Evaluating the Suitability of Studies Published in the Field of Teaching of Turkish as a Foreign Language According to Qualitative Research Standards

Nurşat Bi̇çer

Abstract


The aim of this study is to investigate to what extent qualitative studies published in scientific journals between 2010 and 2017 on the teaching of Turkish as a foreign language, meet qualitative research criteria. For this purpose, exploratory design from mixed method was used in the study. For the study, 131 articles on the teaching of Turkish as a foreign language, published in Turkish were analyzed. During the course of the analysis of the articles, the Qualitative Research Evaluation Form (QREF), as prepared by the researcher, was used. With the internal consistency reliability analysis, it was found that the form had had a high level of reliability. In the analyses, the topic distributions of the articles and the arithmetic means for the suitability according to qualitative research criteria were designated. Using the variables of the number of authors, the publication year and research design, and the correlation between the article’s qualitative research scores were calculated. Finally, a correlation analysis was conducted between the chapters of the articles. It was determined that most of the research was done on course materials and the problems encountered in the examined articles. As a result of the study, it is seen that the mean score of the findings section is high and the method section has a low mean. Articles are mostly 1 or 2 authors. There is a significant difference between article scores according to the publication year and research design. According to the correlation analysis between the sections of the articles, positive significant relationships were found. It is thought that although the articles published also have certain drawbacks about their suitability to the qualitative research criteria, the studies did in fact exhibit an improvement and that the future studies would therefore be of higher quality.

Keywords


Teaching Turkish, Language Training, Qualitative Evaluation, Literature Review, Exploratory Design, Rubric

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aktaş, E. & Uzuner Yurt, S. (2015). An content analysis for article abstracts ın Turkish education area. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 10(7) 73-96, http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8121

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative research on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.

Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). What makes a good case study? A positivist review of qualitative case research published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971–2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 56–63.

Biçer, N. (2017). An analysis study on the published articles relating to the field of teaching Turkish to foreigners. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Science Institute, 27, 236-247.

Bochner, A. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 266-272.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education (Fifth edition). London: Pearson.

Boyacı, S. & Demirkol, S. (2018). An examination of doctoral dissertations in the field of teaching Turkish. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 6(2), 512-531.

Bozkurt, B. Ü. & Uzun, N. E. (2015). A review of literature on Turkish language education: Trends in international conferences, Journal of Language Education and Research, 1(2), 1-15

Büyükikiz, K. K. (2014). An investigation on graduate dissertations written on Turkish teaching as a foreign language, Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(25), 203-213.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Manual data analysis for the Social Sciences. Ankara: Pegem A Publications.

Büyüköztürk, Ş. et. al. (2011). Scientific research methods, Ankara: Pegem Academy.

Christensen, L. B., Jonhnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2014). Research methods, design, and analysis. Pearson.

Cohen, D. J. & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care; controversies and recommendations. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(4), 331-39.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Qualitative inquiry & research design, choosing among five approaches. Ankara: Siyasal Publishing.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 315-325.

Des Jarlais, D. C, Lyles, C., & Crepaz, N. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND Statement. American Journal of Public Health, 3(94), 361-366.

Devers, K. J. (1999). How will we know “Good” qualitative research when we see it? beginning the dialogue in health services research. HSR: Health Services Research, 34(5), Part II, 1153-1188.

Dixon Woods, M., Shaw, R. L., Agarwal, S. & Smith, J. A. (2004). The problem of appraising qualitative research. QSHC, 13, 223-225.

Dönmez, B. & Gündoğdu, K. (2016). Content analysis of articles and theses on Turkish lesson curriculum published between the years of 2000-2016. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture and Education, 5(4), 2109-2125.

Ercan, A. N. (2014). Yabancılara Türkçe öğretimi üzerine yapılmış lisansüstü tezlerin çeşitli değişkenler açısından analizi. M. V. Coşkun (Ed.), Türkçenin Eğitimi-Öğretimine Yönelik Çalışmalar, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.

Erdem, D. (2011). Türkiye’de 2005–2006 yılları arasında yayımlanan eğitim bilimleri dergilerindeki makalelerin bazı özellikler açısından incelenmesi: Betimsel bir analiz. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 2(1), 14-147.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hannes, K. (2011). Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C (Eds.), Supplementary guidance for inclusion of qualitative research in cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. Available from URL http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance

Hodge, D. R. (2016). The art and craft of writing qualitative manuscripts a primer. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 77(3), 253-270.

Karakoç, F. Y. and Dönmez, L. (2014). Basic principles of scale development. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 40, 39-49.

Karasar, N. (2012). Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Publisher.

Stenius, K, Mäkelä, K, Miovský, M and Gabrhelík, R. (2017). How to write publishable qualitative research. In: Babor, T. F., Stenius, K., Pates, R., Miovský, M., O’Reilly, J. and Candon, P. (eds.) Publishing Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 155–172. London: Ubiquity Press.

Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1), 47-48.

Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research a philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.

McMillan, J. H. and Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. (7th Edition). London: Pearson.

Merriam, S. B. (2013). Qualitative research, A guide to design and implementation. Ankara: Nobel Publisher.

Northcote, M. (2012). Selecting criteria to evaluate qualitative research. In M. Kiley (Ed.), Narratives of Transition: Perspectives of Research Leaders, Educators & Postgraduates. Paper presented at the 10th Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, StamfordGrand, Adelaide, pp. 99-110. Canberra, Australia: The Centre for Higher Education, Learning and Teaching. The Australian National University. Retrieved from http://www.qpr.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/QPR_2012_proceedings-1.pdf

Ozan, C. and Köse, E. (2014). Research trends in curriculum and instruction. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 4(1), s. 116-136.

Özçakmak, H. (2017). New trends of the postgraduate researches on Turkish language education (2011-2015). International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture and Education, 6(3), 1607-1618.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London: National Centre for Social Research, Government Chief Social Researcher’s Office, UK.

Şahin, E. Y., Kana, F. & Varışoğlu, B. (2013). The research trends of postgraduate dissertations in Turkish education departments. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 356-378.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10) 837–851

Türkben, T. (2018). Evaluation of postgraduate studies conducted on teaching Turkısh as a foreign language. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture and Education, 7(4), 2464-2479.

Varışoğlu, B., Şahin, A. & Göktaş, Y. (2013). Trends in turkish education studies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1767-1781.

White, C., Woodfield, K. and Ritchie, J. (2003). Reporting and presenting qualitative data. Ritchie, J. and Lewis. J. (Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London.

Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.

Yıldırım, K. (2010). Raising the quality in qualitative research. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 79-92.

Yurdugül, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indekslerinin kullanılması, XIV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, 28–30 Eylül Denizli, Retrieved from http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~yurdugul/3/indir/PamukkaleBildiri.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.12n.1.p.22

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2021 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.