طراحی، ساخت و اعتبارسنجی پرسش‌نامه‌ی وفاداری به برنامه‌ درسی و کتاب‌های دانشگاهی در حوزه آموزش عالی ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری رشۀ آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه پیام نور، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، تهران، ایران،

3 دانشیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران.

4 استادیار گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه پیام نور، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

ضرورت استفاده از برنامه درسی در آموزش عالی ایران امری بدیهی و وفاداری در اجرای آن برای مدرسان دانشگاه مفروض است. یکی از موانع انجام پژوهش در این زمینه، عدم وجود پرسش‌نامه‌ای متناسب با حوزه آموزش عالی ایران برای تصویری روشن از پایبندی یا عدم پایبندی مدرسان به برنامه‌ی درسی و کتاب‌های دانشگاهی پیشنهادی از سوی وزارت عتف است. به همین دلیل، فاکتورهایی شناسایی و در ساخت پرسش‌نامه‌ی حاضر استفاده شد. با استناد به نتایج پژوهش‌های پیشین و تجارب استادان دانشگاه‌، نسخه‌ی اولیه‌ی پرسش‌نامه آماده شد و با توجه به بازخوردهاتغییر یافت تا به شکل نهایی خود رسید. سپس، با مشارکت ۱۲۷ مدرس دانشگاه مراحل روایی محتوایی، ساختاری، صوری و نیز پایایی انجام پذیرفت و پرسش‌نامه‌ای با ۲۷ گویه‌ در قالب مقیاس لیکرت با پنج عامل طراحی گردید. عامل نخست مسائل مربوط به مدرس بود که دانش محتوایی و روش تدریس، تجربه‌ی تدریس و مسائل فردی را شامل می‌شد. عامل دوم مسائل مربوط به برنامه‌ی درسی بود که حجم مطالب و کیفیت کتاب‌های دانشگاهی را بررسی می‌کرد. مسائل مربوط به موسسه‌ی آموزشی سومین عامل، و سخت‌افزار موجود در دانشگاه، ارزشیابی عملکرد مدرسان و اعمال نظر مسئولین دانشگاه زیرمجموعه ی آن بود. مشارکت دانشجو در فرآیند یادگیری در قالب عدم تطابق مطالب با سطح دانشجو و عدم علاقه‌ی دانشجو به مطلب، عامل چهارم بود. پنجمین عامل تاثیر آزمون‌های سرنوشت‌ساز بر تغییر برنامه‌ی درسی توسط مدرس بود. نتایج این مطالعه می‌تواند برای انجام پژوهش‌های آتی در رابطه با پایبندی یا عدم پایبندی به برنامه درسی بکار رود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Design, construction, and Validation of a Curriculum and Academic Books Fidelity Questionnaire in the Field of Iranian Higher Education

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nadereh Hojabr 1
  • Fatemeh Hemmati 2
  • Afsar Rouhi 3
  • Razieh Rabbani Yekta 4
1 Department of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor university (PNU), P.O.Box 19395-4697,Tehran, Iran
2 Department of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor university (PNU), P.O.Box 19395-4697,Tehran, Iran
3 Department of English Language Teaching, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
4 Department of English Language Teaching, Payame Noor university (PNU), P.O.Box 19395-4697,Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The necessity of implementing the curriculum provided by the Iranian Ministry of Sciences, Research, and Technology is well-accepted and university instructors are presumed to stay loyal to it. One of the obstacles to conducting research on curriculum fidelity is the absence of a questionnaire compatible with the Iranian higher education context which can delineate the instructors' fidelity or infidelity to the prescribed curriculum and suggested academic books. Therefore, as an attempt to occupy this niche, using the findings of previous studies and the instructors' experiences of teaching, the first draft of the questionnaire was developed and revised several times to reach its final form. Then, 127 university instructors took the questionnaire, and the data on content validity, construct validity, face validity, and reliability were collected. Finally, a 27-item Likert-Scale questionnaire with five main factors was developed. The first factor dealt with the instructors, which included content knowledge and teaching ability, teaching experience, and personal issues. The second factor was about the curriculum, including the content quantity and quality. The third factor addressed the institute-related issues, examining university hardware, teaching performance evaluation, and university authorities' imposing personal opinions. Learner engagement (incompatibility of the content with students' knowledge and students' lack of interest in the material) was the fourth factor. The last factor was the effect of high-stakes tests on instructors' modification of the curriculum. The developed questionnaire can be used in the field of higher education to conduct future research on the adherence or non-adherence of university instructors to the curriculum.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Centralized education system
  • Curriculum
  • Curriculum and academic books fidelity
  • Obstacles in implementing a curriculum
  • Questionnaire validation

مراجع

 
Anderson, D. L. (2017). Improving information technology curriculum learning outcomes. Informing Scientific: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 20, 119–131.
Arthur, L. (2001). Young children as critical consumers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(1), 182–194.
Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389–411.
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S.  (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(40), 1–9.
Davis, D. L. (2014). Fidelity of implementation, teacher perceptions and child outcomes of a literacy curriculum in a head start program: A mixed methods study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
De Fur, K. (2009). The relationship between the fidelity of project-based curriculum implementation and foreign language teachers' beliefs in teaching and learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Southern Connecticut State University.
Ditchburn, G. (2015). The Australian curriculum: History–the challenges of a thin curriculum. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(1), 27–41.
Du, W., Liu, D., Johnson, C. C., Sondergeld, T. A., Bolshakova, V. L., & Moore, T. J. (2019). The impact of integrated STEM professional development on teacher quality. School Science and Mathematics, 119(2), 105–114.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256.
Finney, S. J., & Smith, K. L. (2016).  Ignorance is not bliss: Implementation fidelity and learning improvement. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Gale, J., Alemdar, M., Lingle, J., & Newton, S. (2020). Exploring critical components of an integrated STEM curriculum: an application of the innovation implementation framework. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–17.
Garver, R. (2020). Evaluative relationships: Teacher accountability and professional culture. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), 623–647.
George, A. A., Hall, G.  E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools:  The stages of concern questionnaire. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. Sage publications.
Gregg, M. (2001). Views of beginning pre-service teachers: Content knowledge use. Journal of Geography, 100(2), 61–86.
Grossman, P. (2004). Curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teacher learning? A Research Report co-sponsored by Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy (CTP) and Center on English Learning & Achievement (CELA). University of Washington.
Johnson, r. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage publications.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kumar, P. C., Vitak, J., Chetty, M., & Clegg, T. L. (2019). The platformization of the classroom: Teachers as surveillant consumers. Surveillance & Society, 17(1/2), 145–152.
Lim, W. S. (2018). Teacher sensemaking and implementation fidelity: how do I know what I do until I see what I did [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at Austin.
McCarthey, S. J., & Woodard, R. (2018). Faithfully following, adapting, or rejecting mandated curriculum: Teachers’ curricular enactments in elementary writing instruction. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 13(1), 56–80.
McDonough, E. S. (2014). Measuring fidelity of implementation using the survey of enacted curriculum [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The College of William and Mary in Virginia.
McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.
Mellard, D. (2010).  Fidelity of implementation within a response to intervention framework. retrieved from: http://ped.state.nm.us/ped/rtidocs/fidelity%20of%20implementation%20guidev5.pdf
Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266–288.
Nation, I. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge.
Nyaema, M. (2016). Exploring science and mathematics teachers' fidelity of implementation of Project Lead The Way curriculum: A case study on how teachers' knowledge and beliefs influence their enactment of the curriculum [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Iowa.
Ocak, G., & Olur, B. (2019). The development of the curriculum fidelity scale. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(4), 185–200.
Oppong, C. A. (2009). An evaluation of the teaching and learning of history in senior high schools in the Central Region of Ghana [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cape Coast.
Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education.
Park, M., & Lambert, P. (2019). Examining predictive factors for student success in a hybrid learning course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 20(2), 11–27.
Phillips, B. M., Ingrole, S. A., Burris, P. W., & Tabulda, G. (2017). Investigating predictors of fidelity of implementation for a preschool vocabulary and language curriculum. Early Child Development and Care, 187(3-4), 542–553.
Pituch, K., & Stevens, J. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W. H., Floden, R. E., & Freeman, D. J. (1978). “Impact on what? The importance of content covered.”. Research Report No. 2. Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Priestley, M., & Philippou, S. (2019). Curriculum is–or should be–at the heart of educational practice. The Curriculum Journal, 30(1), 1–7.
Rahimi, M., Zhang, L., & Esfahani, N. (2016). Advocating school-university partnership for responsive teacher education and classroom-based curricula: Evidence from teachers’ cognitions about principles of curriculum design and their own roles. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(12), 83–96.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of initiatives (5th ed.). Free Press.
Rudhumbu, N., & Du Plessis, E. E. (2020). Factors influencing curriculum implementation in accredited private universities in Botswana. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 1062–1084.
Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016).  Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback:  A mixed methods study.  Reading & Writing, 29(2), 349–370.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار