Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry / 2018 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4

Volunteering: Evaluation of Community Service Learning Program

Gönüllülük: Topluma Hizmet Uygulamaları Dersinin Değerlendirilmesi

Pages
342–372
Publication Date
2022-11-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, although the course satisfied students’ needsand successfully achieved its objectives, the analysis posits that it would be worthwhile to improve theaforementioned points in order to strengthen the course.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the Community Service Practices (CSP) course, offered for pre-service teachers, wasevaluated utilizing the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data was gathered from 17junior pre-service teachers via needs assessment and summative evaluation questionnaires, formativeevaluation self-reporting progress papers, in-class and out-of-class observation and two instructors bymeans of interviews.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, although the course satisfied students’ needsand successfully achieved its objectives, the analysis posits that it would be worthwhile to improve theaforementioned points in order to strengthen the course.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, the Community Service Practices (CSP) course, offered for pre-service teachers, wasevaluated utilizing the Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) Model. The purposes of this studyare twofold. First, the effectiveness of the program in relation to satisfying pre-service teachers’ needsand expectations is discussed. Second, the pre-service teachers’ attainment of the course objectives andthe consistency between objectives, content and activities are examined. The data was gathered from 17junior pre-service teachers via needs assessment and summative evaluation questionnaires, formativeevaluation self-reporting progress papers, in-class and out-of-class observation and two instructors bymeans of interviews. The results are presented under the four components of the CIPP model, as follows.In relation to context evaluation, students’ needs and expectations were congruent with the goals andobjectives of the course. In input evaluation, course activities and plans were examined. Within processevaluation, activities and procedures appear to have been implemented as originally planned, with somelimitations such as problems in integration of practice and theory, lack of course materials, problematicNGO permissions and attitudes of NGOs towards students. Lastly, within product evaluation, a decisionwas made on the continuation of the course. In conclusion, although the course satisfied students’ needsand successfully achieved its objectives, the analysis posits that it would be worthwhile to improve theaforementioned points in order to strengthen the course.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, öğretmen adaylarına sunulan Toplum Hizmeti Uygulamaları (THU) dersi, Bağlam, Girdi, Süreç ve Ürün Modeli kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amaçları iki yönlüdür. Birincisi, programın öğretmen adaylarının ihtiyaçlarını ve beklentilerini karşılamaya yönelik etkinliği tartışılmıştır. İkincisi, öğretmen adaylarının ders amaçlarına ulaşması ve hedefler, içerik ve faaliyetler arasındaki tutarlılık incelenmiştir. Veriler, 17 üçüncü sınıf düzeyinde öğretmen adayından ihtiyaç analizi ve düzey belirleyici değerlendirme anketleri, biçimlendirici değerlendirme, öz-bildirim raporları, sınıf içi ve sınıf dışı gözlem ve iki öğretim üyesinden de görüşme yoluyla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, aşağıdaki gibi Bağlam, Girdi, Süreç ve Ürün modelinin dört bileşeni altında sunulmaktadır. Bağlam değerlendirmesi ile ilgili olarak, öğrencilerin ihtiyaç ve beklentileri, dersin amaç ve hedefleri ile uyumludur. Girdi değerlendirmesinde ders etkinlikleri ve planları incelenmiştir. Süreç değerlendirmesinde, faaliyetlerin ve prosedürlerin planlandığı gibi uygulanmakta olduğu ancak uygulama ve kuramın entegrasyonu, ders materyallerinin eksikliği, sorunlu STK izinleri ve STK'ların öğrencilere karşı tutumları gibi bazı sınırlılıkların olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Son olarak, ürün değerlendirmesinde, dersin devamı konusunda bir karar verilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, ders öğrencilerin gereksinimlerini karşılamış ve hedeflerine başarılı bir şekilde ulaşmış olsa da, analiz, dersi güçlendirmek için yukarıda bahsedilen noktaların iyileştirilmesinin yararlı olacağına işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Burakgazi, S. G. (2022). Volunteering: Evaluation of Community Service Learning Program. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4, 342–372. https://ajindex.com/articles/617090

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Anderson, J. (1999). Service-learning and teacher education. ERIC Digest. Astin, A.W., Vogelgesang, L.J., Ikeda, E.K., & Yee, J.A. (2000). How Service Learning Affects Students. Higher Education. 144. Baldwin, S.C., Buchanan, A.M., & Rudisill, M.E. (2007). What teacher candidates learned about diversity, social justice, and themselves from service-learning experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 315-327.
  2. Bandow, D. (1999). Voluntarism should be voluntary. Retrieved January 22, 2017 from https://fee.org/articles/voluntarism-should-be-voluntary/
  3. Barton, A.C. (2000). Crafting multicultural science education with preservice teachers through service-learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 797-820.
  4. Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75-91.
  5. Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with pre-service teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31 (2), 52-60.
  6. Boyle-Baise, M., & Langford, J. (2004). There are children here: Service learning for social justice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(1), 55-66.
  7. Boyle-Baise, M., & Sleeter, C.E. (2000). Community service learning for multicultural education. Educational Foundations, 14(2), 33-50.
  8. Bruner, J. S. (1960).
  9. The Process of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  10. Butin, D. (2010). Service-learning in theory and practice: The future of community engagement in higher education. Springer. Chambers, T. (2009). A continuum of approaches to service-learning within Canadian postsecondary education. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(2),77–100.
  11. Cho, G., & DeCastro-Ambrosetti, D. (2005). Is ignorance bliss? Pre-service teachers' attitudes toward multicultural education. The High School Journal, 89(2), 24-28.
  12. Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991). School-based community service: What we know from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(10), 743-749.
  13. Council of Higher Education (2011). The THU directive, approved by the Turkish National Committee for Education, and approved by the Council of Higher Education on 17.02.2011 and sent to all Faculties of Education. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. NY: Sage Publications. Çetin, T., & Sönmez, Ö.F. (2009). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarinin topluma hizmet uygulamalari dersinin amaç ve içeriğine yönelik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Gazi