AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONTENT EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS BETWEEN 2013 – 2018

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 1 - 10, 29.08.2018

Felix Danjuma Tappi Cigdem Hursen

Öz

This
research was conducted following specific content evaluation of programs
between the period of 2015 – 2018 with limitations, a content analysis related
studies on evaluation of programs to specify the direction of the research
using qualitative study to analyze search results for four years. The Science
Direct Data Base was searched to collect the data and journals were scanned to
reach 72 studies. The aim of this research is to improve evaluation program
effectiveness and to encourage researchers to study in this field. This study
focused on program evaluation and answers were sought for distribution of
studies by year of publication, subject area, country, method, and sample. The
findings revealed that studies on program evaluation were mostly carried out in
2015 and 2018. The findings revealed that qualitative research was used more
than quantitative and the mixed method. The result also revealed that most of
the studies analyzed were in the area of teacher education and educational
research. The analysis was done by the two researchers and for any
disagreement, researchers studied on the issue and reached complete agreement.
The data obtained from the studies were analyzed through descriptive statistic
after calculating their frequency and percentage values.    

Anahtar Kelimeler

content analysis, evaluating programs, investigating

Kaynakça

• Berrang-Ford J. D., & Ford J. Paterson. (2011). Are we adopting to climate change?. Global Environment change, 21, 25-33
• Brain, M. (2014). What is teaching?. USA: Permalink Publishers
• Burns, R. (2000). Introduction to research methods. (4th ed.). London: Sage
• Cai, J., & Cirillo, M. (2014). What do we know about reasoning and proving? Opportunities and missing opportunities from curriculum analyses. International Journal Research, 64, 132-140
• Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. (1935). Curriculum Development. New York: American Book Company
• Cheng, C. (1997). Multi-models of quality in Education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1), 212-231
• Clemente, M., Ramirez, E., & Dominguez, B. (2000). The selection of contents in school projects in Spain. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3), 295-317
• Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. (2007). SPPS Version 14.0 for windows: Analysis without anguish. Milton: John Wiley & Sons
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge
• Culbertson, H. M., & Sumerick, N. (1976, may 19). Cloaked attribution. What does it mean to Readers?. ANPA News Research Bulletin, 3
• Eisner, E. W. (2002). Those who ignore the past…12 ‘easy’ lessons for the next millennium. Journal of curriculum studies, 32(2) 343-357. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002202700182808
• Evening, M. L. (2001). Media education Ile-Ife. University of Ife. Press Limited
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded Theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine
• Guba, E. S., & Lincoln,Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, 105-117. London Sage
• Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 44-52. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002248719004100306
• Jones, K. O., & Reid, J. M. V. (2007). Modifying teaching to address thinking styles. ACM International conference proceedings series, vol. 285, proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on computer systems and technologies. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1330598.1330682
• Skinner, B. (1964). Why we need teaching machine in educational technology. New York: Julia Klaus Ethrow Publications
• Stephen, G. (2014). Soft skills assessment: Theory development and the research agenda. International Journal of lifelong Education, 33(4), 455-471
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for Developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Leathwood, C., & Phillips, D. (2000). Developing Curriculum evaluation research in higher education process: Politics and practicalities. Higher Education, 40, 313-330
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
• Munby, H. (1990). Metaphorical expressions of teachers’ practical curriculum knowledge Journal of curriculum and supervision, 6(1), 18-30
• Ratsoy, E. W., & Bing, Z. (1999). Students participation in university governance. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 29(1), 1-26