Teori Tabanlı Değerlendirmeye Dayalı Eklektik Bir Program Geliştirme Modeli

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ortaokul öğrencilerine özenli düşünme becerilerini kazandırmaya yönelik bir eğitim programı geliştirme sürecinde izlenen yeni ve eklektik program geliştirme modelini tanıtmak; test edilen bu modelin ana hatlarını ortaya koymaktır. Teori tabanlı değerlendirme dayalı kendi kendini doğrulayan ve güçlü yaklaşımları içine alan bu eklektik bir program geliştirme modeli; durum çalışması, sıralı keşfedici karma desen, eylem araştırması ve gömülü teori desenlerini barındıran çoklu yöntem araştırma desenini içermektedir. Bu araştırma desenleri bağlamında kurgulanan ihtiyaç değerlendirme, tasarım, uygulama ve değerlendirme safhalarında çok sayıda nicel ve nitel ölçme aracı kullanılmıştır. Bu ölçme araçları sayesinde programın bileşenleri (tasarım, öğretim süreci vb.) ile öğrencilerde kazandırılması beklenen özelliklerin ortaya çıkarılması hedeflenmiştir. Bu işlemler neticesinde programın beklenen etkiye sahip olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu program geliştirme modelinin düşünme eğitimi, değer eğitimi ve kavram öğretimi gibi soyut yapıların eğitiminde geliştirilmesi olası eğitim programları kapsamında takip edilebileceği önerilmektedir. Dahası, gelecek çalışmalarında eklektik yaklaşımın hem salt olarak ihtiyaç değerlendirme, program tasarımı, uygulama ve değerlendirme süreçlerinin her biri kendi içinde hem de bütüncül bir program geliştirme çalışmalarında benimsenebileceği önerilmektedir.

An Eclectic Curriculum Development Model Based on Theory-Driven Evaluation

The purpose of the present study is to introduce new and eclectic model of curriculum development followed in making an educational program that aims to gain caring thinking skills for middle school students. The research design of the model consists of multimethod research design including case study research method, sequential exploratory mixed method, and grounded theory designs. A great numbers of quantitative and qualitative measurement instruments are employed in the phases of needs assessment, curriculum design, curriculum implementation, and program evaluation. It is aimed to discover the expected outcomes of students via these instruments. In study, it is concluded that curriculum has an expected effect on students. It is suggested that this curriculum development model can be followed within the scope of educational programs that can be developed in the education of abstract structures such as thinking education, values education and concept teaching. It is also suggested that, the eclectic approach can be adopted both within the needs assessment, program design, implementation and evaluation processes, as well as in the development of a holistic program in future studies.

PDF

___

Aldridge, J. M., Rijken, P. E., and Fraser, B. J. (2021). Improving learning environments through whole-school collaborative action research. Learning Environments Research, 24(2), 183-205.
Ata, E. B. ve Şahin, Ç. (2020). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerin karakter eğitimi yetkinlik inançlarinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 590-603.
Balantic, J. and Fregosi, E. (2012). Strengthening student thinking and writing about world history. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 25(2), 16-17.
Baturay, M. (2007). Evaluation of an English course at an Anatolian high school with an eclectic point of view: A case study. The International Educational Technology (IETC) Conference, Nicosia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Beavers, E., Orange, A., and Kirkwood, D. (2017). Fostering critical and reflective thinking in an authentic learning situation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 38(1), 3-18.
Bennett, E. E. (2016). Puzzling the picture using grounded theory. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 7(3), 82-94.
Bennett, R. E., Deane, P., and van Rijn, P. W. (2016). From cognitive-domain theory to assessment practice. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 82-107.
Burton, A. (2020). How do I know my students are learning? Formative assessment connects learning targets to student outcomes. Learning Professional, 41(2), 28-31.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. USA: Sage.
Chaves, O., and Guapacha, M. E. (2016). An eclectic professional development proposal for English language teachers. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(1), 71-96.
Curtiss, D. (1993). An eclectic approach to the interpretation of visual statements. In Visual literacy in the digital age: Selected Readings from the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Rochester, New York.
Edmond, W. A. and Kennedy, T. D. (2017). An applied guide to research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Second edition). USA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., and Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation-alternative approaches and practical guidelines (3. Edition). Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
Hanfstingl, B., Abuja, G., Isak, G., Lechner, C., and Steigberger, E. (2020). Continuing professional development designed as second-order action research: Work-in-progress. Educational Action Research, 28(1), 71-82.
Hesse-Biber, S., and Johnson, R. B. (2015). The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. UK: Oxford University Press.
Honebein, P. C., and Sink, D. L. (2012). The practice of eclectic instructional eclectic program. Retrieved from https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1788 in 28.09.2021.
Hunter, A. D., and Brewer, J. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, and R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (Oxford Library of Psychology) (1st edition ed., pp. 185-205). UK: Oxford University Press.
İşcan, A. (2017). The use of eclectic method in teaching Turkish to foreign students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(7), 149-153.
Kumar, C. P. (2013). The eclectic method-theory and its application to the learning of English. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(6), 1-4.
Kumar, K. V. Joshua, A. M., Kedambadi, R., and Mithra P. P. (2017). Eclectic/mixed model method for upper extremity functional recovery in stroke rehabilitation: A pilot study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine, 8, 75-81.
Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb ve E.L. Hartley (Eds), Readings in Social Psychology, (pp. 459-473). New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. UK: Cambridge University Press.
McKillip, J. (1987). Need analysis: Tools for the human services and education. USA: Sage.
Mcmahon, J. and Cullinan, V. (2016). Exploring eclecticism: The impact of educational theory on the development and implementation of Comprehensive Education Programmes (CEP’s) for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 32, 1–12.
Mertens, D. A. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (3rd ed.). USA: Sage.
Mohr, E. S. (1990). What in my world/the world is going on?: A pragmatic-eclectic approach toward rhetoric and literature for the composition. The Conference on Rhetoric and the Teaching of Writing, Indiana.
O’neil, G., and Murphy, F. (2010). Guide to taxonomies of learning. UCD Teaching and Learning/Resources. Retrieved from http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtla0034.pdf in 21.09.2021.”
Ornstein, A. C., and Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). USA: Allyn ve Bacon.
Özkan Elgün, İ. (2018). İlkokul 2. sınıf İngilizce dersi öğretim programının eklektik modele göre değerlendirilmesi. Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Universitesi Eğitim Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Posner, G. J. (1995). Analyzing the curriculum. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rubrica, R. D. B. (2019). An action research on project-based learning and understanding by design and their effects on the science achievement and attitude of science students. Journal of Education and Practice, 10(5), 24-44.
Saban, A. (2021). Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 299-354.
Sagar, N. and Afzal, T. (2019). English language teaching through eclectic approach for engineering students. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), 7(5S4), 755- 758.
Soles, D. (2003). An eclectic approach to the teaching of writing. The Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.
Srikongchan, W., Kaewkuekool, S., and Mejaleurn, S. (2021). Backward instructional design based learning activities to developing students' creative thinking with lateral thinking technique. International Journal of Instruction, 14(2), 233-252.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In D. L. Stufflebeam and T. Kellaghan (Eds.), The International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (Chapter 2), pp. 31-62. Dordrecht: Springer.
Temiz, N. (2010). An action research on program development process for determining multiple intelligences profiles of 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders. Doctorate Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiggins, G., and Mctighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.