طراحی الگوی پویایی مدارس ابتدایی

محورهای موضوعی : آموزش و پرورش

طوبی رضائیان ¹ (دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، واحد تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.)
حسینعلی جاهد ² (استادیار، گروه مدیریت آموزشی، واحد تهران غرب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.)
محمد نوریان ³ (دانشیار، گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، واحد تهران جنوب، آزاد اسلامی، تران، ایران.)
نیره شاه محمدی ⁴ (دانشیار و عضو هیات علمی سازمان پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، وزارت آموزش و پرورش، تهران، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/10/18 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/03/21 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/06/01

کلید واژه: ", پویایی", مدرسه پویا", مدرسه ابتدایی",

چکیده مقاله :

مقدمه و هدف:: پویایی مدارس ابتدایی ابزاری مهم برای بالا بردن سطح توانمندی و ارتقای آموزشی از اهمیت به سزایی برخورداراست. بنابراین آموزش‌وپرورش باید نقش سازشی موجود را به نقش زایشی تغییر داده و برای هریک از دانش‌آموزان شرایط و موقعیت­های پویا فراهم کند و محیط آموزشی را به نحوی مطلوب کنترل کرده تا به سهولت دسترسی به اطلاعات تازه، تسریع در کارها، تغییرات و بهبود مستمر داشته و درنهایت به برآورده شدن انتظارات جدید دانش­آموزان بینجامد. این پژوهش باهدف طراحی الگوی مدرسه پویا، با استفاده از پژوهش آمیخته از نوع اکتشافی متوالی انجام‌شده است. روش شناسی پژوهش: پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش گردآوری داده ها، توصیفی- پیمایشی مبتنی بر رویکرد ترکیبی از نوع اکتشافی متوالی (مدل توسعه تاکسونومی یا طبقه‌بندی) است. در مرحله اول از روش کیفی مبتنی بر داده ها (داده بنیاد) و تکنیک مصاحبه برای ساخت مدل استفاده شده است. منابع گردآوری داده ها در این بخش شامل مصاحبه نیمه­ساختار یافته تاحد اشباع نظری (با 15 نفر) بوده که به داده های متنی تبدیل شده و پس از آن کدگذاری متن با استفاده از این داده­ها صورت گرفت و به شناسایی مؤلفه­های مدرسه پویا در مدارس ابتدایی و ارائة الگو پرداخته شد. نتایج بخش کیفی، بر اساس ابزار اندازه گیری طبق مؤلفه­های شناسایی شده در قالب پرسشنامه  52 سؤالی طراحی گردیده و روایی صوری و محتوایی آن با استفاده از نظر متخصصان تأیید گردید و در نهایت به ضریب پایایی 96% رسید. برای برآورد اعتبار الگوی ارائه شده از مدل­یابی معادلات ساختاری استفاده شد. جامعه­ی آماری در بخش کمی اساتید مدیریت آموزشی دانشگاه فرهنگیان و مدیران و معلمان فعال در آموزش ابتدایی و مدارس ابتدایی که مجری طرح مدرسه پویا در مدارس شهر تهران به تعداد 600 نفر بودند که با استفاده از روش نمونه­گیری تصادفی طبقه­ای بر اساس جدول کرجسی و مورگان 230 نفر تعیین شدند و  برای تحلیل داده های کمی از نرم افزار Amos  استفاده شد. در بخش کیفی تعداد 15 نفر از صاحب‌نظران و مطلعین در دو حوزه پویایی مدرسه و مدارس ابتدایی به صورت هدفمند و با استفاده از روش گلوله برفی انتخاب شدند و  برای تحلیل داده های کیفی از نرم افزار Atlas.Ti استفاده شد. یافته‌ها: نتایج  حاصل از تحلیل داده های بخش کیفی و کمی نشان داد که الگوی مدرسه پویا دارای 6 مقوله (عامل) اصلی است.  عامل انسانی شامل (16 مقوله فرعی یا مولفه) عامل ساختاری شامل(7 مولفه) عامل فرآیندی شامل ( 5 مولفه) عامل محیطی شامل( 9 مولفه)  عامل فرهنگی شامل (5 مولفه) و عامل پویایی مدرسه  شامل (10 مولفه) می باشند. بحث و نتیجه­ گیری: : مدرسه پویا بر حسب ویژگی های تشکیل دهنده، دانش‌آموز محور، فناوری محور، تغییر محور، سازگار، پاسخگو، نوآور، انعطاف‌پذیر، چابک، رقابتی، پیچیده، بهبود مستمر و پژوهش محور است. این ویژگی­ها در نتیجه ارتباط متقابل عوامل و مولفه های پویایی در مدرسه شکل می گیرند و وجود این ویژگی­ها موید ارتباط موثر ابعاد و مولفه و شکل گرفتن مدرسه پویا می باشند.    

چکیده انگلیسی:

Introduction: The dynamism of primary schools is fundamental as an essential tool for raising the level of empowerment and educational promotion. Therefore, education should change the existing adaptive role to a reproductive role, provide dynamic conditions for each student. This research has been done to design a dynamic school model using consecutive exploratory research. research methodology: The present study is a descriptive-survey based on a combined approach of consecutive exploratory type (taxonomic development model or classification) in terms of applied purpose and data collection method. In the first stage, a data-based qualitative method (data foundation) and an interview technique were used to construct the model. Sources of data collection in this section included semi-structured interviews with theoretical saturation (with 15 people) which were converted into textual data and then the text was coded using this data and to identify components Dynamic school was introduced in elementary schools and provided a model. The results of the qualitative section were designed based on the measuring instruments according to the identified components in the form of a 52-item questionnaire and its face and content validity was confirmed by experts and finally reached a reliability coefficient of 96%. Structural equation modeling was used to estimate the validity of the proposed model. The statistical population in the quantitative part of the professors of educational management of Farhangian University and the principals and teachers active in primary education and primary schools who implemented the dynamic school project in Tehran schools was 600 people who used stratified random sampling method. Based on Krejcie and Morgan table, 230 people were determined and Amos software was used for quantitative data analysis. In the qualitative section, 15 experts and informants in the two areas of school dynamics and primary schools were purposefully selected using the snowball method and Atlas.Ti software was used to analyze the qualitative data. Findings: The results of qualitative and quantitative data analysis showed that the dynamic school model has 6 main categories (factors). Human factor includes (16 sub-categories or components) Structural factor includes (7 components) Process factor includes (5 components) Environmental factor includes (9 components) Cultural factor includes (5 components) and School dynamics factor includes (10 components) Conclusion: Dynamic school is student-centered, technology-oriented, change-oriented, adaptable,responsive, innovative, flexible, agile, competitive, complex, continuous improvement and research-oriented in terms of constituent characteristics. These characteristics are formed as a result of the interaction of dynamic factors and components in the school and the existence of these characteristics confirms the effective relationship between the dimensions and components and the formation of a dynamic school.  

منابع و مأخذ:

Abbasinia, M. (2012). Happy schools for happy students. Qom: Publications of the Holy Quran Society.  (In Persian).

Abdullahzadeh, H. Abbasian, H. & Ali Nejad, M. (2017). Explain the role of school empowerment structure in school effectiveness mediated by teachers' academic optimism. Journal of Educational Studies, 6 (2), 74-51. (In Persian).

Adams, J. W. (2013). A case study: Using lesson study to understand factors that affect teaching creative and critical thinking in the elementary classroom. Drexel University.

Ahadi, R. M., Delavar, A., & Padrvand. (2013). Teaching creativity to students and its effect on increasing the level of fluid components, initiative, flexibility, expansion. Innovation and Creativity in the Humanities, 3 (1), 1-18. (In Persian).

Ansari, A. (2017). Comparison on Mira teaching and dynamic teaching. The first. National conference and new researches of Iran and the world in psychology and educational sciences. Tehran: Law and Social Sciences. (In Persian).

Bush, T. (2017). The enduring power of transformational leadership. In: SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England.

Chang, C.-P., Chuang, H.-W., & Bennington, L. (2011). Organizational climate for innovation and creative teaching in urban and rural schools. Quality & Quantity, 45(4), 935-951.

Creswel, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2014). Mixed method researches, designing and carrying out.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97- 140.

..Dugani Aghchghloo, Maryam, and Zamani Bakhsh, Razieh. (2017). Investigating the effect of dynamic yard on the vitality of students of Navab Safavid Elementary School in Bandar Abbas. Quarterly Journal of Psychological Studies and Educational Sciences. No. 22, 120-107. (In Persian).

Dosti, V. & Vakaviani. (2019). Identification of technological factors affecting the refresher of schools in Sarpol-e Zahab city. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15 (52), 183-201. (In Persian).

Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring T Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104; Web site: http://www. Josseybass. Com.

Esfandiar, M. (2019). Designing a lively school model in the education system. Master Thesis. Faculty of Humanities. Amol Higher Education Institute. (In Persian).

Faraghkash, R. (2016). Dynamic school design with the approach of increasing the creativity of elementary students. Senior Thesis. Faculty of Art and Architecture. Roozbehan Institute of Higher Education. (In Persian).

Gamoran, A., & Fernandez, C. M. (2018). Do charter schools strengthen education in high-poverty urban districts?

Golchub, Kh. (2019). Designing, evaluating and presenting a dynamic school model for Iranian primary schools. Senior Thesis. Faculty of Humanities. Islamic Azad University, Yadgar Imam Branch.

Grau, N. (2016). A dynamic model of elementary school choice. Santiago

Groff, J. (2013). Dynamic systems modeling in educational system design& policy. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 2(2), 72-81.

Heidarifard, R. (2016). Design, test and propose an innovative school model of mixed research. PhD. thsis. Kharazmi University, (In Persian).

Hsiao, C.-T., Peng, H.-L., & Lee, B. C.-Y. (2019). A Dynamic Demand- Supply Model for Elementary School Teachers in Taiwan. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 7, (3)

. Jahed, Hossein Ali (2016). The booklet of the workshop on the need-based teaching plan, the educational deputy of the Representation of the Supreme Leader in universities, has not been published. (In Persian).

JalanUdayana, S. (2017) Creating Dynamic Learning Environment to Enhance Students’ Engagement in Learning Geometry.

Jappinen, A.-K. (2017). Analysis of leadership dynamics in educational settings during times of external and internal change. Educational Research, 59(4), 460-477.

Johara, K. (2018). Dynamic capabilities in times of educational change: the viewpoint of school leadership.

. Karami, M. Pajohanfar, N. (2015). Creative creative elementary school for tomorrow'sgeneration, in order to create creativity in students. First National. Conference on Urban Planning, urben Management and Sustainable Development. (In Persian).

. Klijn, F., Pais, J., & Vorsatz, M. (2019). Static versus dynamic deferred acceptance in school choice: Theory and experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 113, 147-163.

Lightbody, I. D. (2010). Shared leadership in Queensland schools: A collective case study. Queensland University of Technology.

Lourmpas, S., & Dakopoulou, A. (2014). Educational leaders and teachers’ motivation for engagement in innovative programmes. The case of Greece. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3359-3364.

Najafi, M., Maghami, H., & Jafari, N. (2017). Investigating the use of new educational technologieand its relationship with students' academic achievement.Teaching and learning technology, 2(5), 81-106. (In Persian).

Nasiri Darian, N. (2015). Designing an educational space with a bio-based architecture approach (a case study of designing Alborz High School in Tehran). Master Thesis. Faculty of Art and Architecture, Roozbehan Higher Education Institute. (In Persian).

Mashayekhi, A. (2018) System Dynamics. Tehran, first edition. Ariana Ghalam, pp: 1-30. (In Persian).

Mir, S. (2016). Investigating the effect of dynamic evaluation method on learning the concept of cultivar cultivar in the first grade of elementary school. Senior Thesis. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Science, Allameh Tabatabai University. (In Persian).

Mofidi, Farkhondeh (2015). Preschool and elementary education. Tehran: Payam-e- Noor University, pp: 40-50. (In Persian).

. Mohammadpour, Ahmad (2013). Qualitative research method: Anti- method (logic and design in qualitative methodology) Tehran: Sociology. (In Persian).

Mohammadzadeh, Zeinab, and Keyvan, Salehi (1394). Pathology of scientific vitality and dynamism in scientific and academic centers. Quarterly Journal of Strategic and Macro Policies, 11 (3), 25-1. (In Persian).

Mohebzadegan, Y., Pardakhtchi, Qahramani, Faraskhah, & Maghsoud2014). Develop a model for the growth of faculty members with an approach based on data theory. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education.4 (70), 25-1. (In Persian).

Mohsenpour, B. (2017). Educational Planning, Tehran: Madrasa Publications, PP: 73- 123. (In Persian).

. Rashid, K., Hussain, M., & Nadeem, A. (2011). Leadership and innovation in a school culture: How can a leader bring about innovation in the school culture? Journal of Elementary Education. 21(1), 67-73. (In Persian).

Ridwan, T., N. I., &, M. S. S. (2019). Islamic Boarding School Learning Organization: Analysis of Learning Dynamic, Organizational Transformation and Application of Technolog International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 8(5c).

Rivers, C., & Kinchin, I. (2019). Dynamic Learning: Designing a Hidden Pedagogy to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills Development. Management Teaching Review, 4(2), 148-156.

Schermerhorn Jr, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2009). Fundamentos de comportamento organizacional: Bookman Editora.

Schoemaker, P. J., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15-42.

Selden, S. C., Sowa, J. E., & Sandfort, J. (2006). The impact of nonprofit collaboration in early child care and education on management and program outcomes. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 412-425.

Seifunraghi, M., Karimpajohanfar, N., Ghobadian, M., Muslim, N., & Ezzatullah, A. (2012). Research community is an effective method in children's social development. Journal of Thought and Child, 4 (2), 37-58.

Shutterstock, M. T., &, U. w. (2019). OECD Future of Education 2030 Making Physical Education Dynamic and Inclusive for 2030 International Curriculu Analysis.

Spilt, J. L., Hughes, J. N., Wu, J. Y., & Kwok, O. M. (2012). Dynamics of teacher–student relationships: Stability and change across elementary school and the influence on children’s academic success. Child development, 83(4), 1180-1195.

Tafti, F. (2019). Designing an open space model for primary schools in Yazd. Senior Thesis. Faculty of Art and Architecture and Yazd University. (In Persian).

Taufik Ridwan, N. I., Moch. Syarif Sumantri. (2019). Islamic Boarding School Learning Organization: Analysis of Learning Dynamic, Organizational Transformation and Application of Technology. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technolog, 8(5C), 2249 8958.

Touw, K. W., Vogelaar, B., Bakker, M., & Resing, W. C. (2019). Using electronic technology in the dynamic testing of young primary school children: predicting school achievement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 443-46.

Tughraei, M T., Mir Ahadi, S. & Hashemi, S. (2019). Designing an entrepreneurial education model in school. Educational Innovations, 18 (3), 59-82. (In Persian).

Turani, H., Aghaei, A., & Manteghi, M. (2013). Global experiences in the field of educational innovations from the perspective of production methods, acceptance and implementation of innovation in public education in Iran. Journal of Educational Innovation, 11 (43), 41-7. (In Persian).

Vanlaar, G., Kyriakides, L., Panayiotou, A., Vandecandelaere, M., McMahon, L., DeFraine, B., & Van Damme, J. (2016). Do the teacher and school factors of the dynamic model affect high-and low-achieving student groups to the same extent? A cross-country study. Research Papers in Education, 31(2), 183-211.

Younesi, Fakhrallah. (2009) Human relations in Shad school. Efficient Schools Quarterly, 2(2), 35-62