آسیب‌شناسی روش‌های تدریس در فرایند یاددهی و یادگیری از دیدگاه دبیران و دانش‌آموزان دبیرستان‌های شهر اصفهان
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی
افسانه عبدلی
1
(دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد ایران)
ابراهیم میرشاه جعفری
2
(دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی)
محمدجواد لیاقتدار
3
(دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی)
فاطمه زین الدینی
4
(مربی، واحد نهبندان، دانشگاه پیام نور)
کلید واژه: آسیب‌شناسی, روش تدریس, فرایند یاددهی و یادگیری,
چکیده مقاله :
آهدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی آسیب‌های روش‌های تدریس در مقطع متوسطه شهر اصفهان بود؛ بنابراین از روش پژوهش توصیفی ـ پیمایشی برای شناسایی این آسیب‌ها استفاده گردید. جامعه مورد مطالعه، شامل کلیه دبیران و دانش‌آموزان مقطع متوسطه شهرستان اصفهان که به ترتیب تعداد آنها 8097 و 140250 نفر که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای و تصادفی طبقه‌ای و با در نظر گرفتن میزان افت آزمودنی، نمونه آماری برای دو گروه به ترتیب 110 و 240 نفر برآورد گردید. سپس با جدا کردن پرسشنامه‌های مخدوش، تعداد 95 نفر دبیر و 206 نفر دانش‌آموز به‌عنوان نمونه آماری انتخاب گردید. ابزار جمع‌آوری اطلاعات پرسشنامه محقق ساخته شامل 20 سؤال بسته پاسخ در طیف لیکرت و 1 سؤال باز پاسخ بود. ضریب پایایی پرسشنامه مربوط به دبیران و دانش‌آموزان با استفاده از آلفای کرونباخ به ترتیب 99/0 و 98/0 به دست آمد، همچنین برای سنجش روایی سؤالات پرسشنامه، از روش وابسته به محتوا استفاده شد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها، از شاخص‌های آمار توصیفی و آمار استنباطی استفاده شد. یافته‌های حاصل از پژوهش نشان داد که میزان آسیب‌های روش‌های تدریس از نظر دبیران و دانش‌آموزان بیش از سطح متوسط است. از نظر دبیران بیشترین میانگین موارد آسیب‌زا اهمیت ندادن معلم به مهارت‌های عملی تدریس و پایین بودن سطح علمی و حرفه‌ای معلمان هستند دانش‌آموزان نیز بیشترین میانگین آسیب‌ها را مربوط به انتظارات بیش از حد معلمان از دانش‌آموزان، بی‌توجهی به پاسخ‌های خودانگیخته دانش‌آموزان و عدم توجه به علایق دانش‌آموزان می‌دانند. همچنین دیگر یافته‌ها نشان داد که بین دیدگاه دبیران و دانش‌آموزان در خصوص آسیب‌ها تفاوت معنادار وجود دارد. بین دیدگاه دبیران بر اساس جنسیت و سابقه تحصیلی نیز تفاوت معنادار بود؛ اما بر اساس مدرک تحصیلی تفاوت معناداری مشاهده نشد. همچنین، بین دیدگاه دانش‌آموزان بر اساس رشته تحصیلی و ناحیه تحصیلی تفاوت معنادار بود؛ اما بر اساس جنسیت و پایه تحصیلی تفاوتی مشاهده نشد.
The purpose of this study was identifying pathologies in teaching methods in Isfahan high school. Hence, descriptive- survey method was used. The statistical population of this research included teachers and students of Isfahan high schools, who had been educating in academic year 85-86 whose number were as 8097 teachers and 140250 students. By means of cluster sampling and stratified random sampling as well as evaluating the falling measure of the test; sample size was estimated as two groups of 110 and 240. Then, by eliminating problematic questionnaires, 95 teachers and 206 students were selected as the statistical sample. The research tool was a researcher-made questionnaire which included 20 closed questions in Likert range and an open question. Reliability coefficients of the teachers' and students' questionnaires were measured as 0/99 and 0/98, using Alpha Corn Bach, respectively. Also to measure the questionnaires' validity, content-dependent method was used. In order to analyze data, descriptive statistics and inferential ones were utilized. The findings showed that measure of pathology teaching methods from the view points of the teachers and the students was more than the average level. From the teachers' view points, the most destructive factors were as "lack of teachers' care to teaching practical skills" and "teachers' professional and scientific low level". Most of damages from the prospective of the students, also, were related to "the teachers' high expectation of students", "disregarding the spontaneous responses of students", and "lack of attention to the interests of the students". Further results also showed that there were significant difference between the teachers' and the students' attitude toward existing issues. Based on their gender and educational background, the teachers expressed different idea, too, but no significant difference was observed based on the teachers' degree. Also, there was a significant difference between students' opinion based on their majors and the area of their education, but no significant differences was found based on their gender and grade.
Adib Nia, A., Mohajer, y., & Sheykh Pour, S. (2013). Comparison the effect of problem-solving and discovery teaching methods on the social problem-solving skills of female students. Research in Curriculum Planning, 10(9) (continus 36). [Persian].
Barzegar, R., & Ali Abadi, Kh. (2013). “The impact of the designing model of Ganiyeh and Brigz on learning and incentive of educational improvement in planning the tenth lesson. No.11, pp 24-36. [Persian].
Bob Moon, B., Mayes, A. Sh., & Hutchinson.S. (2002). Teaching, learning and the curriculum in secondary schools. Routledge publisher. ISBN 0415260663, 9780415260664.
Cuvence, H., & Kamil, U. A. (2007). The effects of cooperative learning and concept mapping on learning strategy use. Mrt University, faculty of education, department of educational science, 117-127.
Eslamyan, H. S., Rezvani, M., & won, Y. (2013). compared the effectiveness of teaching methods, group discussion and lecture on students' learning and satisfaction from teaching, of course religion and life. Curriculum Research, 1&2(11). [Persian].
Fathi Azar, E. (2003). Teaching methods and technologies. First publication, Tabriz University. [Persian].
Huitt, w. (2003). A transactional model of the teaching – learning process. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/tchlrnmd.html.
Joldersma, W.C. (2006). Not only whator how, but who? Subjectivity, obligation, and the call to teach. Journal of education & Christian bel, 10 (1)
Kakoo Jouybari, A. (2003). Document of adjusting educational system of Iran. First publication, Tehran: Educational faculty.
Karimi Monaghi, H., Rad, M., & Bakhshi, M. (2013). Are new methods of teaching has necessary effectiveness in medical education in Iran? Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Education Development Center, 10(2). [Persian].
Mayer, H. R. (2006). Learning to teach young people how to think historically: A case study of one student teachers experience. heldref publications, Social Studies, 97 (2)
Milk Alipour, A., Asadi, M., Shakouri, Z., & Behrang, MR. (2012). it's all the fuss about patterns of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol IX, Volume II, No. 7 (34). [Persian].
Mohagheghian, SH., Ahmadi, G. & happy, Z. (2012). Understanding and application of new patterns of teaching in the Faculty of Humanities. The Curriculum Journal, IX(II). [Persian].
Preston, D. F., & Pobertm, V. (2003). Methods of teaching, Aplaying cognitive science to promote student learning. Pub: McGraw-HillousA College DDC: 370.15 f292M, ISBN: 007282946X.
Rastgou, A. (2004). Investigating the level of employing teaching methods based on nurturing problem solution skills in science lesson of the fourth class of elementary schools of Tehran in 2004-2005. MA thesis, Education major, Tarbiat Moalem University, Psychology and education faculty of the fundamental groups of education.
Roa, v.k. (2003). Quality Education. pub: APHpublishing, India. DDC: 371.358R215Q.
Sattari, S. (2012). Evaluation of components of effective teaching, student perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol I, Volume II, Issue 12 (39) [Persian].
Shapiro, N. H. (2006). Promotion and Tenure and the Scholarship of Teaching – Learning. New Rochelle, Heldref Publications, Vol. 38, Iss. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, http://www.heldref.org.
Shirali Pour, A., Asadi, M., Shakouri, Z., & Behrangi, M.R. (2012). What is all this fuss about teaching models? Research in curriculum planning, 9 (7) (continus 34) [Persian].
Whiteboard, D. (2005). Learning and teaching psychology in learning environment. translated by M. Talkhabi, M. Khodayari, First publication, Ayeezh publications.
