دانش ضمنی دبیران زبان انگلیسی دورۀ دوم متوسطه از ارزشیابی کیفی: با تأکید بر روش‌های خودآزمایی و پوشه‌کار
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی
شادی نصرتی
1
(
کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
)
محبوبه خسروی
2
(
دکترای مطالعات برنامه درسی، استادیار، گروه برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
)
مصطفی قادری
3
(
دکترای مطالعات برنامه درسی، دانشیار، گروه برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.، تهران، ایران.
)
کلید واژه: پوشه‌کار, خودآزمایی, دبیران متوسطه شهریار, روش‌های ارزشیابی کیفی, دانش ضمنی,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف این پژوهش، شناسایی دانش ضمنی دبیران زبان انگلیسی دورۀ دوم متوسطه از روش‌های ارزشیابی کیفی (با تأکید بر روش خودآزمایی و روش استفاده از پوشه‌کار) است. روش مورد استفاده در این پژوهش پدیدارنگاری (تفسیری) است. مشارکت‌کنندگان در پژوهش، دبیران زبان انگلیسی دورۀ دوم متوسطه شهرستان شهریار در سال تحصیلی 98-1397 بودند. با روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند (رویکرد انتخاب موارد مطلوب و تا سرحد اشباع)، انتخاب نمونه‌ها تا دریافت اطلاعات جدید ادامه پیدا کرد و 18 نفر (7 نفر مرد و 11 نفر زن) انتخاب شدند. این دبیران مورد مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته قرار گرفتند و اظهارات آنان به روش تحلیل مضمون، تحلیل گردید. روایی و پایایی ابزار با استفاده از قابلیت اعتبار، قابلیت انتقال، قابلیت تأیید و اطمینان‌پذیری تأیید شد. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان داد آنان روش خودآزمایی را به‌عنوان یک روش معتبر برای ارزشیابی قبول ندارند و از روش استفاده از پوشه‌کار نیز به‌طورجدی بهره نمی‌گیرند. این پژوهش نشان داد که دانش ضمنی دبیران زبان انگلیسی دورۀ دوم متوسطه از روش‌های ارزشیابی کیفی، میزان قابل‌توجهی از دانش ضمنی دبیران را شکل نمی‌دهد و اعتماد آنان به ارزشیابی کیفی پایین است. تعداد زیادی از دبیران از ارزشیابی کیفی به‌عنوان مکملی برای ارزشیابی عینی و برای بهبود فرایند آموزش استفاده می‌کنند و ارزشیابی کیفی را روشی جدی برای ارزشیابی نمی‌بینند.
The aim of this study is to analyze the tacit knowledge of high school English language teachers of qualitative evaluation methods (with emphasis on self-examination and portfolio usage) that its method is interpretive phenomenology. The reseach population includes selected high school English language teachers of Shahriyar in the academic year 1397-1398. This study is based on the purposeful sampling of selecting the desirable cases and until saturation eighteen teachers (7 males and 11 females) were selected in which we would continue sampling to reach cases which no new information would be obtained. The teachers were semi-structured interviewed and they were analyzed by content analysis method. The validity and reliability of the instrument were verified using reliability, portability, verifiability and reliability. The results of the study showed that they do not accept the self-examination method as a valid method for evaluation and they do not take seriously the using of the portfolio. This study showed that the tacit knowledge of high school English language teachers in qualitative evaluation methods does not form a significant amount of tacit knowledge of teachers and their confidence in qualitative evaluation is low. Many teachers use quality evaluation as an adjunct to objective evaluation and to improve the learning process, and do not see quality evaluation as a serious method of evaluation.
Alonzo, A. C., & Kim, J. (2015). Declarative and dynamic pedagogical content knowledge as elicited through two video-based interview methods. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 95-115.
Anderews, K. M., & Delahay, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: the psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 8(22), 36-50
Abbaszadeh, M. (2011). Practical methods of research in the humanities. Urmia: Urmia University Press, Third Edition.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology. Journal of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Campbell, D., DeWall, L., Roth, T., & Stevens, S. (1998). Improving student depth of understanding through the use of alternative assessment, research project report. Xavier University.
Coronado, J. (2006). The effect of self assessment on the felf efficacy of students studying Spanish as a foreign language, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh.
Chatterji, M. (2003). Designing and using tools for educational assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fraser, M., Beswick, K., & Crowley, S. (2019). Making tacit knowledge visible: Uncovering the knowledge of science and mathematics teachers. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(6), 102–120.
Hossein Gholizadeh, R. (2013). Tcit knowledge: Partially hidden teachers' professional development. The Fourth Conference of the Iranian Philosophy of Education Association (The Philosophical Foundations of the Iranian Education System). Ferdows University of Mashhad.
Izadian, Fatemeh., Rezvani, Amin., & Ghasemi, Mojtaba. (2017). Investigating the position of Farhangian University in changing the attitude and skills of neo-scientists regarding the qualitativedescriptive evaluation system. Journal of Educational Innovations, 18(2), 143-154.
Krata, J. (2014). Tacit knowledge in stories of expert teachers. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(16), 119-131
Lehtola, T. (2011). Self- assessment: A motivating tool for achieving better language skills, Master’s Thesis, University of Jyväskylä.
Mc Mullan, M., Endacott, R., Gray, M.A., Jassper, M., Miller, C.M.L., & Scholes, J. (2011). Portfolios and assessment of competence: a review of the literature. Journal of Advance Nurse, 7(1), 45-54.
Mousavi, S. M., & Maghami, H. R., (2012). Comparison of the effectiveness of two new and old Methods of academic assessment on attitude to creativity and curriculum of elementary students. Journal of Initiative and Creativity in Human Science, 2(2), 39-52.
Nonaka, I. (1994). Dynamic theory of organizational knowledgecreation. Journal of Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Paulson, F. L., & Paulson, P. P. (1994). School based Assessment in Malaysian school: The concerns of the English Teachers. Journal of us-china Education Review, 8(10), 393-402.
Selden, Paul., & Fletche, Densise. (2019). The tacit knowledge of entrepreneurial design: Interrelatingtheory, practice and prescription in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing Insight, 11, 1-8.
Shim, H. S., & Roth, G.L. (2008). Sharing Tacit Knowledge among Expert Teaching Professors and Mentees: Considerations for career and technical education teacher educators. Journal of IndustrialTeacher Education, 44(4), 5-28.
Shaibanifar, R. (2018). Qualitative-descriptive evaluation analysis in elementary education. 6th Iranian Scientific Conference on Educational and Psychological Sciences, Social and Cultural Injuries.
Shadkam, S. Alinejad, M. Najafi, M., & Doostbin, F. (2018). Types of educational evaluations and the importance of verbal and nonverbal feedback. The 5th National Conference on Positive Psychology.
ShokouhiFard, Hossein., Ahanchian, Reza., Shabani Varki, Bakhtiyar., & Saeedi Rezvani, Mahmood. (2017). The role of knowledge architecture in improving the effectiveness of teachers' performance. Journal of Strategic Management Thought, 12, 13-28.
Tvenge, N. (2018). Development of evaluation tools for learning factories in manufacturing Education.Journal of Science Direct, 23, 33–38.
Viviana, L, & Nino, M. (2016). The Importance of PCK in the Education of Secondary School Physics Teachers: A Case Study on Teaching Electric Fields. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 6(4), 107-112.
Yanping, Peng. (2016). How a pre-service teacher acquires tacit knowledge of teaching from practice: the process of becoming a teacher. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 7(4), 156-161.
Winanti, G., Kosala, R., Supangkat, S.H., & Ranti, B. (2020). A survey of tacit knowledge in community learning based on measurement dimensions. Journal of Studies in Computational Intelligence, 11(2), 179-190.
Zamani, Zahra. (2012). Determining the status of tacit and explicit knowledge of teachers in the middle school of learning theories in the teaching process and the impact of cognitive factors on it. Journal of Educational Innovation, 11(4), 139-162.
_||_