طراحی و تدوین الگویی برای بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی رشته آموزش عالی در مقطع دکتری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی در آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 استاد دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: هدف از اجرای این پژوهش، طراحی و تدوین الگویی به‌منظور بازنگری برنامه درسی رشته آموزش عالی در مقطع دکتری بود.
روش پژوهش: بدین منظور از پژوهش کیفی و روش تحلیل مضمون استفاده شده است. برای گردآوری اطلاعات از مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته استفاده شد. جامعه پژوهش، متخصصان و صاحب‌نظران برنامه‌های درسی و افراد با تجربه در این حوزه بود که از بین آنها 15 نفر به‌صورت هدفمند و با روش زنجیره‌ای به‌عنوان شرکت‌کنندگان پژوهش انتخاب شدند. تعداد شرکت‌کنندگان بر اساس اشباع اطلاعاتی پژوهشگر بوده است.
یافته‌ها: نتایج پژوهش در بخش عناصر مهم و مورد توجه در بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی شامل 6 تم اصلی یعنی سیاست‌ها، هدف‌ها، محتوا، روش‌های یاددهی- یادگیری، روش‌های ارزشیابی و نوع ارائه دوره است.
نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج پژوهش، نشان‌دهنده آن است که مؤلفه‌های اصلی الگوی بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی شامل 5 تم اصلی یعنی توجه به فرایندمحور بودن بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی، جامعیت در بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی، جلب مشارکت ذی‌نفعان، اجتناب از تمرکزگرایی و تأکید بر نقش ارزشیابی در فرایند بازنگری برنامه‌های درسی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing and compiling a model for reviewing higher education curriculum in the doctoral program

نویسندگان [English]

  • Simin Ezar Mansoubi 1
  • Abasalt Khorasani 2
  • Mohammad Yamanidouzi Serkhabi 3
  • Gholam Reza Shams 2
1 PhD Student in Curriculum planning in Higher Education, Faculty of Educational sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Educational sciences and Psychology faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor of Educational Sciences and Psychology faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Objective: The purpose of this study was to design and develop a model to review the curriculum of higher education in the doctoral program.
Methods: For this purpose, qualitative research and content analysis method have been used. A semi-structured interview was used to collect data. The statistical population of the research was curriculum experts and experienced people in this field, from which 15 people were purposefully selected as research participants by chain method. The number of participants was based on the researcher's information saturation.
Results: : The results of the research in the section of important elements in the review of curricula include 6 main themes, namely policies, objectives, content, teaching-learning methods, evaluation methods and the type of course presentation.
Conclusion: The results indicate that the main components of the curriculum review model include 5 main themes, namely attention to the process-oriented curriculum review, comprehensiveness in curriculum review, engaging stakeholders, avoiding centralism and emphasizing the role Evaluation in The curriculum review process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Curriculum
  • Curriculum Review
  • Curriculum Review model
  • Higher Education
Alahiotis, S. N., & Karatzia-Stavlioti, E. (2006). Effective curriculum policy and cross-curricularity: analysis of the new curriculum design of the Hellenic Pedagogical Institute. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 14(2), 119 – 147. DOI: 10.1080/14681360600738277
Altbach, P. G. (١٩٨٨). Comparative Studies in Higher Education in: Postlethwaite; in (ed.) The Encyclopeidia of Comparative Education and National System of Education, pp. ٦-٧.
Alunyu, A. E., & Nabukenya, J. (2018). A Conceptual Model for Adaptation of eHealth Standards by Low and Middle-Income Countries. Journal of Health Informatics in Africa, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.12856/JHIA-2018-v5-i2-199
Arefi, M. (2004). A Study of Educational Sciences in Iranian Higher Education ..., Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University.[Persian]
Barnett, M. (2006). Vocational knowledge and vocational pedagogy. In Knowledge, curriculum and qualifications for South African further education, ed. M. Young and J. Gamble, 143–157. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead, GBR: McGraw-Hill Education.
Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of the disciplines (Second edition). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education / Open University Press.
Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (eds). (2012). Strategic Curriculum Change. Global trends in universities. Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) Series. Routledge.
Burgess, H. (2004). Redesigning the curriculum for Social Work Education: Complexity, conformity, chaos and creativity. Social Work Education, 23(2), 163–183.
Danaeifar, Hassan, & Mozaffari, Zeinab (2008). Promoting validity and reliability in qualitative managerial research. A reflection on research audit strategies. Quarterly Journal of Management Research, 1(1). [Persian]
Davenport, N. C., Spath, M. L., & Blauvelt, M.J. (2009). A step-by-step approach to curriculum review. Nurse Educator, 34(4), 181-185.
Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. Jossey-Bass.
Egwar, A., Bwire, F., Arinaitwe, I., Male, V., Mpirirwe, H., Kenneth, B., Kamukama, I., Ndagire, L., & Nabukenya, J. (2018). A Collaborative Curriculum Review: Applicability to Higher Education Institutions. 10.24251/HICSS.2018.052.
Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh (2009). Basic Principles and Concepts of Curriculum Planning. Bal Publications. [Persian]
Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh (2013). A Practical Guide to Curriculum Review in Universities and Higher Education Institutions. Mehraban Book Publishing Institute. [Persian]
Goldfinch, T., Layton, C., & McCarthy, T. (2010). Encouraging Cultural Awareness in Engineering Students. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education.
Hecker K., & Violato C. (2008). How much do differences in medical schools influence student performance? A longitudinal study employing hierarchical linear modeling. Teach Learn Med. 20(2), 104–13. Doi.org/10.1080/10401330801991915.
Jackson, N. (2002). Pressures for curriculum change. UK: LTSN Generic Centre.
Kapur, R. (2018). Problems and Issues in Teacher Education and Curriculum Development, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323833863
Khaghanizadeh, Morteza, & Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh (2008). University Curriculum Patterns. Bimonthly Journal of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 1(2), 10-18. [Persian]
Khosravi, Mahboubeh, Fathi Vajargah, Koursh, Maleki, Hassan, & Nowruzi, Dariush (2013). Analysis of the Acceptance of Curriculum Innovations in Higher Education in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(27). [Persian]
Latucca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: academic plans in context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (2005). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: implications for teaching and studying in higher education. 3rd (internet) edition (pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Centre for Teaching Learning and Assessment.
Maton, K. (2013). Knowledge and knowers: towards a realist sociology of education, London: Routledge.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (1): linkages to ways of thinking and practising. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning – ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: OCSLD.
Momeni Mahmouei, Mohsen (2009). Curriculum Evaluation in Higher Education. Journal of Education Strategies, 2(2). [Persian]
Oliver, S. L., & Hyun, E. (2011). Comprehensive Curriculum Reform in Higher Education: Collaborative Engagement of Faculty and Administrators. Journal of Case Studies, 2.
Nowruzzadeh, Reza et al. (2006). Delegating Planning Authorities to Universities, a Step Towards Decentralization of Curriculum Planning in the Higher Education System; Book Collection of Articles of the Association of Curriculum Planning Studies. [Persian]
Nowruzzadeh, Reza et al. (2006), The Status of Universities' Participation in Curriculum Review Approved by the Higher Planning Council, Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, No. 42, 2006.
Regulations for Assigning Curriculum Planning Authorities to Universities (2000). Supreme Planning Council, Tehran: Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, 11, 1, 2. [Persian]
Scholtz, D. (2013). Curriculum revision: Challenges in responding to change. Progressio, 35, 135-152.
Shay, S. (2013). Conceptualizing curriculum differentiation in higher education: a sociology of knowledge point of view. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(4), 563–582.
Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52 -59.
Stark, J. S., Lowther, A. M., Sharp, S., & Arnold, G. L. (1997). Program-Level Curriculum Planning: An Exploration of Faculty Perspectives on Two Different Campuses. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 99- 130.
Tierney, W. G. (1989). Academic work and institutional culture: Constructing knowledge. Submitted for publication.