تحلیل برنامه‌های آموزش زیست محیطی برای شناسایی قوت ها و ضعف ها در آموزش عالی

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت ، برنامه ریزی و آموزش محیط زیست

سیده زهرا شمسی پاپکیاده ¹ , سید محمد شبیری ²

1 - دانشجوی دکتری آموزش محیط زیست دانشگاه پیام نور*(مسوول مکاتبات)
2 - دانشیار و عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه پیام نور، گروه علمی آموزش محیط زیست، تهران

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/02/30 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/10/26 تاریخ انتشار : 1396/10/01

کلید واژه: آموزش عالی, آموزش محیط زیست, برنامه ریزی درسی, IFE,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: درک مشکلات زیست محیطی و فهم اولیه آن شرط لازم برای اقدامات اساسی در جهت تخریب‌زدایی محیط زیست در اثر توسعه بی‌رویه است. از مهم‌ترین اقدامات آن توسعه و گسترش دانش زیست محیطی از طریق حوزه‌های خدماتی دانش‌گاه‌ها و موسسات آموزش عالی هر جامعه است که از نقشی بی‌بدیل در توسعه یافتگی جوامع برخوردار است. این پژوهش به تحلیل برنامه‌های آموزش زیست‌محیطی در آموزش‌عالی می‌پردازد. روش بررسی: روش پژوهش، توصیفی از نوع پیمایشی است. جامعه آماری اساتید و دانشجویان زیست‌محیطی در دانش‌گاه‌های کشور شامل 40 نفر اساتید و 719 نفر دانشجو می‌باشد. روش نمونه‌گیری به‌طور تصادفی ساده بوده که بنابر جدول کرجیسی و مورگان 250 نفر دانشجو را شامل می‌شد و برای اساتید از شیوه سرشماری استفاده گردید. در این پژوهش از پرسش‌نامه‌ پژوهش‌گر ساخته و برای تعیین روایی از نظرات صاحب‌نظران استفاده شد که براساس فرمول لا‌و‌شه 8/0 و پایایی آن براساس ضریب آلفای‌کرونباخ برابر 806% به‌دست آمد. تحلیل و تفسیر داده‌ها براساس ماتریس IFE می‌باشد. یافته ها: با استناد به نتایج حاصل از 6 قوت و 7 ضعف از میان مولفه‌های مورد پژوهش در استراتژی کنونی نظام آموزش‌عالی، برنامه‌درسی زیست‌محیطی وضعیت نسبتاً متعادل بین قوت‌ها و ضعف‌های پیش‌روی سازمان دارد. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: با استفاده از قوت‌ها به منظور پیشبرد اهداف سازمان پیش می‌رود. اینگونه استراتژی، استراتژی مطلوب می‌باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and objectives: Understand environmental problems and a basic understanding of the requirement for substantial measures for removing environmental damage caused by the excessive development. The most important measures of the development of environmental knowledge through service areas, universities and higher education institutions in any society a unique role in the development of society. In this regard, the present survey studies the analysis of environmental education programs to identify opportunities and threats in Higher Education. Methods: The research method is descriptive of survey type. The statistical population of the faculty members and environmental students in the universities of the country is 40 faculty members and 719 students. The sampling method was simple random sampling. According to Karjesi and Morgan table, 250 students were enrolled and the professors used the census method. In this research, a researcher made questionnaire was used. To determine the validity of the opinions of experts, based on the Lavoshe formula 0.8 and its reliability, based on the alpha coefficient of Cronbach's was obtained 806%. Analysis and interpretation of the data are based on the IFE matrix. Findings: Based on the results of 6 strengths and 7 weaknesses among the components of the current strategy of higher education, environmental planning has a relatively balanced position between the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. Discussionand Conclusion: Using strengths to advance the goals of the organization. Such a strategy is a desirable strategy.  

منابع و مأخذ:

Reference

1. Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M. Woodwell., 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Ecological Society of America.


2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.


3. Heather L. Reynolds, Eduardo S. Brondizio, Jennifer Meta Robinson, Doug Karpa, and Briana L. Gross.,2010. Teaching environmental literacy acroos campus and across the curriculum, Indiana university press


4. Palmer, J., 2014. Environmental education in the 21st century, Khorshid Doost, A. M., Tehran: Publishers Samt, P 48, (In Persian)


5. Shobeiri. S. M, Sarmadi. M. R, Parhizkar. L (2012). Principles of organization of content (sequence, unity and persistence) in formulating concepts and components of environmental education in the school in terms of course content and delivery strategy for the instructors of Tehran, Journal of Educational Administration and Planning in Tehran University, Vol. 5, No. 9, 67-81. (In Persian)


6. Palmer. C., 2006. Teaching Environmental ethics, Brill Leiden Boston.


7. Ghasempoor, A., Liaghatdar, M. J., Jafari, E., An Analysis on localization and Internationalization of Universities Curriculum in the Globalization Era, Journal of Iran Cultural Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, PP 1-24. (In Persian)


8. Indicators of Higher Education Assessment in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, 2004. Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Cultural and Scientific Monitoring and Evaluation Board. (In Persian)


9. Noorossana. R., Saghaei. A., Shadalouie. F., Samimi. Y., 2008. Customer Satisfaction Measurement to Identify Areas for Improvement in Higher Education Research Services, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, 97-119. (In Persian)


10. Dorri. B., Talebnejad. A., 2008. Investigating the Conditions of Strategic Factors of Knowledge Creation in the Universities Affiliated to the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology in Iran, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1-21. (In Persian)


11. Patton, M. Q., 2008. Utilization focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.


12. Consulting Engineers, 2004. Evaluation of Shiraz Detailed Plan, Report Part Three. (In Persian)


13. Soraghi. I., Maleki. H., Abolfathi. D., 2010. The Role of Absorbing Points Ecotourism in Somethings Development of Nahavand’s Tourism with Emphasige on Swot Model, Quarterly Journal of Geographical Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 11, 133-169. (In Persian)


14. Moharamnejad. N., 2013. Environmental Management and Planning, Edit 1, Publishers Dinegar, p 232. (In Persian)


15. http://eetap.org/html/environmental_education.php
    
    
    1. Rovira, M., 2000. Evaluating environmental education programmes: Some issues and problems. Environmental Education Research, 6(2), 143–155.
    
    


16. Dark, M. J., & Holsman, R. H., 2002. Development of an evaluation checklist for communicating about environmental education. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1(3), 183–191.
    
    
    1. O’Neill, E., 2007. Conservation Audits: Auditing Process Lessons Learned, 2003–2007: Conservations Measures Partnership. Available online at http:// conservationmeasures.org/ CMP/Site_Docs/Conservation%20Audits%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2031%20-July%202007.pdf.
    
    
    2. Engels, C. A., & Jacobson, S. K., 2007. Evaluating long-term effects of the golden lion tamarin environmental education program in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 3–14.
    
    
    3. Randler, C., Ilg, A., & Kern, J., 2005. Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 37(1), 43–52.
    
    
    4. Bitgood, S., 1996. Institutional acceptance of evaluation: Review and overview. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 4–5.
    
    
    5. Powell, R. B., Stern, M. J., & Ardoin, N., 2006. A sustainable evaluation framework and its application. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 5(4), 231–241.
    
    
    6. Marcinkowski, T. C., 2004. Using a logic model to review and analyze an environmental education program. North American Association for Environmental Education.
    
    
    7. Beasley, T. L., 1999. OAT: An organizational assessment tool for environmental education organizations. Stevens Point, WI: National Environmental Education Advancement Project.
    
    
    8. Salimi. J., Maleki. H., 2010. Interdisciplinary Curriculum Designing in Higher Education, Scholarly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 2, No. 4, 39-68. (In Persian)
    
    
    9. Ahmadi. P., 2009. Interdisciplinary Curriculum, Scholarly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 3, 97-126. (In Persian)
    
    
    10. Arasteh. H. R., 2009. Interdisciplinary in Higher Education, Scholarly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 2, 25-40. (In Persian)
    
    
    11. Etemadizadeh. H. O., Nasr. A. R., Liaghatdar. M. J., 2009. An Overview on Interdisciplinary Curriculum in Higher Education, Scholarly Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, Vol. 1, No. 3, 19-53. (In Persian)
    
    
    12. Benson, T. C. 1982. Five argument against Interdisciplinary studies, Issues in Integrative Studies, No. 1, PP. 38-48. Available: http://www.units.muohio.edu/aisorg/pubs/1_benson.pdf.
    
    
    13. Lennard, D. J. 2007. Grand unified theory Interdisciplinary, chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 53, No. 40, P. B 9.
    
    
    14. Johnston, J., 2009. Transformative Environmental Education, stepping outside the Curriculum Box. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14 (1): 149-157.
    
    
    15. Shobeiri. S. M., 2013. nvestigating the Factors Affecting the Educational Quality of the Master's Degree in Environmental Education from the Viewpoints of Payame Noor University Students, Report of research project of Payame Noor University, p 48. (In Persian)