تحلیل عاملی معادلات ساختاری الگوی ارائه درس آزمایشگاه‌های آموزشی رشته‌های فنی و مهندسی
محورهای موضوعی :محمد خلیلی 1 , علی اکبر خسروی بابادی 2 * , عباس خورشیدی 3 , فاطمه حمیدی فر 4
1 - گروه مدیریت آموزش عالی/دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی /دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز/تهران
2 - برنامه ریزی درسی، روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی، تهران، ایران
3 - گروه مدیریت آموزشی،دانشکده علوم تربیتی، واحد اسلامشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
4 - گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه آزاد تهران مرکزی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: آموزش مهندسی, دروس عملی, برنامه درسی, آموزش عالی,
چکیده مقاله :
پژوهش حاضر با هدف ازریابی الگوی اثر بخش ارائه برنامه درسی دروس آزمایشگاهی رشته‌های فنی و مهندسی دانشگاه‌های آموزش عالی صورت پذیرفت. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی، از نظر داده کمی و از نظر اجرای پیمایشی مقطعی است. جامعه شرکت کنندگان در پژوهش دانشجویان کارشناسی رشته‌های فنی مهندسی بودند که از این جامعه، نمونه‌ای شامل بر 388 نفر به صورت تصادفی در پژوهش شرکت نمودند. در این پژوهش داده‌ها توسط پرسشنامه پژوهشگر ساخته جمع آوری شد. نرمال بودن داده‌ها با کمک روش Z اسکور و آزمون کولموگروف-اسمیرینف تایید شد سپس داده‌ها با روش تحلیل عاملی مرتبه دوم مورد بررسی آماری قرار گرفت. به جهت برازش الگو از شاخص نسبت مجذور کای بر درجه آزادی، ریشه خطای میانگین مجذور تقریب، IFI و GFI استفاده شد. نتایج نشان دهنده وضعیت قابل قبول الگو از منظر دانشجویان بود شاخص ریشه خطای میانگین مجذور تقریب با مقدار 80/0 و GFI با مقدار 8/0 نشان دهنده ارزیابی قابل قبول و شاخص‌های IFI با مقدار 96/0 و شاخص نسبت مجذور کای بر درجه آزادی با مقدار 46/1 نشان دهنده ارزیابی مطلوب دانشجویان از الگوی بود.
This study aims to evaluate an effective curriculum delivery model for laboratory courses in engineering programs within higher education institutions. This research is applied in purpose, quantitative in data, and conducted as a cross-sectional survey. The participant pool consisted of undergraduate engineering students, with a random sample of 388 students selected for this study. Model fit was assessed using several indices: the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI). Findings indicated that the model was perceived favorably by students, with a satisfactory fit. Specifically, the RMSEA was 0.08, and the GFI was 0.8, both demonstrating acceptable levels of model fit. Additionally, the IFI at 0.96 and the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio at 1.46 reflect students' positive evaluation of the curriculum delivery model. These results suggest that the proposed model is well-suited to support the effective delivery of laboratory courses in engineering education, meeting both students' expectations and academic standards for applied instruction.
Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb's experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of engineering education, 98(3), 283-294.
Ballesteros, M. Á., Sánchez, J. S., Ratkovich, N., Cruz, J. C., & Reyes, L. H. (2021). Modernizing the chemical engineering curriculum via a student-centered framework that promotes technical, professional, and technology expertise skills: The case of unit operations. Education for Chemical Engineers, 35, 8-21.
Basow, S. A., & Gaugler, T. (2017). Predicting adjustment of US college students studying abroad: Beyond the multicultural personality. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 39-51.
Bediako, S. (2019). Models and concepts of curriculum implementation, some definitions and influence of implementation. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Cape Coast.
Bell, S., Galilea, P., & Tolouei, R. (2010). Student experience of a scenario-centred curriculum. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(3), 235-245.
Binesh, M. B. F., Mansoura ; Navid Bakhsh, Sima. (2015). Examining university curriculum, decision makers and factors affecting it. Management and accounting studies., 2(3), 164-157.
Borah, D., Malik, K., & Massini, S. (2019). Are engineering graduates ready for R&D jobs in emerging countries? Teaching-focused industry-academia collaboration strategies. Research Policy, 48(9), 103837.
Chowdhury, H., Alam, F., & Mustary, I. (2019). Development of an innovative technique for teaching and learning of laboratory experiments for engineering courses. Energy Procedia, 160, 806-811.
Conrad, C. F., & Pratt, A. M. (1983). Making decisions about the curriculum: From metaphor to model. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 16-30.
Eydiani, M. (2020). Simultaneous teaching of theoretical course and scientific laboratory in electrical engineering 9th National Electricity Conference,
Fallah, M., & Halimi, a. (2018). Study of the stages and components of the curriculum in the implementation. A scientific quarterly specialized in psychology, social sciences and educational sciences, 2(3), 32-19.
Fathi Vajargah, N. M., Gholamreza Yadegarzadeh. (2014). Curriculum Development in Higher Education (Vol. 1). Mehraban.
Fry, H., & Ketteridge, S. (2009). and Stephanie Marshall. A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 8.
Ghalamkari, M., NOURIAN, M., Masoudi, N. E., & NOROOZI, D. (2020). Validation of the Components of Doctoral Students' Expectation from Higher Education.
Gooneratne, I., Munasinghe, S., Siriwardena, C., Olupeliyawa, A., & Karunathilake, I. (2008). Assessment of psychometric properties of a modified PHEEM questionnaire.
Hosni, S., Aligramipour, M., & Hosseinnejad, G. (2017). A phenomenological reflection on the components of curriculum leadership in primary schools. the view of principals. School Management, 6(1), 283-305.
Johnson, S., & Ramadas, G. (2020). Disruptions in the process of engineering education-a curriculum design perspective. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 277-282.
Karimi, M., Jafarinia, G., & Amani, M. (2015). Evaluating the relationship between faculties' flexibility and students' active learning. . Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 16(64), 39-57 https://doi.org/10.22047/ijee.2015.7952
Keshavarzi, D. M., Hossein Yarmohammadian, M., & Nadi, A. (2017). Curriculum Content Based on Future Studies Development in Iran's Higher Education: a Qualitative Research. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 8(16), 119-138.
Khabiri, M. M. (2020). INVESTIGATING THE FUTURE OF JOB PERSPECTIVES AND ITS ROLE IN THE EDUCATION OF SKILLS-LABS IN ENGINEERING SCHOOL (CIVIL ENGINEERING PAVEMENT LAB). Majallah-i Amuzih-i Muhandisi-i Iran, 21(84), 69-64.
Lensing, K., & Friedhoff, J. (2018). Designing a curriculum for the Internet-of-Things-Laboratory to foster creativity and a maker mindset within varying target groups. Procedia Manufacturing, 23, 231-236.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2016). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage publications.
Ogar, O. E., & Opoh, F. A. (2015). Teachers Perceived Problems of Curriculum Implementation in Tertiary Institutions in Cross River State of Nigeria. Journal of Education and practice, 6(19), 145-151.
Olsen, S. I., Fantke, P., Laurent, A., Birkved, M., Bey, N., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2018). Sustainability and LCA in engineering education–a course curriculum. Procedia Cirp, 69, 627-632.
Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. Aera Open, 6(2), 2332858420932828.
Rau, G. (2021). Development of component analysis to support a research-based curriculum for writing engineering research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 46-57.
Sadeghi Mandi, F. (2017). Internal evaluation and quality of improvement of the curriculum in engineering departments. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 18(72), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.22047/ijee.2016.40467
Tilley, E., Peters, J., & Mitchell, J. (2014). Teaching self-awareness, diversity and reflection to support an integrated engineering curriculum augmented with problem and scenario-based learning. http://www. sefi. be/? page_id= 5176,
Van den Beemt, A., Groothuijsen, S., Ozkan, L., & Hendrix, W. (2023). Remote labs in higher engineering education: engaging students with active learning pedagogy. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(2), 320-340.
Yob, I. M., Danver, S. L., Kristensen, S., Schulz, W., Simmons, K., Brashen, H. M., Sidler Krysiak, R., Kiltz, L., Gatlin, L., & Wesson, S. (2016). Curriculum alignment with a mission of social change in higher education. Innovative higher education, 41, 203-219.
Zafaripour, T., Arefi, M., Fathi Vajargah, K., & Mohammadi, R. (2021). Analysis of the curriculum review process in the Iranian higher education system. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 11(33), 140-183. https://doi.org/10.22034/emes.2021.24758