نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکترای مطالعات برنامه درسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
2 استاد گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
هدف از این پژوهش بررسی تطبیقی فرایند بازنگری برنامههای درسی در کشورهای مختلف و ایران بود. به این منظور از بین کشورهای مختلف و از قارههای گوناگون، 6 دانشگاه از 5 کشور آمریکا، استرالیا، چین، کانادا و ترکیه به‌منظور مقایسه با دانشگاه اصفهان ایران با روش نمونهگیری هدفمند انتخاب گردید. روش پژوهش، روش چهار مرحلهای جرج بردی است که فرایند مقایسه در قالب چهار مرحله توصیف، تفسیر، هم‌جواری و مقایسه انجام گرفت. ابزار گردآوری اطلاعات چک‌لیست مربوط به اطلاعات حاصل از منابع دست اول فرایند بازنگری برنامههای درسی دانشگاه‌های گوناگون بود که در سایتهای مربوط به هر دانشگاه در دسترس بود. اطلاعات بعد از جمعآوری و دستهبندی در قالب جداول مختلف، مورد تفسیر و تحلیل قرار گرفت. نتایج نشان داد که فرایند بازنگری در دانشگاه‌های گوناگون دارای تشابهات و تفاوتهایی از لحاظ سطوح بازنگری، فرایند انجام کار و ترکیب اعضا است. نتایج همچنین حکایت از آن داشت که برخی دانشگاه‌ها دارای جنبههای بدیع در بازنگری برنامههای درسی خود بودند. ازجمله این جنبهها میتوان به توجه به آموزش حرفهای و شخصی دانشجویان و توجه به حضور دانشجویان، کارشناسان و متخصصان خارج از دانشگاه و نماینده کتابخانه در کمیته بازنگری اشاره کرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
A comparative study the process of reviewing the universities curricula in Iran and other countries
نویسندگان [English]
- mohammad Rahmanpour 1
- Ahmad-Reza Nasr 2
1 Ph.D Student of Studies curriculum Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]
Purpose of this research was comparative study the process of reviewing the curricula in various countries and Iran. for the purpose, was selected 6 Universities of the 5 America, Australia, Canada, China and Turkey countries for comparison with the University of Isfahan in Iran by targeted sampling method. The study, by George Brady was performed four-stage comparison process into four stages: describe, interpret, neighborhood and comparison. Campus tool of collecting of data, was check list of data sources in relation to primary curriculum review process was different universities at databases was available on each campus. After collecting and Classification information in different tables, interpreted and analyzed. The results showed that the process of reviewing the various universities have similarities and differences in terms of review levels,work process, and members component. also results indicate that the some of universities had novel aspects in reviewing the academic curricula. These aspects were: attention to personal and professional education of students, and presence of students, experts and specialists outside of the university, and the representative of the library in the review board.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Reviewing
- comparative study
- Curriculum
- University
- Process
Aghazadeh, M. (2011). Comparativ Education, Tehran: SAMT Piblication [Persian].
Alade, I.A. (2006). Evaluation of technical education curriculum in colleges of education in Southwestern Nigerian. Ph.D Thesis. Department of TeacherEducation, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Bahador, H,. Soltani.Arabshahi, S. K., Salmanzadeh, H., Biababgardi, Z., Yadavar- Nikravesh, M.,Shakrabi, R. (2005). Review of curricular in Iran University of Medical Sciences, Center for Studies and Development of Education, Tehran: Tohfeh Publication[Persian].
Barnett, R., & Coate, S. (2005). Engaging curriculum in higher education. The Falmer Press.
Barnett, R. & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. The Societyfor Research in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Berger, M. (2012). A Critical Review of an On-going University EnglishCurriculum Reform Projec, Polyglossia, (22): 167-178.
Britton, M., Pharm, D., Nancy, L., & Melissa, S. (2008). A Curriculum Reviewand Mapping Process Supported by an Electronic Database System, American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72 (5): 1- 9.
Burgess, H. (2004). Redesigning the curriculum for social work education: complexity, conformity, chaos, creativity, collaboration? Social WorkEducation, 23(2), 163-183.
Caerw, A. L, & Cooper, P. (2011). Engineering curriculum review: processes, frameworks and tools, Australian Maritime College and CALT, Universityof Tasmania, Locked Bag 1399 Launceston.
Cohen, A. R., Fetters, M., & Fleischmann, F. (2005). Major change at BabsonCollege: Curricular and administrative, planned and otherwise. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 7(3), 324-337.
Dehghani, M., Pakmehr, H., Jafari sani, H. (2011). Managerial of challenges curriculum mplementation in higher education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, (15): 2003-2005.
Dumas, A., & Hanchanc,S. (2010).How does job-training increase firm performance? The case of morocco. International Journal of Manpower, 31(5): 585- 602.
Fathi-Vajargah, K., & Shafiee, N. (2007). Evaluating the quality of university curriculum (Adult education curriculum), Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 1, No.5: 1-26[Persian].
Fathi-Vajargah, K., Musapoor, N., & Yadegarzadeh, Gh. R. (2014). Curriculum Devolopment of Higher Education, Tehran: Mehreban Nashr Publication[Persian].
Hussain, A, Hussain Dogar, A., Azeem, M., & Shakoor, A. (2011). Evaluation of Curriculum Development Process, International Journal of Humanitiesand Social Science, 1(14): 263-271.
Hosseini, M. G., Rahmanpour, M. & Nasr, A. R. (2016). The amount of obsernance the scientific principles in codification the goals of curriculum in graduate studies(Case study: Isfahan niversity). Research in Curriculum Planning, Vol 13. (21): 56-69. [Pearsian].
Hyun, E. (2009). A study of US Academic Deans' involvement in collegestudents' academic success. International Studies in EducationalAdministration. 37(2), 89-110.
Ibiwumi, A. A. (2011). Trends and Issues on Curriculum Review in Nigeria and the Need for Paradigm Shift in Educational Practice, Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2 (5): 325-333.
Karimi, S. Nasr, A. R. & Sharif, M. (2016). University challenges in compling of the suitable content with competencies of lifelong learner. Research in Curriculum Planning, Vol 13. (23): 14-26. [Pearsian].
Kirkgos, Y (2009). The challenge of developing and maintaining curriculum innovation at higher education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, (1): 73-78.
Mansoori Gargar, R. Salehi, A. & Abbasi, E. (2016). Curriculum characteristics of in the era of globalization and internationalizing of curriculum. Research in Curriculum Planning, Vol 13. (23): 1-13. [Pearsian].
Mayer, (2006). Academic program assessment and the academic dean. In ATS folio: master of divinity curriculum revision, pp: 33-40. Pittsburg: association ofEssay.
McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process, theory, pedagogy and action research. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. (1999).Regulationsauthoritytothe universitycurriculum,No. 1089[Persian].
Nasr, A. R., Eetemadizadeh, H., & Nili, M. R. (2011). Theoretical and practical approaches in higher education lesson plans Inserts, Tehran:SAMT Publication[Persian].
Nasr, A. R., Solomondis, E., & Cameron, A. (2012). How to develop new courses and obstacles that universities in Australia, Journal of Curriculum Studies In Higher Education, No. 6: 7-28[Persian].
Nili, M. R., Nasr, A. R., Sharif, A. R., & Mehrmohammadi, N. (2010). Study of Obligations and social consequences responsive curriculum in higher education, Journal of Practical Sociology, Vol 2. No. 21: 57-76[Persian].
Oliver, S, L., & Hyun, E. (2013). Comprehensive curriculum reform in higher education: collaborative engagement of faculty and administrators, Journalof Case Studies in Education: 1- 20.
Parsa, A., Keshawazi, F., & MehrAlizadeh, Y. (2012). qualitative and quantitative process of reviewing of Shahid Chamran University curricula in forthen development programe. First National Conference of Education in Iran. Ahwaz: 2012.
Stevenson, T. L., Lori B. Hornsby, L. B., Phillippe, H. M., Kelley, K., &McDonough. S. (2011). A Quality Improvement Course Review ofAdvanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences, American Journal ofPharmaceutical Education, 75 (6): 1-9.
Vonovskis, M. A. (2007). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform, Academic Educational Research Journal, 33(1): 53-85.
Walkington, J. (2002). A process for curriculum change in engineering, Eur. J.Eng Educ, 27(2): 133-148.
Walker, D. (2003). Fundamental of curriculum: passion and professionalism. New Jersey. London Publishers.
Wolf, P. & Hughes, J. C. (Series Eds.) (2007). Curriculum development inhigher education: Faculty-driven processes and practices. New directions for higher education: Vol. 112, (Winter Issue). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zaki, S., & Zaki Rashidi, M. (2013). Parameters of quality in higher education:A theoretical framework, International J. Soc. Sci. & Education, 3(4): 1098-1105.
