International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(2) 107-132

Development Study of The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories (IOCT) (From Qualitative Cluster Analysis to Quantitative Confirmatory Factor Analysis)

Ersin Türe & Fatma Bıkmaz

pp. 107 - 132   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2023.548.6   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2210-31-0001

Published online: June 07, 2023  |   Number of Views: 80  |  Number of Download: 184


Abstract

In this research, teachers’ orientations in curriculum theories were identified via an assessment tool which was grounded by Marsh and Willis (2003) where curriculum theorists were classified. “The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories” was developed to identify the teachers’ orientations in curriculum theories in this research. The item pool for the inventory was obtained through a qualitative clustering analysis applied on the studies in the related literature. Later, Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were applied separately on each scale of the inventory. As the result of this process, “the Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories” was developed which consisted of “the Scale of Orientations in Prescriptive Curriculum Theories”, “the Scale of Orientations in Descriptive Curriculum Theories” and “the Scale of Orientations in Critical-Exploratory Curriculum Theories”. In this context, a new culture-specific measurement tool has been developed that aims to determine the interaction between scientists, specialists and teachers in the field, in other words, theorists and practitioners. The IOCT inventory consists of three scales: OSPCT, OSDCT and OSCECT. OSPCT consists of 27 items, OSDCT consists of 18 items and OSCECT consists of 19 items. The highest score that can be obtained from OSPCT is 135 and the lowest 27; The highest score that can be obtained from OSDCT is 90 and the lowest is 18; the highest score that can be obtained from OSCECT is 95 and the lowest is 19. Thus, it can be determined to what extent a teacher has a prescriptive, descriptive or critical-explanatory curriculum theory orientation.

Keywords: Curriculum Theories, Teachers’ Orientations in Curriculum Theories, The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ture, E. & Bikmaz, F. (2023). Development Study of The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories (IOCT) (From Qualitative Cluster Analysis to Quantitative Confirmatory Factor Analysis) . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(2), 107-132. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2023.548.6

Harvard
Ture, E. and Bikmaz, F. (2023). Development Study of The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories (IOCT) (From Qualitative Cluster Analysis to Quantitative Confirmatory Factor Analysis) . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(2), pp. 107-132.

Chicago 16th edition
Ture, Ersin and Fatma Bikmaz (2023). "Development Study of The Inventory of Orientations in Curriculum Theories (IOCT) (From Qualitative Cluster Analysis to Quantitative Confirmatory Factor Analysis) ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (2):107-132. doi:10.29329/epasr.2023.548.6.

References
  1. Anderson, J.C. ve Gerbing, D.W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness of fit ındices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-73 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentler P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull, (107)2, 238-24 [Google Scholar]
  3. Browne M.W. ve Cudeck R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indexes for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research , (4)24, 445-55. [Google Scholar]
  4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: PegemA    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chant, R. H. (2002). The impact of personal theorizing on beginning teaching: Experiences of three social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30 (4), 516-540. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheung, D. (2000). Measuring teachers' meta-orientations to curriculum: Application of hierarchical  confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68 (2), 149-165.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Cheung, D. ve Wong, H. W. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. Curriculum Journal, 13 (2), 225–248.  [Google Scholar]
  8. Cornett, J. W. (1990). Teacher thinking about curriculum and instruction: A casestudy of a secondarysocialstudiesteacher. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18 (3), 248-273. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crummey, M. (2007). Curriculum orientations of alternative education teachers. University of Kansas. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/-304860138?accountid=8403 [Google Scholar]
  10. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Eisner E.W. and Vallance E. (1974.). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley: McCutchan. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ertok, N. & Ummanel, A. (2021). A Metaphorical Approach: How are the Concepts of Principal, Inspector and Curriculum Perceived? . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(3), 114-126. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2021.373.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Hasweh, M. Z. (2003). Teacher accommodative change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 421-434. [Google Scholar]
  14. Henson, K. (1995). Curriculum development for education reform. New York: Harper Collins College. [Google Scholar]
  15. Henson, K. (1995). Curriculum development for education reform. New York: Harper Collins College. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hu L. T. and Bentler P.M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, (6)1, 1-55 [Google Scholar]
  17. Huenecke, D. (1982). What is curricular theorizing? What are its implications for practice? Educational Leadership, 290-294. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of Curriculum and Curriculum Specialists in: P.W.Jackson, (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association, Part 1, Macmillan: New York. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jax, J. A. (1986). Home economics curriculum framework. Illinois Teacher, 32(5), 105-108. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations inventory. Curriculum Journal, 2 (20), 103-120. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jöreskog, K.G. and Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: structural equation modeling with the              simplis command language. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NewYork: The Guilford Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuloglu, A. & Tutus, F. (2022). Curriculum Literacy Levels of English Teachers: A Mixed Method Research . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(4), 191-208. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.459.14 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Macdonald, J. B. (1971). Curriculum theory.  The Journal of Educational Research, 64, 196-200. [Google Scholar]
  25. Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, (103)3, 391-410 [Google Scholar]
  26. Marsh, J. C. and Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. [Google Scholar]
  27. McNeil, J. D. (1977). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. New York, NY: Harper-Collins. [Google Scholar]
  28. Miller, D. L. (2011). Curriculum theory and practice: What's your style? Phi Delta Kapan, 92, 32-39. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundation, principles, and issues. Pearson Education Inc.: Boston. [Google Scholar]
  30. Özdamar, K. (2013). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi (9. Baskı). Nisan Kitabevi: Eskişehir. [Google Scholar]
  31. Öztürk, İ. H. (2012). Öğretimin planlanmasında öğretmenin rolü ve özerkliği: Ortaöğretim tarih öğretmenlerinin yıllık plan hazırlama ve uygulama örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12, 271-299.  [Google Scholar]
  32. Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory Into Practice, 41 (2), 116-125. [Google Scholar]
  33. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers‟ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29 (2), 177-195. [Google Scholar]
  34. Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. McGraw-Hill Inc. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M. and MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7 (2), 213-226. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sümbüloğlu K. ve Akdağ B. (2009). İleri biyoistatistiksel yöntemler. Ankara: Hatipoğlu [Google Scholar]
  37. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,(3)6, 49-73 [Google Scholar]
  38. Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. İstanbul: Ekinoks Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  39. Türe, E. (2017). Öğretmenlerin eğitim programı teorilerine ilişkin yönelimleri ve öğrenme-öğretme sürecine yansımaları. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  40. Vieira A.L. (2011). Preparation of the analysis. Interactive LISREL in practice. London: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: Towards a framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy,33(1), 163–183.https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.134487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]