Parameters of content analysis;Içerik analizinin parametreleri

Egitim ve Bilim

Volumn 39, Issue 174, 2014, Pages 33-38

  Çalik, Muammer ^a   Sözbilir, Mustafa ^b  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b ATATÜRK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Content analysis; Descriptive content analysis; Meta synthesis; Parameters

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907355774     PISSN: 13001337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15390/EB.2014.3412     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07306523
2. Bayraktar, Ş. (2000). A meta-analysis study on the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in science education. Published PhD Thesis, Ohio University. UMI Number: 9980398
3. Calik, M. (2013). Effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry on senior science student teachers' self-efficacy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 223-232 DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2013. 931a
4. Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (2001). Research methods in education (5th Edition), New York: Rotledge Falmer.
5. Çalik, M., Ayas, A. & Ebenezer, J.V. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students' conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29-50
6. Çalik, M., Ünal, S., Coştu, B. & Karataş, F.Ö. (2008). Trends in Turkish science education. Essays in Education, Special Edition, 23-45.
7. Çiltaş, A., Güler, G. & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Türkiyéde matematik eǧitimi araştirmalari: Bir içerik analizi çalişmasi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eǧitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 565-580.
8. Durlak, J.A. (1995), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9. Göktaş, Y., Küçük, S., Aydemir, M., Telli, E., Arpacik, Ö., Yildirim, G., & Reisoǧlu, I. (2012). Educational technology research trends in Turkey: A content analysis of the 2000-2009 decade. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 191-196.
10. Göktaş, Y., Hasançebi, F., Varisoǧlu, B., Akcay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Trends in educational research in Turkey: A content analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 443-460.
11. Jayarajah, K., Saat, R.M. & Rauf, R.A.A. (2014). A review of science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) education research from 1999-2013: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(3), 155-163 DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1072a
12. Karadaǧ, E. (2009). Eǧitim bilimleri alaninda yapilmiş doktora tezlerinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 75-87.
13. Lin, T.C., Lin, T.J. & Tsai, C.C. (2014). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals, International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346-1372, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.864428.
14. Mortimore, P. (2000). Does educational research matter? British Educational Research Journal, 26 (1), 5-24.
15. Selçuk, Z., Palanci, M., Kandemir, M. & Dündar, H. (2014). Eǧitim ve bilim dergisinde yayinlanan araştirmalarin eǧilimleri: Içerik analizi. Eǧitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 430-453.
16. Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H., & Yaşar, M. D. (2012). Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of papers published. In J. Dillon& D. Jorde (Eds). The World of Science Education: Handbook of Research in Europe (pp.341-374). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
17. Sozbilir, M. (2013). Chemistry education research in Turkey. Chemistry International, 35(2), 12-14
18. Suri, H. & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research systhesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 395-430.
19. Şahin, M.C. (2005). Internet tabanli uzaktan eǧitimin etkililiǧi: Bir meta analiz çalişmasi. Yayinlanmamiş Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi.
20. Umdu Topsakal, Ü., Çalik, M. & Çavuş, R. (2012). What trends do Turkish biology education studies indicate?. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 639-649
21. Ünal, S., Çalik, M., Ayas, A. & Coll, R.K. (2006). A review of chemical bonding studies: needs, aims, methods of exploring students' conceptions, general knowledge claims, and students' alternative conceptions. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(2), 141-172
22. Ültay, N. & Çalik, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 686-701 DOI 10.1007/s10956-011-9357-5.
23. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. London: Sage Publications.