ارائه چارچوب ادراکی برای تبیین اثرات و پیامدهای سیاست‌گذاری برنامه درسی در نظام آموزش‌وپرورش ایران

محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش در برنامه ریزی درسی

ملیحه اصغری ¹ ( دانشجوی دکتری برنامه درسی دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. )
کورش فتحی واجارگاه ² ( استاد دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. )
محبوبه عارفی ³ ( دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. )
اباصلت خراسانی ⁴ ( دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. )

تاریخ دریافت : 1401/03/04 تاریخ پذیرش : 1401/06/30 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/06/01

کلید واژه: نظام آموزش‌وپرورش, ایران, برنامه درسی, الگوی سیاست‌گذاری,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش با هدف بررسی اثرات و پیامدهای سیاست‌گذاری برنامه درسی در نظام آموزش‌وپرورش ایران به‌منظور ارائه مدل انجام شده است. روش پژوهش روش آمیخته یا ترکیبی بود، بدین صورت که در بخش اول با تحلیل داده‌بنیاداز نوع اشتراوس و کوربین،ابعاد ، سطوح ، فرایند ، مشارکت کنندگان و مولفه‌های موثرسیاست‌گذاری برنامه درسی در نظام آموزش‌وپرورش ایران شناسایی و در بخش دوم با روش توصیفی از نوع پیمایشی به اعتبارسنجی آن‌ها پرداخته شد. جامعه آماری در بخش اول، نخبگان صاحب‌نظر ودارای تجربه در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری برنامه درسی بودند که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری نظری به آن‌ها مراجعه شد.در بخش دوم جامعه آماری شامل متخصصان برنامه درسی در حوزه سیاست‌گذاری بودند. در بخش کیفی تعداد مصاحبه‌شوندگان 11 نفر بود ودر بخش کمّی بااستفاده از جدول مورگان تعداد 148 نفر نمونه برآورد شد. ابزار پژوهش در بخش اول، مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته و در بخش دوم، پرسش‌نامه محقق‌ساخته مبتنی بر ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های استخراجی از دیدگاه صاحب‌نظران گوناگون است که روایی صوری و محتوایی آن پس از مطالعه توسط متخصصان دانشگاهی تأیید شده است. پایایی پرسش‌نامه نیز با ضریب آلفای کرونباخ 0.96بود.در تحلیل کیفی یافته‌هااز پارادایم تفسیرگرایی و نرم افزار 2018 Maxqda استفاده شد. در تحلیل کمّی داده‌ها از روش تحلیل مسیر با نرم‌افزارSmartPLS3 استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد اثرات و پیامدهای سیاست‌گذاری برنامه درسی در نظام آموزش‌وپرورش ایران عبارت‌از شرایط علی(عدم تعامل قدرتهای مسلط و دانش آکادمیک ،عدم شفافیت در فلسفه غالب موثر)، شرایط زمینه‌ای(مقاومت جامعه مخاطبین در مقابل سیاست‌های تجویزی، فرصت واقع بینی نسبت به نتایج عملیاتی سیاست)،شرایط میانجی(نگرش سهمیه ای به سیاست گذاری، فاصله بین سیاستگذار و سیاست پذیر) ، پدیده محوری(سیاستهای محتوا، سیاست های یاددهی و یادگیری،ارزشیابی سیاست‌هاو سیاست اهداف)،راهبردها(بسترسازی برای نظام چند تالیفی، اعمال چرخه پویا ، ایجاد فضای مشترک تصمیم سازی) و پیامدها(حساسیت سیاست ها نسبت به تحولات، استقرار چرخه فعال سیاست گذاری،اجرای عدم تمرکز تا سطح مدارس) بوده لست.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects and consequences of curriculum policy in the Iranian education system in order to provide a model. The research method was a combined method. Inthe first section, with the analysis of Strauss and Corbin type of grounded theory, the dimensions, levels, process, participants and effective components of the policy making program in Iran education system were identified and in the second section, they were validated through a descriptive survey method. The statistical population in the first section was the elites with experience in the curriculum policy who were referred using the snowball sampling method. In the second part, the sample included curriculum and policy specialists. In the qualitative phase, the number of interviewees was 11, and in the quantitative phase, using the Morgan table, the number of samples was estimated to be 148. The research tool in the first section was a semi-structured interview and in the second secton, a researcher-made questionnaire based on the extracted dimensions and components from the perspective of various experts was used. The validity &Reliability were confirmed by academic experts after the study. The reliability of the questionnaire during the calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.96. In the qualitative analysis of findings, interpretive Paradigm & Maxqda2018 used and in the quantitative analysis of data, path analysis was used with SmartPLS3. Results showed the effects and consequences of curriculum policy in the Iranian education system including :Causal conditions (lack of interaction between dominant powers and academic knowledge, lack of transparency in effective dominant philosophy), background conditions (resistance of the audience community against prescriptive policies, the opportunity to be realistic about the operational results of the policy), mediating conditions (quota attitude towards policy making, the distance between the policy maker and the policy taker), the central phenomenon (content policies, teaching and learning policies, policy evaluation and policy goals), strategies (setting the stage for a multi-authorship system, applying a dynamic cycle, creating a common decision-making space) and consequences (the sensitivity of policies Regarding the developments, the establishment of an active policy-making cycle, the implementation of decentralization up to the school level).

منابع و مأخذ:

Adewumi, B., & Mitton, L. (2022). Diversifying the social policy curriculum: A collaborative approach. Social Policy and Society, 21(1), 54-67.

Alvunger, D. (2022).Exploring VET curriculum making through a review of Swedish research. In NordYrk Conference , 1-3 June (p. 4).

Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy-Making. [By] James E. Anderson. Praeger.‏

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham,McGraw-Hill.Education (UK).

Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006).Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational researcher, 35(5), 3-13.‏

Colwell, R&Schmidt Patrick (2017). Policy and the Political Life of Music Education.PrintSchools Journal, 20(2), 42–53.

Conelly, M. &Gerry,C. (2010). Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies.Volume 1. University of South Lobaliz. USA. SAGE Publications Inc.

Connelly,M. F.,SchwabJ.(2013).Curriculum Studies And Educational Reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 622-639.‏

Connelly,F. M. & Phillion J.(2007).The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 306-326.

Cosmin, A. D. (2013). Designing a Competency-Based curriculum for Psedagogy Subjects at High School Level. Doctoral Thesis Summary. University of CLUJ-NAPOCA.

De Coning, C. (2006). The Nature and Role of Public Policy. Improving Public Policy: from Theory to Practice, 3-26.‏

Dye, T., & Zeigler, H. (2008). The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Cengage Learning.‏

Dye,T. (2002).Understanding Public Policy. NewJersey:Prentic Hall.

Edrick,H.( 2003). A Proposal for a National Curriculum Policy for the Granada Education System (final report). The World Bank.Japanese Funded Secondary Curriculum Reform Project.

 

European Education (1995). National Curriculum, 27:4, 101-104.

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.) (2012). The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Duke University Press.‏

Foster, S. (2001). Pragmatic, Problem-Solving Approaches to Curriculum and Assessment Policy. Journal of Education Policy, 16(1), 53-66.

Gerrard, Jessica & Farrell, Lesley (2013). ‘Peopling’ curriculum policy production: researching educational governance through institutional ethnography and Bourdieuian field analysis. Journal of Education Policy. 28:1,1-20.

Gleeson, J. (2022). Curriculum in Context: Evolution of Irish Curriculum Policy and Practice. In Education Policy in Ireland Since 1922 (pp. 43-85). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Grange, L. (2011). Challenges for Curriculum in a Contemporary South Africa. Curriculum Inquiry in South African Higher Education: Some Scholarly Affirmations and Challenges. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA. 79-91.

GRINDLE, M. (2007). Reform despite the odds: Improving quality in education. Revista Pensamiento Educativo, 131.‏

Haddad, Wadi D.& Demskey Terri (1995). Education policy – planning prossess : an applied framework. Paris: Unesco international institute for educational planning

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford university press.

Hsiao ,Min-Chuan Sung & Chen ,Lan Sharon. (2013). Challenges of the High School Curriculum Reform: Reflections from the Experimental.Curriculum Experience of the Eight-Year. Bulletin of Educational Research, 59(4), 47-79.‏

Jammeh, B. L. (2012). Curriculum Policy Making: A Study of Teachers' and Policy-makers' Perspectives on The Gambian Basic Education Programme (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).

Jang, S. B. (2022). Creating entrepreneurs: National curriculum change in South Korea. Curriculum Inquiry, 52(1), 51-74.

Kingdon, J. W., &Stano, E. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45, pp. 165-169). Boston: Little, Brown.‏

Khansari, F., Asghari, F., Hejri, S. M., Bathaie, F., & Larijani, B. (2022). Challenges of the Medical Ethics PhD curriculum in Iran: A qualitative study. Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine, 13(3), 498.

Konkol, P. & Wu, J. (2015). Curriculum and the policy milieu. In M. HeB. Schultz & W. Schubert The sage guide to curriculum in education (pp. 319-325). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Kruizinga, A. & Nathanson, R. R.( 2010). An evaluation of guided reading in three primary schools in the Western Cape. Per Linguam : a Journal of Language Learning, 26(2): 67-76.

Laffont, J. J., &Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. MIT press.‏

Lee, J. C. (2009). The Landscape of Curriculum Studies in Hong KongFrom 1980-2008: A Review.

Lee, John Chi-Kin& Yin, Hong-biao,(2010). Curriculum Policy Implementation in China: Interactions between Policy Designs, Place and People ,Curriculum and Teaching, Volume 25, Number 2, pp. 31-53(23).

Lilliedahl, Jonathan (2015). The recontextualisation of knowledge: towards a social realist approach to curriculum and didactics, Nordic Journal of Studies in EducationalPolicy. 2015:1.

Lindblom, C.E. (1959). ‘The science of muddling through’. Public Administration Review 19/2: 79–88.Literature’, Political Studies 44: 343–357.

Malen, B., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1990). The politics of curriculum and testing: Introduction and overview.,Journal of Education Policy,5:5,1-9

Morris, P. & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling and society in Hong Kong (Vol. 1). Hong Kong University Press.

Muhammad, Y. (2016). Pakistani national identity, cultural diversity, and global perspectives: a policy trajectory study of the national curriculum for secondary school Pakistan studies in Punjab (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania)

Mukherjee, M. (2012). US Study Abroad from the Periphery to the Center of the Global Curriculum in the Information Age. Policy Futures in Education, 10(1), 81.

Ornstein, A. C. (1987) Theory and practice of curriculum.Kappa Delta Pi Record, 24(1),15– 17.

Peretz,Ben, M, & Kupferberg, I. (2007). Does teachers’ negotiation of personal cases in an interactive cyber forum contribute to their professional learning?. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(2), 125-143.‏

Peretz ,Ben, M. (1990). Teacher-Curriculum Encounter, The: Freeing Teachers from the Tyranny of Texts. Suny Press.‏

Peretz,Ben, M., Mendelson, N., & Kron, F. W. (2003). How teachers in different educational contexts view their roles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 277-290.‏

Phillips ,Jeanette Clarkin (2012).Connecting Curriculum and Policy to Assist Families' Aspirations. Special Section: EarlyChildhood.

Priestley , M. (2002).Global Discourses and National Reconstruction: The Impact of Globalization on Curriculum Policy. The Curriculum Journal, 13:1, 121-138.

Priestley, M. &WalterHumes (2013). Reinventing the Curriculum. Chapter Title: The Origins and Development of Curriculum for Excellence: Discourse, Politics and Control.

Reis, S. (2018).CurriculumReform.Israel Journal of Health Policy Research.7:30

 Stokes, D. (1986). Political and Organizational Analysis in the Policy Curriculum. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,6(1), 45-55.

Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum Approaches in Language Teaching: Forward, Central, and Backward Design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.

Rizvi,F.&Lingard,B. (2009). Globaliizing Education Policy. London: Rouledge.

Roco, M. C., Bainbridge, W. S. (2002).Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science, Arlington, Virginia.

Sabatier, P. A., &Weible, C. M. (2007).TheAdvocacy Coalition Framework. Theories of the Policy Process. 2, 189-220.‏

 Sabatier, Paul, MazmanianDaniel (1980).The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of Analysis*, Volume8. Issue4. January.Pages 538-560.

Scheurich, J. J. (2000). An Archaeology of ‘Plain Talk’. Qualitative Inquiry. 6(3). 337–3148.

Scott,D. (2008). Curriculum Essays on Major Curriculum Theorists. London: Routledge. Shaping Education PolicyPower and Process. EditedByDouglas E. Mitchell, Dorothy Shipps,Robert L. Crowson.

Sewell,K.  (2018).Planningthe Primary National Curriculum:AComplete Guide for Trainees and Teacherssecond Edition (Revised and Updated Edition). Education ConsultantJanuary. 304 pages. Learning Matters.

shaverdi , M. & nazemi, A. (2017). Policy Report; A Review on Innovation Policy Making in China. Rahbardi public policy studies,7(24), 233-247.

Sinha ,Soumodip(2022) CURRICULUM AND ITS DISCONTENTS. Delhi University Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics ,Delhi, India.

Snellen, I. (2002). Conciliation of Rationalities: The Essence of Public Administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis. Vol. 24. No. 2, pp. 323-34.

Strauss, A, & Corbin, J. (1998).BasicsOf Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory,Procedures and Techniques(2nd Edition). Newbury Park. London. CA. Sage.

Swanson, C. B., & Barlage, J. (2006). Influence: A Study of the Factors Shaping Education Policy. Editorial Projects in Education.‏

Tanaka, K., Nishioka, K., & Ishii, T. (2016). Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment in Japan: Beyond Lesson Study. Taylor & Francis.

Taylor, F. (1987).The principles of Scientific Management.In Louis Boone & Donald Bowen (Eds); The Great Writings inManagement and Organizational Behavior; New York: Random House, Pp. 32-47.

Teodoro,A.& Estrela, E. (2010).Curriculum Policy in Portugal (1995–2007): Global Agendas and Regional and National Reconfigurations. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 42:5, 621-647.

Thatcher, M. (1998). The Development of Policy Network Analyses: From Modest Origins to Overarching Frameworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 10(4). 389-416.‏

Walt, G., & Gilson, L. (1994). Reforming the Health Sector in Developing Countries: The Central Role of Policy Analysis. Health Policy and Planning. 9(4). 353-370.

Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An Ecology Metaphor for Educational Policy Analysis: A Call to Complexity. Educational Researcher. 37(3). 153-167.‏

Weber, M. (1987). Legitimate Authority and Bureaucracy. in Louis Boone & Donald Bowen (Eds); The Great Writings in Management and Organizational Behavior. New York: Random House. Pp. 5-18.

Winter, G. (2000). A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of Validity in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Qualitative Report. 4(3). 1-14.