sector: Selected lessons of international experience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications.
  • Segone, M. (Eds.). (2008). Bridging the gap: The role of monitoring and evaluation in evidence-based policy making. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Segone, M., Sakvarelizde, G., & Vadnais, D. (2009). Strengthening country data collection systems: The role of the multiple indicator cluster surveys. In M. Segone (Eds.), Country-led monitoring and evaluation systems: Better evidence, better policies, better development results (pp. 238-251). Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children’s Fund.
  • Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd Ed.). London: Zed Books.
  • Smith, P. (2008, June). Building a world of learning for all. Retrieved October, 2013 from, http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/go.php?q=Building+a+World+of+Learning+for+All
  • Sridharan, S., & De Silva, S. (2010). On ambition, learning, and co-evolution: Building evaluation as a field. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 246-251.
  • Turk, E., Yalcin, M., & Unsal, N. (2006). Milli Egitim Bakanligi yoneticilerinin goruslerine dayali stratejik planlama arastirmasi. Ankara: Milli Egitim Bakanligi Strateji Gelistirme Baskanligi. Retrieved October, 2012, from http://sgb.meb.gov.tr/str_yon_planlama_V2/stratejik_planlama_arastirmasi.pdf
  • UNESCO. (1999). The EFA assessment: Turkey report. Retrieved November 2013 from, http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/turkey/contents.html
  • UNESCO. (2002a). Education for all: Is the world on track? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
  • UNESCO. (2002b). Turkey’s national EFA plan of action. Retrieved November, 2013 from. http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Turkey/Turkey%20EFA%20NPA.pdf
  • UNESCO. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
  • United Nations Development Programme. (2010). Assessment of development results: Turkey. Evaluation of UNDP contribution to development results in Turkey. Washington, D.C.: Evaluation Office. Retrieved December, 2012, from http://iklim.cob.gov.tr/iklim/Files/Raporlar/ASSESSMENT%20OF%20DEVELOPM ENT%20RESULTS%20Turkey.pdf
  • USAID. (2001). Best practices in monitoring and evaluation: Lessons learned from the USAID Turkey population program. Retrieved September, 2012, from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/sr-01-11
  • Weiss, C. H. (1998). Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 21-33.
  • World Bank. (2002). 2002 annual report on evaluation capacity development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585672- 1252437578683/AREC_2002.pdf
  • World Bank. (2004). Evaluation capacity development: OED self-evaluation. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications. Retrieved November, 2012, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585664- 1253892707805/ecd_self_evaluation.pdf
  • World Bank. (2007). Turkey: Higher education policy study. Volume 1: Strategic directions for higher education in Turkey. Retrieved October, 2012, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7628
  • World Bank. (2011). Improving the quality of equity of basic education in Turkey: Challenges and http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TURKEYEXTN/Resources/361711- Retrieved October, 2012, from 1216301653427/5218036-1326807255367/EducationQualityReport2011-en.pdf
  • World Bank. (2013a). Global monitoring report 2013: Rural-urban dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  • World Bank. (2013b). Education for all (EFA). Retrieved November, 2013 from, http://go.worldbank.org/I41DLBA8C0
  • World Bank. (2013c). Projects and operations: Turkey. Retrieved December, 2013 from, http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey
Toplam 52 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Hanife Çakıcı Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mayıs 2013
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2013 Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Çakıcı, H. (2013). Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey. Eğitimde Politika Analizi, 2(1), 7-18.
AMA Çakıcı H. Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey. Eğitimde Politika Analizi. Mayıs 2013;2(1):7-18.
Chicago Çakıcı, Hanife. “Education for All But Evaluation for Whom? The Case of Turkey”. Eğitimde Politika Analizi 2, sy. 1 (Mayıs 2013): 7-18.
EndNote Çakıcı H (01 Mayıs 2013) Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey. Eğitimde Politika Analizi 2 1 7–18.
IEEE H. Çakıcı, “Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey”, Eğitimde Politika Analizi, c. 2, sy. 1, ss. 7–18, 2013.
ISNAD Çakıcı, Hanife. “Education for All But Evaluation for Whom? The Case of Turkey”. Eğitimde Politika Analizi 2/1 (Mayıs 2013), 7-18.
JAMA Çakıcı H. Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey. Eğitimde Politika Analizi. 2013;2:7–18.
MLA Çakıcı, Hanife. “Education for All But Evaluation for Whom? The Case of Turkey”. Eğitimde Politika Analizi, c. 2, sy. 1, 2013, ss. 7-18.
Vancouver Çakıcı H. Education for all but evaluation for whom? The case of Turkey. Eğitimde Politika Analizi. 2013;2(1):7-18.