• صفحه اصلی
  • بررسی وضعیت مدارس هوشمند بر اساس استانداردها و مقایسه عملکرد تحصیلی و تفکر انتقادی دانش آموزان آن با مدارس عادی

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : 1154-ICTEDU (R6) بازدید : 329 صفحه: 149 - 173

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

بررسی وضعیت مدارس هوشمند بر اساس استانداردها و مقایسه عملکرد تحصیلی و تفکر انتقادی دانش آموزان آن با مدارس عادی

محورهای موضوعی : فن‎آوری اطلاعات

مریم حیدری 1 , مژده وزیری 2 , فریبا عدلی 3

1 - دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه الزهرا
2 - استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه الزهرا
3 - استادیار گروه مدیریت آموزشی، دانشگاه الزهرا

تاریخ دریافت : 1392/07/28 تاریخ پذیرش : 1393/07/04 تاریخ انتشار : 1392/11/12

کلید واژه: پیشرفت تحصیلی, مدارس هوشمند, تفکر انتقادی, استانداردها, عملکرد مدارس,

چکیده مقاله :

هدف پژوهش حاضر، بررسی وضعیت مدارس هوشمند بر اساس استانداردها و مقایسه عملکرد آن با مدارس عادی می‌باشد. روش پژوهش، پیمایشی است. جامعه آماری، شامل کلیه مدارس متوسطه دخترانه شهر یزد می‌باشد که از بین آنها، دو دبیرستان عادی به روش نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای و دو دبیرستان هوشمند به روش سرشماری انتخاب شدند. ابزار پژوهش شامل چک لیست ارزیابی مدارس هوشمند (مشاهده) برای بررسی وضعیت کنونی مدارس و پرسش‌نامه تفکر انتقادی و معدل سال سوم برای اندازه‌گیری عملکرد دانش‌آموزان می‌باشد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها، از نرم‌افزار SPSS و برای آزمون سؤالات پژوهش، از آمار توصیفی و استنباطی (آزمون t مستقل) استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که وضعیت کنونی مدارس هوشمند از نظر محتوای یاددهی ـ یادگیری، زیرساخت فاوا، معلمان آموزش‌دیده و ارتباط رایانه‌ای با مدارس در سطح پایین و تنها در مؤلفه استفاده مدیران از رایانه ‌در سطح مطلوب قرار دارد. هم‌چنین، بین عملکرد دانش‌آموزان مدارس هوشمند با عادی از نظر تفکر انتقادی، تفاوت معنادار وجود نداشت ولی در زمینه پیشرفت تحصیلی (معدل) تفاوت معنادار بود.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The present study aimed to investigate the status of smart schools based on standards and to compare its performance with that of public schools. The study method was descriptive survey. The statistical population included all girl secondary schools in city of Yazd. Two public high schools were selected via cluster sampling, and two smart schools were selected via census method. Instruments included smart schools evaluation check list (observation) to examine the present status of the schools, critical thinking skills test, and third grade average to measure academic achievements of the students. SPSS software was used for data analysis, and descriptive and inferential statistics (t test) were used to test the research questions. The findings showed that the current status of smart schools was in low level with respect to teaching-learning content, ICT infrastructure, trained teachers and computer communication with the schools. Only with respect to principals' use of computers it was in accepted level. Also, there was not a significant difference between smart school students' performance and that of the public school students in critical thinking but in academic achievement there was significant difference. 

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Abdolvahabi, M., Mehralizade, Y., & Parsa, A. (2011). The feasibility pitch of the smart schools. Educational Innovations, 11(43), 81-112. (in Persian).
    2.
  2. Alizad, M. (2012). Smart Schools Quality in Tehran City. M.Sc. Thesis, Tehran University. (in Persian).
    3.
  3. Altun, T., & Bektas, E. (2010). Views of regional boarding school teachers about the use of ICT in education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 462-467.
    4.
  4. Al-Zaidiyeen, N., Lai Mei, L., & Soon Fook, F. (2010). Teachers attitudes and levels of technology use in classrooms: The case of Jordan schools. International Educational Studies, 3(2), 211-218.
    5.
  5. Anderson, J. (2005). IT, e-learning and teacher development. International Educational Journal, 5(5), 1-14.
    6.
  6. Asli, A., Berrado, A., Sendide, Kh., & Darhmaoui, H. (2012). Effect of the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) resources on the scholastic performance of middle school students in biology and geology courses. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5(5), 1113-1117.
    7.
  7. Ataran, M. (2011). Smart Schools: Curriculum & Communication & Information Technology. Retrieved from www.Daneshnamehicsa.ir. (in Persian).
    8.
  8. Biagi, F., & Lio, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. Europeon Journal of Educational Development, 48(1), 28-42.
    9.
  9. Ebrahim Abadi, H. (2008). Comparison of two web-based training and traditional training of students' mathematics achievement and motivation to learn physics in secondary schools in Tehran. Ph.D. thesis, Allameh Tabatabaei University. (in Persian).
    10.
  10. Emadi, R., Shahabi, S., & Eslampana, M. (2009). Comparison of environmental, administrative, hardware and software smart schools and the board of Hamedan. Research Humanism, 10(26), 166-147. (in Persian).
    11.
  11. Eslami, M. (2003). Provide a model for designing and implementing programs critical reading and its effect on critical thinking write analytical. Ph.D. thesis, Tarbiat Moallem University of Tehran. (in Persian).
    12.
  12. Facion, N. C. (1997). Critical thinking assessment in nursing education programs: An aggregate data analysis. Milbrae. C.A.: California Academic Press. Journal of General Education, 44, 1-25.
    13.
  13. Gafari Hagati, O. (2006). Assessment plan smart schools in tehran high schools. M.Sc. Thesis, Tarbiat Moallem University. (in Persian).
    14.
  14. Hamid, S. (2011). Teacher, belief and use of ICTs in Malaysian smart schools: A case study. Proceedings Oscillate, Hobart Tasmania Australia, 4-7
    15.
  15. Hamzah, M. I., Embi, M. A., & Ismail, A. (2010). ICT and diversity in learners’ attitude on smart school initiative. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 728-737.
    16.
  16. Hamzebeigi, T. (2006). Deployment of learning management systems in the educational process. Tehran: SAMT. (in Persian).
    17.
  17. Hinson, M., Laprairie, N., & Cundiff, M. (2005). Today's smart educators are tailoring professionl development to critical need- and you can, too. Journal Online, Technological Horizons in Education. T.H.E.
    18.
  18. Klaus, J. N. (2011). Schools and technology: The schools responses to today's technological trends. Master of Arts Thesis, The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron.
    19.
  19. Kumar, N., Rose, R., & Silva, J. (2008). Teachers readiness to use technology in the classroom: An empirical study. Europeon Journal of Scientific Research, 21(4), 603-616.
    20.
  20. Li, Y. (2012). Development strategy for requirement of ICT in learning of comprehensive regional higher education institutes: Comparing undergraduates belong to different school. Procedia Environmental Science, 12, 1005-1009.
    21.
  21. Mahmoodi, G., Nalghiger, S., Ebrahimi, B., & Sadeghi, M. (2008). The survey of the development challenges smart schools. Educational Innovations, 7(27), 61-78. (in Persian).
    22.
  22. Mansori, S. (2008). Comparison of smart schoolsnormal and critical thinking skills, student achievement and motivation inhigh school in Tehran. M.S. Thesis, Tabatabaei University. (in Persian).
    23.
  23. Modares Saryazdi, A. (2011). Look at smart schools. Tommorrow School Growth, 7(7), 18-20. (in Persian).
    24.
  24. Modiri, N., Gafari, A., & Hoseinnezhad, M. (2011). Communication and Information Technology Engineer. Tehran: Mehregane Ghalam. (in Persian).
    25.
  25. Moore, J., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education, 14(11), 129-135.
    26.
  26. Nirumand, G., & Bastavari, N. (2011). Place the information new technologies in education. Media Studies, 6(15), 95-110. (in Persian).
    27.
  27. Ong, E. (2006). The Malaysian Smart Schools Project: An Innovation to Address Sustainability. Paper to be presented in the 10th UNESCO-APEID International Conference on Education Learning Together for Tomorrow: Education for Sustainable Development, 6-8 December 2006, Bangkok, Thailand.
    28.
  28. Rahimidust, Gh. (2007). Incorporation instruction technology in schools. Roshd Instruction Technology, 3, 4. (in Persian).
    29.
  29. Samari, E., & Rasolzadeh, B. (2009). The effect of the use of information and communication technology and traditional methods on academic achievement, students' self-regulated learning and motivation PNU. Higher Education Letter, 2(5), 83-85. (in Persian).
    30.
  30. Sarkar, S. (2012). The Role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Higher Education for the 21stCentury. The Science Probe, 1(1), 30-41.
    31.
  31. Smart School Roadmap Implementation Guide. (2009). Ministry of Education in Tehran. (in Persian).
    32.
  32. Sorebo, O., Halvari, H., Gulli, V., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teacher' motivation to continiue to use e-learning technology. Computer & Education, 53(9), 1177-1187.
    33.
  33. Summak, M., Baglibel, & Samancioglu, M. (2010). Technology readiness of primary school teachers: A case study in Turkey. Innovation and Creativity in Education, 2(2), 2671-2675.
    34.
  34. Timosi, D, & Ebi, B. (2006). Multimedia Projects in Study Class. (Translated by Mohammad Ataran). Tehran: Smart Schools Instruction Technology Institution. (in Persian).
    35.
  35. Yazdani, N. (2011). The survey how use of ICT in Smart schools in order to make learning opportunities by school teachers. M.Sc. Thesis, Allameh Tabatabaei University. (in Persian).
    36.
  36. Zamani, B., & Azimi, A. (2010). How making use of information and communication technology (ICT) to perform assignments in elementary school science in England: Book review guide (teacher). Educational Innovations, 7(27), 35-70. (in Persian).
    37.
  37. Zareii Zavaraki, E., Maghami, H., & Soleimani Azandariani, H. (2009). Designing learning centers in e-learning environments. Higher Education Letter, 2(5), 65-82. (in Persian).
    38.

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]