Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners

Ahmet SABAN (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi , Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi)
Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi
18 4
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 299 - 354 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009 İndeks Tarihi: 07-06-2022

Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners

Öz:
Conducted based on the idea that there are similarities between “action research” and “curriculum development” processes, in this study, the aim was to develop a model that practitioners can use to understand and improve the practical curriculum. To this end, first, the phenomena of “curriculum”, “curriculum development”, “action research”, and “curriculum development through action research” were examined thoroughly, the action research models existing in the literature were analyzed indepth, and, based on an eclectic approach, a model that blends both processes was proposed. Afterward, the proposed model’s implications for curriculum development were discussed. Finally, expert opinions on the model development process employed in the study were questioned, and the necessary changes were made in line with the obtained feedback. The proposed model has been conceptualized as a cyclical problem-solving process employing six stages. They include: (a) identifying the focus area, (b) performing a needs analysis, (c) developing an action plan, (d) implementing the action plan, (e) evaluating the process, and (f) reflecting on the process. Moreover, the proposed model’s implications for curriculum development are: (1) curriculum development is a practice-based process, (2) curriculum development is a problemsolving focused process, (3) curriculum development is a continuous (progressoriented) process, and (4) curriculum development is a context-dependent process.
Anahtar Kelime:

Eylem araştırması aracılığıyla program geliştirme: Uygulayıcılar için bir model önerisi

Öz:
“Eylem araştırması” ile “program geliştirme” süreçleri arasında benzerliklerin bulunduğu düşüncesinden hareketle gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada, uygulayıcıların pratikteki eğitim programını anlamak ve iyileştirmek amacıyla kullanabilecekleri bir modelin geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu genel amaç doğrultusunda, çalışmada öncelikle “eğitim programı”, “program geliştirme”, “eylem araştırması” ve “eylem araştırması aracılığıyla program geliştirme” olguları kapsamlı bir biçimde incelenmiş, alanyazında yer alan eylem araştırması modelleri derinlemesine analiz edilmiş ve seçmeci bir yaklaşımla her iki süreci de harmanlayan bir model önerilmiştir. Daha sonra, önerilen modelin program geliştirme açısından sonuçları tartışılmıştır. Son olarak, çalışmada uygulanan model geliştirme sürecine ilişkin uzman görüşleri sorgulanmış ve elde edilen geribildirimler doğrultusunda da gerekli değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Çalışmada önerilen model, birbiriyle ilişkili altı aşamadan oluşan döngüsel bir problem çözme süreci olarak kavramsallaştırılmıştır. Modelde yer alan aşamalar şunlardır: (a) odaklanılacak alanın belirlenmesi, (b) ihtiyaç analizinin gerçekleştirilmesi, (c) eylem planının geliştirilmesi, (d) eylem planının uygulanması, (e) sürecin değerlendirilmesi ve (f) sürece ilişkin yansıtmanın yapılması. Ayrıca, önerilen modelin program geliştirme açısından sonuçları şunlardır: (1) program geliştirme uygulama temelli bir süreçtir, (2) program geliştirme problem çözme odaklı bir süreçtir, (3) program geliştirme süreklilik arz eden (gelişim odaklı) bir süreçtir ve (4) program geliştirme bağlam temelli bir süreçtir.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1(1), 7-24.
  • Ahrens, M. R. (1956). Curriculum improvement through action research. High School Journal, 39(7), 364-369.
  • Aksoy, N. (2003). Eylem araştırması: Eğitimsel uygulamaları iyileştirme ve değiştirmede kullanılacak bir yöntem. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 9(4), 474-489.
  • Apple, M. W. (1983). Curriculum in the year 2000: Tensions and possibilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(5), 321-326.
  • Apple, M. W. (1985). The culture and commerce of the textbook. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(2), 147-162.
  • Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of offıcial knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95(2), 222-241.
  • Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High‐stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25-45.
  • Banegas, D. L. (2019). Language curriculum transformation and motivation through action research. Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 422-440.
  • Barrow, R. (1999). The need for philosophical analysis in a postmodern era. Interchange, 30(4), 415-432.
  • Bat, M. & Fasoli, L. (2013). Action research as a both-ways curriculum development approach: Supporting self-determination in the remote indigenous child care workforce in the northern territory of Australia. Action Research, 11(1), 52-72.
  • Beauchamp, G. A. (1972). Basic components of a curriculum theory. Curriculum Theory Network, 10, 16- 22.
  • Benne, K. D. (1948). An approach to issues underlying curriculum development. Journal of Educational Research, 41(8), 561-576.
  • Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. New York: Arno Press. Borg, W. R. (1987). The educational R & D process: Some insights. Journal of Experimental Education, 55(4), 181-188.
  • Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 11-30.
  • Burchell, H. (2000). Facilitating action research for curriculum development in higher education. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(3), 263-269.
  • Burnaford, G., Beane, J., & Brodhagen, B. (1994). Teacher action research: Inside an integrative curriculum. Middle School Journal, 26(2), 5-13.
  • Bümen, N. T. (2006). Üç büyük ildeki özel okullarda program geliştirme servislerinin etkililiği ve karşılaşılan problemler. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 6(3), 615-667.
  • Bümen, N. T. & Aktan, S. (2014). Yeniden kavramsallaştırma akımı ışığında Türkiye’de eğitim programları ve öğretim alanı üzerine özeleştirel bir çözümleme. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(3), 1123-1144.
  • Calhoun, E. F. (1993). Action research: Three approaches. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 62-65.
  • Calhoun, E. F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Calhoun, E. F. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 18-24.
  • Capobianco, B. M. & Joyal, H. (2008). Action research meets engineering design. Science & Children, 45(8), 22-26.
  • Capobianco, B. M., Horowitz, R., Canuel-Browne, D., & Trimarchi, R. (2004). Action research for teachers: Understanding the steps for developing and implementing productive action plans. Science Teacher, 71(3), 48-53.
  • Carson, T. (1990). What kind of knowing is critical action research? Theory into Practice, 29(3), 167-173.
  • Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.
  • Connelly, M. F. (2013). Joseph Schwab, curriculum, curriculum studies and educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 622–639.
  • Corey, S. M. (1949). Curriculum development through action research. Educational Leadership, 7(3), 147-153.
  • Deng, Z. (2013). The practical, curriculum, theory and practice: An international dialogue on Schwab’s the ‘Practical 1’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 583-590.
  • Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 691-710.
  • Department of Education. (2014). The national curriculum in England: Framework document. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /381344/Master_final_national_curriculum_28_Nov.pdf
  • Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a postmodern curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 243– 253.
  • Doll, W. E. (1993). A postmodern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Dreeben, R. (1976). The unwritten curriculum and its relation to values. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 8(2), 111-124.
  • Egan, K. (1978). What is curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65-72.
  • Edwards, E. & Burns, A. (2016). Action research to support teachers’ classroom materials development. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 106-120.
  • Eisner, E. (1984). No easy answers: Joseph Schwab’s contributions to curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 201-210.
  • Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd edition). New York: Macmillan.
  • Elliot, J. (1997). School-based curriculum development and action research in the United Kingdom. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 17–27). London: Flamer Press.
  • Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence: Brown University.
  • Grundy, S. (1994). Action research at the school level: Possibilities and problems. Educational Action Research, 2(1), 23-37.
  • Gürgür, H. (2019). Eylem araştırması. İçinde, A. Saban & A. Ersoy (Ed.), Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri (ss. 31-80) (3. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653-697.
  • Hargreaves, A. (1995, 31 March). Kentucky fried schooling. Times Educational Supplement (p. 1). Retrieved September 5, 2019, from https://www.tes.com/news/kentucky-fried-schooling
  • Hargreaves, D. H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 122-144.
  • Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjala, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5-19.
  • Hlebowitsh, P. (1999). The burdens of the new curricularist. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 343-354.
  • Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 73-87.
  • Hlebowitsh, P. (2010). Centripetal thinking in curriculum studies. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(4), 503-513.
  • Hlebowitsh, P. (2012). When best practices aren’t: A Schwabian perspective on teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(1), 1-12.
  • Hopmann, S. T. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109-124.
  • Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(2), 153- 167.
  • Hunkins, F. P. & Hammill, P. A. (1994). Beyond Tyler and Taba: Reconceptualizing the curriculum process. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(3), 4-18.
  • İnan, G. (2011). Eylem araştırması: Eğitimde değişimin yaratılmasında öğretmenin gücü. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 481-486.
  • Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Jackson, P. W. (1980). Curriculum and its discontents. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 159-172.
  • Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.
  • Jaipal, K. & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 59-72.
  • Johnson, M. Jr. (1981). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. In H. A. Giroux, A. N. Penna & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Alternatives in education: Curriculum and instruction (pp. 69-85). Berkely: McCutchan Publishing Company.
  • Karakuş, F. (2019). Birleştirilmiş sınıflarda öğretim dersine yönelik öğretim programı geliştirme çalışması. Unpublished doctorate dissertation, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.
  • Karseth, B. & Sivesind, K. (2010). Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 103-120.
  • Katsarou, E. & Tsafos, V. (2014). Using action research in curriculum development in a fully-controlled educational context: The case of Greece. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 141-161.
  • Kaya, E., Çetin, P. S., & Yıldırım, A. (2012). Transformation of centralized curriculum into classroom practice: An analysis of teachers’ experiences. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2(3), 103-113.
  • Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1982). The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
  • Kincheloe, J. L. (2016). The curriculum and the classroom. Counterpoints, 491, 611-632. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/45157434 King, N. R. (1986). Recontextualizing the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(1), 36-40.
  • Kliebard, H. M. (1970). The Tyler rationale. School Review, 78(2), 259-272.
  • Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The Tyler rationale revisited. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 81-88.
  • Köklü, N. (2001). Eğitim eylem araştırması - öğretmen araştırması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(1-2), 35-43.
  • Kuzu, A. (2009). Öğretmen yetiştirme ve mesleki gelişimde eylem araştırması. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(6), 425-433.
  • Lambirth, A., Cabral, A., McDonald, R., Philpott, C., Brett, A., & Magaji, A. (2019). Teacher-led professional development through a model of action research, collaboration and facilitation.
  • Professional Development in Education, 1-19. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1685565
  • Lau, D. C. M. (2001). Analyzing the curriculum development process: Three models. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 9(1), 29-44.
  • Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
  • Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Curriculum development: Deductive models. Schooling, 2(1), 1-7.
  • Mackenzie, G. N. & Bebell, C. (1951). Curriculum development. Review of Educational Research, 21(3), 227-237.
  • Mathou, C. (2018). Recontextualizing curriculum policies: A comparative perspective on the work of mid-level actors in France and Quebec. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 789-804.
  • McBee, M. T. (2004). The classroom as laboratory: An exploration of teacher research. Roeper Review, 27(1), 52-58.
  • McKernan, J. (1987). Action research and curriculum development. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 6-19.
  • McKernan, J. (1988). The countenance of curriculum action research: Traditional, collaborative, and emancipatory-critical conception. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(3), 173-200.
  • Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th. edition). Boston: Pearson. Milton-Brkich, K. L., Shumbera, K., & Beran, B. (2010). Action research: How to create your own professional development experience. Science & Children, 47(9), 47-51.
  • Molstad, C. E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making: Approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 441-461.
  • Nason, P. N. & Whitty, P. (2007). Bringing action research to the curriculum development process. Educational Action Research, 15(2), 271-281.
  • Netcoh, S., Olofson, M. W., Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. A. (2017). Professional learning with action research in innovative middle schools. Middle School Journal, 48(3), 25-33.
  • Niemi, R. (2019). Five approaches to pedagogical action research. Educational Action Research, 27(5), 651-666.
  • Oksiutycz, A. & Azionya, C. (2017). Using action research for curriculum development and improving the learning experience: A case study. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(3), 193-208.
  • Oliva, P. F. (1982). Developing the curriculum. Glenview: Scott and Foresman.
  • Ornstein, A. C. (1987). The field of curriculum: What approach? What definition? High School Journal, 70(4), 208-216.
  • Overly, N. V. (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Washington: Association for Curriculum and Supervision.
  • Piggot-Irvine, E. (2006). Sustaining excellence in experienced principals? Critique of a professional learning community approach. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10(16), 56- 75.
  • Pinar, W. F. (1994). Notes on the curriculum field (1978). Counterpoints, 2, 77-99. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42975623
  • Pinar, W. F. (1999). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. Counterpoints, 70, 483-497. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42975689
  • Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction. Counterpoints, 17, 3-65. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42974917
  • Portelli, J. P. (1987). Perspectives and imperatives on defining curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(4), 354-367.
  • Posner, G. J. (1973-1974). Beauchamp’s “basic components of a curriculum theory”: A rejoinder. Curriculum Theory Network, 4(1), 56-60.
  • Reid, W. A. (1979). Practical reasoning and curriculum theory: In search of a new paradigm. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(3), 187-207.
  • Riding, P., Fowell, S., & Levy, P. (1995). An action research approach to curriculum development. Information Research, 1(1), 1-7. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from http://InformationR.net/ir/1- 1/paper2.html
  • Rogan, J. M. & Luckowski, J. A. (1990). Curriculum texts: The portrayal of the field. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 17-39. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027900220102
  • Rule, I. A. C. (1973). A philosophical inquiry into the meaning(s) of curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.
  • Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A development model of professional socialization. Clearing House, 80(5), 211-216.
  • Schubert, W. H. (1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. Educational Forum, 45(2), 185-198.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review, 78(1), 1-23.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical arts of eclectic. School Review, 79(4), 493-542.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501-522.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
  • Shawer, S. F. (2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 173–184.
  • Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
  • Somekh, B. (1995). The contribution of action research to development in social endeavors: A position paper on action research methodology. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 339-355.
  • Stenhouse, L. (1981). What counts as research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 103-114.
  • Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd. edition). New Jersey: Pearson.
  • Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.
  • Tanner, D. (2013). Race to the top and leave the children behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 4- 15.
  • Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Uzuner, Y. (2005). Özel eğitimden örneklerle eylem araştırmaları. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 6(2), 1-12.
  • van Manen, M. (1978). Reconceptionalist curriculum thought: A Review of recent literature. Curriculum Inquiry, 8(4), 365-375.
  • Varış, F. (1997). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Teori ve teknikler (7. baskı). Ankara: Alkım.
  • Voogt, J. & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299- 321.
  • Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (2009). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Ed.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 1-17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Retrieved December 11, 2020, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/similarity-andanalogical-reasoning/C8F51F830B008539EE901503568293C3
  • Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum. School Review, 80(1), 51-65.
  • Walker, D. F. (1982). Curriculum theory is many things to many people. Theory into Practice, 21(1), 62- 65.
  • Westbury, I. (2013). Reading Schwab’s ‘Practical’ as an invitation to enquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 640-651.
  • Wraga, W. G. (2017). Understanding the Tyler rationale: Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction in historical context. Espacio, Tiempoy Educacion, 4(2), 227-252.
  • Wraga, W. & Hlebowitsh, P. (2003). Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 425-437.
  • Yazıcılar, Ü. & Bümen, N. T. (2019). Crossing over the brick wall: Adapting the curriculum as a way out. Issues in Educational Research, 29(2), 583-609.
  • Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yüksel, S. (1998). Okula dayalı program geliştirme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 16, 513-525.
  • Yüksel, S. (2002). Örtük program. Eğitim ve Bilim, 27(126), 31-37.
  • Yüksel, S. (2004). Merkezi ve yerel düzeylerde program geliştirme. Eğitim ve Bilim, 29(132), 10-14.
  • Zierer, K. (2011). Pedagogical eclecticism. Journal of Educational Thought, 45(1), 3-19.
APA Saban A (2021). Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. , 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
Chicago Saban Ahmet Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. (2021): 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
MLA Saban Ahmet Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. , 2021, ss.299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
AMA Saban A Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. . 2021; 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
Vancouver Saban A Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. . 2021; 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
IEEE Saban A "Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners." , ss.299 - 354, 2021. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
ISNAD Saban, Ahmet. "Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners". (2021), 299-354. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
APA Saban A (2021). Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
Chicago Saban Ahmet Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi 11, no.1 (2021): 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
MLA Saban Ahmet Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, vol.11, no.1, 2021, ss.299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
AMA Saban A Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi. 2021; 11(1): 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
Vancouver Saban A Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi. 2021; 11(1): 299 - 354. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
IEEE Saban A "Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners." Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 11, ss.299 - 354, 2021. 10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
ISNAD Saban, Ahmet. "Curriculum development through action research: A model proposal for practitioners". Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi 11/1 (2021), 299-354. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2021.009
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 22:56

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları