شناسایی باورهای معلمان در باب میزان ارزشمندی جهت‌گیری‌های شش‌گانه برنامه درسی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسینصراله نوروزی 1 , زهرا معرفت 2 , حبیب اله نعمتی زیارتی 3 , زهرا میرشکاری 4
1 - 1 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
2 - 2 و 4 کارشناس ارشد، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
3 - 3 کارشناس ارشد، واحد بوشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بوشهر، ایران
4 - 2 و 4 کارشناس ارشد، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران
کلید واژه: جهت‌گیری التقاطی, جهت‌گیری خودشکوفایی (انسان‌گرایانه), جهت‌گیری منطق‌گرایی علمی, جهت‌گیری بازسازی اجتماعی, جهت‌گیری تکنولوژیکی (رفتاری), جهت‌گیری فرایند شناختی,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف پژوهش حاضر که پژوهشی توصیفی ـ پیمایشی است، شناسایی باورهای معلمان شهر شیراز پیرامون میزان ارزشمندی جهت‌گیری‌های برنامه درسی بود. بدین منظور، از بین معلمان شاغل در مدارس این شهر در سال تحصیلی 91-1390 نمونه‌ای به حجم 368 نفر با روش نمونه‌گیری طبقه‌ای انتخاب و از طریق پرسشنامه جهت‌گیری‌های برنامه درسی که روایی و پایایی آن محاسبه و تأیید گردیده بود، مورد پرسش‌گری قرار گرفتند. برای تجریه و تحلیل داده‌های حاصله از روش‌های آماری تی تک‌نمونه‌ای، تحلیل واریانس اندازه‌گیری‌های مکرر، تحلیل واریانس چند متغیره و آزمون‌های تعقیبی بونفرونی و شفه استفاده گردید. یافته‌ها نشان داد که معلمان بر این باورند که هر شش جهت‌گیری برنامه درسی دارای ارزش زیادی بوده و در این بین، جهت‌گیری رفتاری باارزش‌ترین جهت‌گیری در برنامه درسی قلمداد گردید. همچنین، مشخص شد که بین باورهای معلمان دوره‌های مختلف تحصیلی در باب میزان ارزشمندی جهت‌گیری‌های برنامه درسی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد، در حالی که بین باورهای معلمان با سوابق خدمتی مختلف و نیز معلمان مرد و زن در زمینه این تفاوت معناداری مشاهده نگردید.
The present study which is of a descriptive - survey type aimed to identify the Shiraz school teachers’ beliefs about the value of curriculum orientations. For this purpose, a classified random sample including 368 teachers at Shiraz Schools, in academic year of 2011-2012, were selected. They, then, answered to a curriculum orientation questioner which its reliability and validity had been calculated and verified. One sample T-test, repeated measures analysis of variance, multivariate analysis of variance as well as Bonferroni and Scheffe post hoc tests were used to analyze the data. It was, therefore, resulted from the findings that all of the six curriculum orientations, from the teachers' point of view, were highly valued however, the behavioral orientation has been considered as the most invaluable one.Furthermore, it was determined that the teachers at different school levels thought significantly different about the importance of curriculum orientation while, such difference was not found neither between the teachers with opposite genders, nor between those with different years of experience.
Aakbaryborng, M., Jafarisuany, H., Ahanchian, M., Kareshki, H. (2012). Curriculum Orientations among Faculty: The Role of Gender, Academic Level and Learning Approach (Face-To-Face and Virtual) in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 12 (3): 210-219. Behets, D. (2001). Value orientations of physical education pre-service and inservice teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20: 144–154. Behets, D., and Vergauwen, L. (2004). Value orientations of elementary and secondary physical education teachers in Flanders. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75 (2): 156–164. Cheung, D. (2000). Measuring teachers’ meta-orientations to curriculum: Application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 68: 149–165. Cheung, D., and Wong, H. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum design. The Curriculum Journal, 13: 225–248. Cothran, D. J., and Ennis, C. D. (1998), Curricula of mutual worth: comparisons of students’ and teachers’ curricular goals. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17: 307–326. Cunningham, R., Johnson, J. M., and Carlson, S. (1992). Curriculum Orientations of Home Economic Teachers. Paper presented at the American Vocational Association Convention: St. Louis, MO. Curter-Smith, M. D., and Meek, G. (2004). Pre-service teachers’ value orientations and their compatibility with the national curriculum for physical education. The Physical Educator, 18: 88–101. Eisner, E. W., and Vallance, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Ennis, C. D., and Chen. A. (1993). Domain specifications and content representativeness of the revised Value Orientation Inventory. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(1): 436–46. Ennis, C. D., and Chen. A. (1995). Teachers’ value orientations in urban and rural school settings. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (1): 41–50. Ennis, C. D., and Hooper, L. M. (1988). Development of an instrument for assessing educational value orientations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20 (3): 277–280. Ennis, C. D., and Zhu, W. (1991). Value orientations: A description of teachers’ goals for student learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62: 33–40. Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 1135-1151. Jaafarisany, H., Pakmehr, H., and Eslamian, H. (2013). Review of the orientation of graduated students of curriculum course to the curriculum approaches. Research in Curriculum Planning, 2 (37): 109-122. Jenkins, S. B. (2009). Measuring teacher beliefs about curriculum orientations using the modified-curriculum orientations inventory. Curriculum Journal, 20: 103-120. Lee, J. C. K., Adamson, B., and Luk, J. C. M. (1995). Curriculum orientation and perceptions of English language instruction in pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the International Teacher Education Conference, June 5–7, in Hong Kong. Mahlios, M., Friedman-Nimz, R., Rice, S., Peyton, V., and O’Brien, B. (2010). Measuring teachers’ curricular beliefs: From Hong Kong to the United States. Curriculum and teaching, 25(2): 81-99. Mahlios, M., Rice, S., and Thomas, K. (2004). Teachers’ views of curriculum: the hedgehog v. the fox. Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the American Educational Studies Association, November 3–7, in Kansas City, Missouri. Maleki, M., Farahani, F. M., and Esmaeili, K. (2013). Prioritization and comparing the ideologies of the six components of the curriculum from the perspectives of faculty members of educational sciences faculties in Tehran. Research in Curriculum Planning, 2 (38):129-144. Marzooghi, R., Norozi, N., and Nickhoo, M. E. (2012). Investigation of the Value System of Bushehr Exceptional Schools Teachers. Iranian Journal of Exceptional Children, 4: 67-80. McNeil, J. D. (1996). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. New York: HarperCollins. Miller, J. P. (1983). The Educational Spectrum: Orientations to Curriculum. New York: Longman. Norozi, N., Marzooghi, R., Maarefat, Z., and Dehghani, S. (2013). An Investigation of the Teachers View on Curriculum Orientations at Shiraz Schools. Unpublished research report. Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: a context for understanding curriculum translation. Instructional Science, 10: 259–275. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62: 307–333. Reding, A,C. (2008). Curriculum orientations of catholic school teachers and administrators. Ph.D. dissertation. Kansas: University of Kansas. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., and Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28: 559–586. Ryu, S. (1998). Curriculum orientations and professional teaching practices reported by Korean secondary school home economics teachers and teacher educators. Ph.D. Dissertation.Ohio: Ohio State University. Schiro, M. (1992). Educators’ perceptions of the changes in their curriculum belief system over time. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7: 250–286. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan. Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington DC: National Education Association. Tanner, D., and Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development: Theory into practice, (3rd ed). Columbus: Prentice Hall.
_||_