An Evaluation of High School Curricula Employing Using the Element-based Curriculum Development Model

Abstract

This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the curricula that constitute the basis of education provision at high schools in Turkey from the perspective of the teachers involved. A descriptive survey model, a quantitative research method was employed in this study. An item-based curriculum evaluation model was employed as part of the evaluation process. The data for the study were obtained from the 199 participant teachers via an "evaluation questionnaire of the high school curriculum. This questionnaire was designed after careful consideration of the key elements of the curriculum. The evaluations submitted by teachers with regard to the items contained within the survey were carefully interpreted. This followed the clear identification of the percentages, frequencies and averages involved. According to the findings obtained from the study, the opinions of teachers concerning the components of the High School Teaching Program when taken as a whole were found to be at an average level. As concerns all elements of the program, teachers were found to most closely agree with those statements within the "(I) partly disagree"category. Results indicated a higher percentage of responses that corresponded with the "definitely disagree" or "disagree" categories than for the "definitely agree" or "agree" categories.

Untitled

“…Results indicated that teachers highly observed the integration of national goals and the DepEd's Mission and Vision in the HUMSS curriculum. This result is consistent with Leduc (2010), however it was again in contrast to Aslan and Günay (2016), where teachers only viewed these elements as moderately observed. Similarly, Gallagher et al (2013) and Muhammad et al (2019) also saw the need to reassess prescribed educational goals with the current needs of their countries.…”

“…This high perception means that the specific goals of these disciplines were well-articulated and well-observed in the curriculum. In contrast to Aslan and Günay (2016), teachers only had a moderate level of opinions on curricular elements. For Kallendorf (2002), this alignment of the HUMSS curriculum may produce literate citizens who can speak and write with clarity, who are active in the community, and who can make sensible decisions.…”

“…This model explicitly seeks to evaluate the extent of meeting the objectives and the underlying defects and problems of a curriculum. Erden (1998), as cited in Aslan and Günay (2016), said this model answers evaluations on general and specific objectives, conditions of learning and testing, and relationships between curricular elements. The said curricular elements help in identifying potential problems that may emerge during the design and implementation.…”

“…The said curricular elements help in identifying potential problems that may emerge during the design and implementation. Thus, by considering program components on targets, content, education, contexts, and evaluation as curricular elements, Erden's element-based model allows for a holistic approach in curriculum evaluation (Aslan & Günay, 2016). This model is also best evaluated using teachers' and students' opinions, who are the interpreters and receivers of the curriculum.…”

“…Aside from the issue of content due to unbalanced curriculum courses and undefined content standards, Alghazo (2015) determined that respondents only had positive regard on core courses but not on majors. Using the elementbased model of evaluation, Aslan and Günay (2016) revealed the moderate opinions of teachers and students on curricular elements. However, respondents were more likely to answer the "disagree" choices.…”