نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه برنامه‌درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

2 استادیار گروه برنامه‌درسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

چکیده

هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر، شناسایی موانع اجرایی ساحت تربیت زیبایی­شناختی و هنری سند تحول بنیادین آموزش‌وپرورش، بر مبنای مدل (Fullan, 2007) است. تمرکز بر ساحت تربیت هنری به‌طور ویژه نیز، بیشتر به این دلیل است که این ساحت، علی­رغم اهمیت فراوان و البته تأثیر شگرفی که می­تواند بر روحیه و به تبع، ارتقای سطح یادگیری فراگیران و حتی مربیان آن­ها داشته باشد، ساحتی فراموش‌شده و مغفول مانده است. طرح پژوهش حاضر از نوع «ترکیبی» (آزمون هم­زمان) است. جامعۀ این پژوهش، شامل دو گروه مستقل متخصصان برنامه­درسی و تعلیم و تربیت (در بخش کیفی) و نیز معلمان دورۀ ابتدایی (در بخش کمی) است. حجم نمونه نیز شامل 12 نفر از متخصصان برنامه­درسی و تعلیم و تربیت و 120 نفر از معلمان دورۀ ابتدایی است. روش نمونه­گیری در بخش اول (کیفی) روش نظری و هدفمند بوده و ابزار آن نیز شامل مصاحبۀ نیمه‌ساختاریافته و ساختارنایافته و در بخش دوم (کمی) نیز «هدفمند و ترجیحی» بوده و ابزار پژوهش نیز شامل یک پرسشنامۀ محقق ساختۀ 30 سؤالی است. روش تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده­های کمی، شامل آزمون­های «ویلکاکسون تک نمونه­ای» و «فریدمن»، به‌منظور رتبه­بندی موانع اجرایی سند تحول بنیادین بر اساس مؤلفه­های مدل فولن، است. تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده­های کیفی نیز با استفاده از روش هفت مرحله­ای (Colaizzi, 1987) انجام شده است. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از تأیید فاصلۀ ایجادشده میان طراحان سند تحول و مجریان آن در مدارس که این امر نیز خود، علاوه ­بر موانع اجرایی دیگر موجود، به ناکارآمدی سند تحول در مرحلۀ اجرا دامن می­زند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Implementation Barriers of the Fundamental Evolution Education Document Based on the Fullan Model:Case study of the field of aesthetic and artistic education

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeh Sadat Bitarafan 1
  • Marjan Sojoodi 1
  • marziye dehghani 2

1 Phd student Curriculum Department, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor of Curriculum Department, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The main purpose of this study is to identify the administrative barriers in the field of aesthetic and artistic education of the Fundamental Evolution Document in education, based on the Fullan model (2007). The field of artistic education has been forgotten and neglected, despite the tremendous impact it can have on morale and, consequently, on the learning of learners and even their educators.This research project is the "combined" type (simultaneous test). The study population included two independent groups of curriculum and education specialists (in the qualitative section) as well as primary school teachers (in the quantitative section). The sample size includes 12 curriculum and education specialists and 120 primary school teachers .The sampling method in the first part (qualitative) is theoretical and purposeful method and its tools include semi-constructed and unstructured interview and in the second part (quantitative) it is "purposeful and preferable" and the research tool includes a 30 questions researcher-made questionnaire. Quantitative data analysis involves the Wilcoxon single-sample and Friedman tests to rank the Barriers to the implementation of the Fundamental Evolution Document based on the components of the Fullen model. Qualitative data analysis was also performed using the seven-step )Colaizzi, 1987) method. The results of the study confirm the gap between the designers of the Evolution Document and its implementers in schools, which, in addition to other existing administrative barriers,contributes to the inefficiency of the Fundamental Evolution Document in the implementation phase.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • The main purpose of this study is to identify the administrative barriers in the field of aesthetic and artistic education of the Fundamental Evolution Document in education
  • based on the Fullan model (2007). The field of artistic education has been forgotten and neglected
  • despite the tremendous impact it can have on morale and
  • consequently
  • on the learning of learners and even their educators.This research project is the "combined" type (simultaneous test). The study population included two independent groups of curriculum and education specialists (in the qualitative section) as well a
  • 1987) method. The results of the study confirm the gap between the designers of the Evolution Document and its implementers in schools
  • which
  • in addition to other existing administrative barriers
  • contributes to the inefficiency of the Fundamental Evolution Document in the implementation phase
Ahaninjan, M. (2015). Assess the status of the factors influencing the implementation of the sixth grade elementary school curriculum based on the Fullan model (Master's thesis in the field of curriculum planning). Mashhad: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.
Allio, M.K. (2005). A short, practical guide to implementing strategy. Journal of business strategy, 26: 12- 21.
Baradaran, L. (2016). The rate of knowledge of elementary teachers with artistic education and aesthetic in education center at Tehran. (Master's thesis in the field of Educational Sciences). Tehran:Islamic Azad university.
Colaizzi, P. (1987). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: King RVM, editor. Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. (pp: 6-15).
Creswell, J. W.; Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. New York: SAGE Publications.
Elias, J. L. (1995). Philosophy of education: classical and contemporary. University of Michigan: Krieger Publishing Company.
Elias, J. (2002). Aesthetics Education, Translation, Abdolreza Zarrabi, Magare Marefat,. 57: 69 to 84(text in Persian).
Emadzadeh, M. (2009). Economics of Education. Isfahan: Jihad Daneshgahi Publications.
Farasatkhah, M. (2017). Fundamental Evolution Document; Efficient or Inefficient (Dr. Maghsoud Faraskhah's Views on the Pathology of the Fundamental Transformation Document), Zavieh Video Magazine, October 3, 2017, Rabb News Agency.
Farzi, SH. (2018). Investigating the position of artistic education in the document of fundamental Evolution in education. (Master's thesis in science-education). Mazandaran: Mazandaran University.
Fathi Vajargah, K. (2005). Principles of Curriculum Planning. Tehran: Iranzamin.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Fourth Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Green, M. (1994). Active learning and aesthetic encounters: Talk at the Lincoln Center Institute. New York: NCREST.
Groossman, W. (1971). Aesthetics and Problems of educaonti, (in A. Ralph (ed.), Schiller’s Aesthetic Education). Urbana: University of Illinois.
Godwin, C. (2011). The relationship among participative management style, strategy implementation success, and financial performance in the foodservice industry. international Journal of Contemporary Hospitality management, 23 (6): 719-738.
Gottschalk, P. (1999). Implementation Predictors of Formal Information Technology Strategy Norwegian School of Management. Information & Management, (2): 77–91.
Guba, E. G.; Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hashemi, N. (2017). Pathology of Art Education in the Official Education System of Iran (View of Experts and Specialists). (Master's thesis in the field of educational sciences). Shiraz: Shiraz University.
Hosseini, S. M. H.; Mehrmohmmadi, M.; Haj Hosseinnezhad, Q.; Salsabili, N. (2015). Critical analysis of Curriculum Change Patterns. Critical Studies in Texts and
Programs of Human Sciences, 15 (4): 199-235.
Islamian, H.; Jahanbakhshi, M.; Rahmani, M. (2015). An Analytical Look at the Challenges of Implementing the Fundamental Transformation Document in Education. First International Conference on Management, Economics and Accounting and Educational Sciences, Sari, Payame Noor Neka University.
Kazempour, I.; Rastegarpour, H.; Seif Naraghi, M. (2008). Evaluation of art education curriculum, academic guidance based on disciplinary approach. Leadership and Educational Management, 2 (4): 125-150.
Kianpour, SH.; Derakhshanpour, F. Z. (2016). Challenges of implementing the document of fundamental Evolution in education. Second International Conference on New Research in Educational Sciences, Psychology and Social Studies of Iran (pp. 10-11). Qom, Soroush Hekmat Mortazavi Center for Islamic Studies and Research.
Larkian, M. (2011). Identifying and explaining the dimensions and levels of the neglected art curriculum in the elementary school of Iran based on the desired pattern. (PhD dissertation in the field of curriculum planning). Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University.
Madani, S. A.; kohpeymaronzi, S. (2018). The identify and assessment of barriers to the implementation operational objectives of the fundamental transformation document of education from the view of point principals and teachers of the schools in Fars province. Modern Thoughts in Education, 14 (1): 27-44.
Maleki, H.; Garmabi, H. A. (2018). Artistic and aesthetic identity of the curriculum. Tehran: Aeyge.
Marzooqi, R.; Aghili, R.; Mehrvarz, M.(2016). Theoretical analysis and critique of the documents of the fundamental Evolution of education in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Fundamentals of Education, 6 (2): 21-40.
Mazloumi, N.; Motavi, A. (2012). A model for implementing strategic plans. Management Studies (Improvement and Evolution), 22 (67): 19-45.
Mahdizadeh, A. (2009). The role of education in the development of art. The growth of art education, 1 (7): 6-12.
MehrMohammadi, M. (2011). Explain the aesthetic rotation in education: micro and macro lessons to improve the quality of education inspired by the art world. Education, 105: 11-34.
MehrMohammadi, M. (2017). Curriculum Theories, Approaches and Perspectives. Tehran: Samt.
Mohammad Sharifi, R. (2015). Studying the knowledge and views of teachers and managers of Saqez city about the document of fundamental Evolution and the Barriers to its implementation. (Master's thesis in the field of educational sciences). Tabriz: University of Tabriz.
Moradi, R.; Pourshafei, H. (2013). The document of the fundamental Evolution of the educational system and its challenges. National Conference on Change in the Curriculum of Education Courses (pp. 479-481). Birjand University, Association of Curriculum Studies.
Navidadham, M. (2012). Fundamental requirements of fundamental Evolution in education. Culture Strategy, 17 & 18: 295-324.
Nemati, T.; Ghaffarian Panahi, A. (2018). Problems with the implementation of the document of fundamental change in the education system (a meta-analytic study). Financial Analysis, 2 (1): 45-56.
Rezai, M. (2013). Art Education in Educational System of Iran. Culture-Communication Studies, 14 (22): 7-29.
Saffar Heydari, H.; Hosseinnejad, R. (2014). Educational justice approaches (a look at the position of educational justice in the document of fundamental Evolution in the Iranian education system). Journal of Fundamentals of Education, 4 (1): 49-72.
Sharafi, H.; Salsabili, N. (2010). The effect of learning opportunities on interaction Theory and Action in curriculum and Arts education. Modern Thoughts in Education, 11 (11): 71-96.
Sharifzadeh, H. S.; Taslimian, N.; Javadibour, A. (2016). The place of aesthetics in the excellence of religious education. Philosophy of Education, 1 (1): 5-29.
Speculand, R. (2006). Strategy implementation: we got the people factor wrong! How to lead your saboteurs, groupies, double agents and mavericks. Human Resource Management International Digest, 14 (6): 34-37.
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (2011). Fundamental Evolution Document of Education. Tehran: Ministry of Education in cooperation with the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.
Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (2011). Theoretical foundations of fundamental Evolution in the formal public education system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran: Ministry of Education in cooperation with the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution.