مقایسة الگوی مدیریت آموزش و الگوی اکتشافی تدریس بر اساس میزان شمولیت و ابعاد مشترک آن‌ها
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی
محمدرضا بهرنگی
1
(استاد گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.)
علیرضا دهقانی
2
(دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه خوارمی، تهران، ایران.)
فاطمه دارابی
3
(کارشناس ارشد مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.)
کلید واژه: اثربخشی تدریس, الگوی مدیریت آموزش, الگوی اکتشافی, الگوهای تدریس,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف از پژوهش حاضر مقایسة الگوی مدیریت آموزش و الگوی اکتشافی تدریس بود. روش پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر گردآوری داده‌ها، توصیفی از نوع پیمایشی بود. جامعة آماری شامل دانشجویان دوره تحصیلات تکمیلی رشتة مدیریت آموزشی در دانشگاه‌های خوارزمی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم تحقیقات و واحد رودهن بود که تعداد آن‌ها برابر با 86 نفر بود. در پژوهش حاضر از روش سرشماری استفاده شده است. به‌منظور گردآوری داده‌ها از پرسشنامة محقق‌ساخته استفاده شد. روایی پرسشنامه با استفاده از روایی محتوایی و پایایی آن نیز با استفاده از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ (956/0) ارزیابی و مورد تأیید قرار گرفت. داده‌ها با استفاده از آمار توصیفی (فراوانی و درصد) و آمار استنباطی (آزمون‌های کولموگروف- اسمیرنف، همگنی ماتریس همبستگی، t وابسته و ویلکاسون) مورد تجزیه‌وتحلیل قرار گرفت. یافته حاکی از آن بود که دو الگوی مدیریت آموزش و الگوی اکتشافی تدریس قابلیت شمولیت و استفاده در مقاطع مختلف تحصیلی، دوره‌های آموزشی و دروس گوناگون را دارند و از ویژگی‌های مؤثر در فرایند یادگیری برخوردار می‌باشند. همچنین تفاوت معناداری به لحاظ آماری بین این دو در نزد جامعه مورد مطالعه مشاهده شد. بر اساس نتایج، الگوی مدیریت آموزش نسبت به الگوی اکتشافی تدریس هم از نظر ابعاد شمولیت و هم از نظر 7 ویژگی مشترک دارای قابلیت و توان بیشتری بود.
The purpose of this study was to Comparing Education Management Model and Discovery Model of Teaching Based on their overhauling & common dimensions. With regard to purpose this study is of the applied type and in case of data collection, it Was descriptive- Survey Research. The Population of this study consisted of higher education students in the educational administration field in Kharazmi University, Islamic Azad University, Science And Research Branch Islamic Azad University and Roudehen Branch (N=86). In this study, a census method used. data were collected through, A researcher-made questionnaire. The Content validity of questionnaire was obtained through experts of educational administration field and Their reliability was estimated through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (0.956). Using descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) and inferential statistics (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, homogeneous matrix of correlations, t-dependent and Wilcoxon test) the data was analyzed. The results of the study indicated that: there are Education Management Model and Discovery Model of Teaching overhauling and applying ability in different levels of education, courses and lessons and they have an effective feature in the learning process. Also, statistically significant difference was observed between the two. The results showed significant upper effects of Education Management Model in the three comprehension dimensions and seven common characteristics (creativity was the same) than Discovery Model of Teaching.
Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., & Amit, M. (2011). Developing the skills of critical and creative thinking by probability teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1087-1091.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning?. Journal of educational psychology, 103(1), 1.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of educational psychology, 51(5), 267.
Behrangi, M. R. & Babazadeh, E. (2010). Examining models of teaching in higher education. University of Science and Research Branch, Proceedings of the National Conference of modern instructional methods. Tehran, 29 and 30 May, p. 153. [Persian].
Behrangi, M. R. & Karimi, N. (2010). “Using a familiar cultural background of students to facilitate learning unknown concepts of organizational theory and instructional and nurturing effect of its application (poster)”. Proceedings of the 18th National Conference of modern instructional methods. Tehran, 29 and 30 May, p. 120. [Persian].
Behrangi, M.R. & Aghayari, T. (2004). The Effect of Teaching Science Using Education Management Model on Students' Self-Directed Learning 3th Grade Secondary Schools. educational innovations journal, 3(10), 35-54. [Persian]
Behrangi, M.R. & Karimi, N. (2014). A Survey on the Problems of Teaching the Book “World Art History” and the Effect of the Seven-Step Teaching Model of Managing Education from the Point of the Course Teachers View”. New approach in educational administration, 4(14), 1-28. [Persian].
Behrangi, M.R. & Nasiri, R. (2015). The Effect of Teaching Science Using Education Management Model on Students' Self-Directed Learning 3th Grade Secondary Schools. Quarterly Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 7 (28), pp 109-130. [Persian]
Behrangi, M.R. (2011). Model of Management Edudcation Creativity, 4th conference of creativity and innovation in Mashhad. [Persian]
Behrangi, M.R.& TalebZadeh, F. (2010). “Improve the quality of teachinglearning process, increase accepting concept and participation of students with models of active teaching (poster)”. Proceedings of the National Conference of modern instructional methods. Tehran, 29 and 30 May 2010, page 157. [Persian].
Behrangi, M.R., Naveh Ebrahim. A.R., Yousofzade Anvari. R. (2014). The Relationship between Amoul Boys’ High-School Principals' Philosophic Mindedness and Teachers’ Morale to Accept Management Education Model. New approach in educational administration, 5(17), 1-20. [Persian].
Behrangi, Mohammadrezā, Nasiri, Rahimali & Zebarjadi Āshti, Ārash. (2015). Promoting education management new model's application in teaching science. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 15 (3):85-108. [Persian]
Behrangi. M. R. (2015). Preface to translation of the Models of Teaching, Joyce, Bruce; Weil, Marsha; & Calhoun, Emily. Kamal Tarbiat publisher. [Persian].
Behrangi. M.R. (2011). The Management Education Model from the perspective of creativity in learning and learning creativity. The 3rd national conference of Creatology, TRIZ and creativity management. Iran. Mashhad. [Persian].
Behrangi. M.R.,& Nasiri, R. (2015). Effect of the teaching of science with Management Education Model on self-directed learning in3rd guidancegraders. (in print). [Persian].
Bonal, X. (2012). Education policy and school segregation of migrant students in Catalonia: the politics of non-decision-making. Journal of education policy, 27(3), 401-421.
Farmahini Farahani, Mohsen. (2014). Descriptive dictionary of Educational Sciences. Tehran: Shabahang. [Persian]
Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 82(3), 300-329.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishing.
Janssen, F. J., Westbroek, H. B., & van Driel, J. H. (2014). How to make guided discovery learning practical for student teachers. Instructional Science, 42(1), 67-90.
Kadivar, Parvin. (2017). Educational Psychology. Tehran: Samt. [Persian]
Karimi, N,. & Behrangi, M R. (2011). Eliciting Management Education Model of Teaching (MEMT) From a Decade Studies in Iran and Its Use for Teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1151-1160.
Khandaghi, M. A., & Farasat, M. (2011). The effect of teacher's teaching style on students’ adjustment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1391-1394.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological science, 15(10), 661-667.
Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143-152.
Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced Teaching Methods for the Technology Classroom. Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of college science teaching, 36(5), 14–20.
Rice,William & Nash, Susan Smith (2010). Susan Moodle1.9 Teaching Techniques. Birmingham: Packt Publishing.
Sadeghi, A. Hosseini, F. (2008). Survey students' views about good teaching in gilan univercities. Iranian Higher Education, 1(2), 123-148. [Persian]
Sarmad, Z,. Bazargan, A & Hejazi, E. (2014). Research methods in the behavioral sciences. Tehran: Agah. [Persian]
Seyf, A. (2011). New educational psychology. Tehran: Doran. [Persian].
Shabani, B, Hussain Gholizdeh, R. (2006).Teaching Quality in Universities. Research and Planning in Higher Education, 12 (1):1-21. [Persian].
Shabani, H. (2014). Educational and Development skills. Tehran: SAMT. (Persian).
Shams, M.Sh. (2005). Using IT in teachers' training. Tehran: UNESCO. [Persian]
Westwood, P. (2008). What teachers need to know about teaching methods?Camber well Vic.: ACER Press.
Wiegand, P. (2006). Learning and Teaching with Maps. London: Routledge.
Zolfaghari, A. R., Fathi, D., & Hashemi, M. (2011). Role of Creative Questioning in the Process of Learning and Teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2079-2082.
_||_