طراحی و اعتبارسنجی الگوی ارتباطی معلمان و نظام برنامه ریزی درسی در ایران

محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی

مجید دادمهر ¹ (دانشجوی دکتری رشته برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.)
مرتضی کرمی ² (دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد)
بهروز مهرام ³ (دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.)
صمد ایزدی ⁴ (دانشیار دانشکده علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، دانشگاه مازندران (واحد بابلسر)، مازندران، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1401/04/26 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/02/05 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/12/01

کلید واژه: نظام برنامه‌ریزی درسی, طراحی, اعتباریابی, الگوی ارتباطی, معلمان,

چکیده مقاله :

مقاله حاضر با هدف طراحی و اعتباریابی الگوی ارتباطی معلمان و نظام برنامه ریزی درسی در فرایند تدوین و اجرای برنامه‌درسی مقطع ابتدایی در ایران انجام گرفت. رویکرد پژوهش کیفی و روش پژوهش، پژوهش نظریه ای بود. به‌منظور جمع‌آوری داده ها از سه راهبرد بررسی اسناد بالادستی، بررسی تجارب کشورها و مصاحبه با صاحب‌نظران استفاده شد. بدین منظور چهار سند بالادستی شامل سند تحول بنیادین آموزش و پرورش، سند برنامه‌درسی ملی، سند راهبردی معاونت آموزش ابتدایی و مجموعه مصوبات شورای عالی آموزش و پرورش، و نظام برنامه ریزی درسی چهار کشور اندونزی، مالزی، پاکستان و استرالیا مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. همچنین با ده نفر از اساتید رشته برنامه ریزی درسی در دانشگاه های تهران، مشهد، مازندران و بیرجند به صورت حضوری یا تلفنی مصاحبه انجام شد. انتخاب نمونه ها به صورت هدفمند بود. ابزار گردآوری داده ها در هر بخش چک‌لیست بود. داده ها نیز به شیوه تحلیل مضمون مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفتند. برای افزایش روایی داده ها از سه‌سویه‌سازی و چک کردن اعضا و برای افزایش پایایی داده ها از معیارهای گوبا و لینکلن استفاده شد. الگوی ارتباطی معلمان و نظام برنامه ریزی درسی بر اساس مراحل هشتگانه فرایند تدوین و اجرای برنامه‌درسی و نیز مؤلفه ها ی هدف ارتباط/‌مشارکت، سطح ارتباط/ مشارکت، ساختار ارتباط/مشارکت، مشارکت‌کنندگان و کانال های ارتباطی طراحی گردید. در پایان به‌منظور اعتباریابی الگو، جلسه گروه‌کانونی تشکیل گردید و اصلاحات لازم انجام شد. الگوی ارتباطی معلمان و نظام برنامه ریزی درسی، مشارکت معلمان در فرایند برنامه ریزی درسی را تسهیل نموده و سبب اجرای اثربخش برنامه های درسی می گردد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The present article was carried out to design and validate the communication model of teachers and the curriculum planning system in the process of developing and implementing the Primary school curriculum in Iran. The research approach was qualitative and the research method was theoretical research. To collect data, three strategies were used: a review of upstream documents, a review of countries' experiences, and interviews with curriculum planning and education experts. For this purpose, four upstream documents include the document on the fundamental evolution of education, the national curriculum document, the strategic document of the deputy of primary education and the set of approvals of the Supreme Council of Education, and the curriculum planning system of the four countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Australia were investigated. Also, interviews were conducted with ten professors of curriculum planning and familiar with the elementary school's curriculum in Tehran, Mashhad, Mazandaran, and Birjand universities in person or by phone. The selection of samples in each section was made purposefully. The data were also analyzed by thematic analysis. Validity of the data was achieved through triangulation and member checking, and Guba and Lincoln's criteria were used to increase the reliability of the data. The communication model of teachers and curriculum planning system was designed based on the eight stages of the process of developing and implementing the curriculum, as well as the components of the purpose of communication/ participation, the level of communication/ participation, communication/ participation structure, participants, and communication channels. In the end, to validate this model, a focus group meeting was held and necessary reforms were made. The communication model of teachers and the curriculum planning system facilitates teachers' participation in the curriculum planning process and causes the effective implementation of curricula.

منابع و مأخذ:

Akrami, Seyyed Kazem; and Hosseini, Seyyed Mohammad. (2005). Comparing Teachers' Role in Centralized and Decentralized Curriculum development Systems. at the Conference on centralization and Decentralization in the Curriculum Planning Process. Kerman: Curriculum Studies Association, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. https:// www.civilica.com / Paper-CONF002-CONF002_004.html.

Alsubaie, M. A. (2016). Curriculum Development: Teacher Involvement in Curriculum Development. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(9), 106-107.‏

Byron, I. (2000). An overview of country reports on curriculum development in South and South-East Asia. In Globalization and living together: The challenges for educational content in Asia (pp. 58–61). Delhi: UNESCO. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ finrep-newdelhi1999_eng.pdf

Altrichter, H. (2005). Curriculum implementation–limiting and facilitating factors. In Making it Relevant: Context based learning of science (pp. 35-62). Münster Waxmann.‏

Asadpour, Saeid; Assareh, Alireza; Ahmadi, Gholam Ali; and Emamjome, Seyed Mohammad Reza (2022). Designing and validation of the context-based curriculum model with emphasis on connectivism for teaching sciences. Research in Curriculum Planning. 18 (44), 197- 216.

Bitarafan, Fateme Sadat; Sojoodi, Marjan; & Dehghani, Marzieh (2020). Investigating the Implementation Barriers of the Fundamental Evolution Education Document Based on the Fullan Model: Case study of the field of aesthetic and artistic education. Research in Curriculum Planning. 17 (40), 90- 110.

Carl, A. (2005). The "voice of the teacher" in curriculum development: a voice crying in the wilderness. South African journal of education, 25(4), 223-228.‏

Carl, A. E. (2009). Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: Theory into practice. Juta and Company Ltd.

Cobbold, C. (2017). Moving from Page to Playground: The Challenges and Constraints of Implementing Curriculum in Ghana.‏ Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(4), 1-11.

Delavar, Ali (2012). Theoretical and practical foundations of research in humanities and social sciences. Tehran: Roshd.

DiJohn, G. M. (2015). Effective and Efficient Parent-Teacher Communication. Masters of Arts in Education Action Research Papers. Paper 111.

Dorgu, T. E. (2016). Different teaching methods: A panacea for effective curriculum implementation in the classroom. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3(6), 77- 87.

Eriş, H., Kayhan, H., Baştaş, M., & Gamar, C. (2017). Teacher and administrative staff views on teachers’ participation in decision making process. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(11), 7411-7420.‏

 Fathi Vajargah, Koorosh. (2013). Principles of Curriculum Planning. Tehran: Iran Zamin.

Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh (2002). Reviewing the place of needs assessment studies in the curriculum planning process. Quarterly Journals of Humanities (Al-Zahra University), 42 (12), 75-104.

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. The Columbia University: Teachers College (4th Edition).

Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015). Make Room Value Added: Principals’ Human Capital Decisions and the Emergence of Teacher Observation Data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences”, In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (3th ed), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Handler, B. (2010). Teacher as curriculum leader: A consideration of the appropriateness of that role assignment to classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 3(3), 32-42.‏

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2011). The far side of educational reform. Ottawa: Canadian Teachers’ Federation (NJ3).

Hashemi, Shahnaz (2006). The role of individual and collective communication in the diffusion of innovations in education. Quarterly Journals of Educational innovations. 15(5), 115-149.

Hosseini Khah, A. (2014). Curriculum decision levels. Curriculum Encyclopedia. Curriculum Studies Association, pp 1-6.

Huang, S. C., Chen, C. H., & Chen, H. L. (2004). A case study of communication channels in a graduate program. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 147-155.

Jadhav. M. S; & Patankar. P. S (2013). ROLE OF TEACHERS’ IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. National conference on Challenges in Teacher Education, Physical Education and Sports.

Jafari, Sekineh; Damghanian, Hosein; & AbdSharifi, Fatemeh (2019). The structural relationship between the role of educational groups and the quality of teachers' performance. Education and learning studies (Shiraz University Social and Human Sciences), 9 (2), 37- 58.

Janík, T., Janko, T., Pešková, K., Knecht, P., & Spurná, M. (2018). Czech teachers’ attitudes towards curriculum reform implementation. Human Affairs, 28(1), 54-70.

Kardena, A. (2015). Change of curriculum and its implication on teachers'performance in efl classroom. Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang, 3, 46-51.

Kelly, A. V. (2009). Curriculum Theory and Practice (Sixth Edition). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Khoroushi, Pouran; NasrEsfahani, AhmadReza; MirshahJafari, SeyyedEbrahim; & Mousapour, Nematollah (2019). Conceptual model of competencies expected from student teachers in the curriculum of Farhangian University based on the opinion of experts. Educational measurement and evaluation studies, 7 (18), 169- 199.

Kulachai, W., Narkwatchara, P., Siripool, P., & Vilailert, K. (2018, March). Internal communication, employee participation, job satisfaction, and employee performance. In 15th International Symposium on Management (INSYMA 2018) (pp. 124-128). Atlantis Press.‏

Makewa, L. N., & Ngussa, B. M. (2015). Curriculum implementation and teacher motivation: A theoretical framework. In Handbook of Research on Enhancing Teacher Education with Advanced Instructional Technologies (pp. 244-258). IGI Global.‏

Maleki, Hassan (2008). Qualifications of the teaching profession. Tehran: Madreseh Publications.

Mehr Mohammadi, Mahmoud (2017). Curriculum: viewpoints, approaches and perspectives. Mashhad: Beh-Nashr Publications (Astan Quds Razavi).

Momeni Mahmouei, Hossein; and Shariatmadari, Ali (2009). Designing a competency-based curriculum model for the bachelor's degree in elementary education. Management and planning in educational systems, 2(3), 128-149.

Office of planning and authoring textbooks (2004). Charter of Curriculum Planning, Tehran: Educational Research and Planning Organization.

Parsa, Abdullah (2007). Examining the attitudes and behavioral tendencies of teachers regarding the promotion of new curricula. Quarterly Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1 (4), 103-138.

Qi, T. (2011). Between Centralization and Decentralization: Changed Curriculum Governance in Chinese Education after 1986. University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange

Rahman, Z. B. A., & Ahmad, M. B. (2000). Malaysia Curriculum Planning, Development and Reform. In Globalization and living together: The challenges for educational content in Asia (pp. 88–90). Delhi: UNESCO. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ finrep-newdelhi1999_eng.pdf

Reid, W. A., & Null, J. W. (2006). The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest. Greenwich, CT: IAP-Information Age Publishing.

Rogers، E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.5^th edition.

Salarvandian, Sima; Hosseinikhah, Ali; and Gramipour, Massoud (2014). Evaluation of the smart board as an educational innovation based on Everett Rogers' innovation diffusion theory. Theory and Practice in Curriculum, 3 (6), pp. 71-82.

Saracaloğlu, S., Yılmaz, S., Çengel, M., Çöğmen, S., Karademir, C.A., & Kanmaz, A. ( 2010). Elementary teachers’ views about their roles in curriculum development and evaluation process: The case of Denizli, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 2427-2434.

Saylor, J. G; Alexander, W. M; & Lewis, A. J (1981). Lesson planning for better teaching and learning. Translation: Gholamreza Khoynejad (2012). Astan Quds Razavi: Beh Nashr, seventh edition.

Severin, W. J; & Tankard, J. W. (2000). Communication theories: origins, methods, and uses in the mass media. Translation: Alireza Dehghan (2017). University of Tehran.

Short, E. C. (1991). Forms of curriculum Inquiry. Translation: Mahmoud Mehr Mohammadi, and Colleagues (2020). Tehran: Samt.

Sinnema, C., Nieveen, N., & Priestley, M. (2020). Successful futures, successful curriculum: What can Wales learn from international curriculum reforms? The Curriculum Journal, 31(2), 181–201.

‌Toorani, Haidar; Aghaei, Amir and Manteghi, Morteza (2011). "Global experiences in the field of educational innovations from the point of view of production, adoption and implementation of innovation in Iran's public education". educational innovations. 11 (43). 41-7.

Troudi, S., & Alwan, F. (2010). Teachers’ feelings during curriculum change in the United Arab Emirates: opening Pandora’s box. Teacher development, 14(1), 107-121.

Voogt, J. M., Pieters, J. M., & Handelzalts, A. (2016). Teacher collaboration in curriculum design teams: effects, mechanisms, and conditions. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(4), 121-140.

Zarghani, Azam; Amin Khandaghi, Maghsood; Shabani Varki, Bakhtiar; and Mousapour, Nematullah (2015). The New Math Curriculum: What Are Teachers Doing? Theory and Practice in Curriculum, 8 (4), 51-84.