مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی

واکاوی وضعیت جاری ارزشیابی فرآیند طراحی و تدوین برنامه های درسی در نظام آموزش عالی: رویکرد تحلیل زمینه ای

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
استادیار، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری، سبزوار، ایران
10.22034/emes.2025.2056806.2641
چکیده
هدف: برنامه‌­های درسی مهم‌­ترین رکن آموزش در نظام آموزش عالی است. در این میان فرایند طراحی و تدوین برنامه‌­های درسی با آنکه به عنوان مهم­ترین بخش در فرایند مشخص کردن برنامه‌­های درسی است، کم­تر مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. ارزشیابی از برنامه­ های درسی طراحی و تدوین شده منجر به بهبود فرآیندهای طراحی و اجرای برنامه­ های درسی در دانشگاه می­شود. هدف از پژوهش حاضر شناسایی وضعیت جاری ارزشیابی فرآیند طراحی و تدوین برنامه ­های درسی در نظام آموزش عالی است. 
روش پژوهش: این پژوهش با رویکرد کیفی و با روش داده­ بنیاد انجام گرفت. جامعه­ی آماری شامل کلیه کارگزاران دخیل در برنامه ­درسی آموزش عالی هستند که از طریق نمونه‌گیری هدفمند از نوع ملاک ‌محور انتخاب شدند. داده‌­ها از طریق مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختار‌یافته با هفده نفر از اساتید دانشگاه و شش نفر از مدیران گروه­‌های آموزشی جمع­‌آوری شد. به منظور تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌­ها از روش کدگذاری باز، محوری و گزینشی استفاده شد. برای تأمین روایی و پایایی از معیارهای لینکن و کوبا استفاده شد.
یافته‌ها: گُسست در ارزشیابی فرآیند طراحی و تدوین برنامه‌­های درسی به عنوان مقوله محوری و شرایط علی (مشتمل بر محورهایی چون؛ ارزشیابی نامتوازن طرح برنامه ­های درسی، تدوین ناسازگار برنامه ­های درسی، ضعف استانداردهای ارزشیابی کیفیت برنامه­های درسی در آموزش عالی و کمی­گرایی در فرایند طراحی برنامه­ درسی)، عوامل زمینه‌­ای (مشتمل بر محورهایی چون؛ زمینه‌­های سیاست­گذاری کلان، عوامل زمینه‌­ای مرتبط با وزارت عتف و زمینه­‌های دانشگاهی)، عوامل راهبردی (مشتمل بر محورهایی چون تدوین استانداردهای جامع ارزشیابی، شبکه ­سازی، ایجاد مکانیزم تغییر و اصلاح، رویکرد طراحی و تدوین مشارکتی، واقع­گرایی و مکانیزم لایه­ای) شرایط مداخله­­ای (مشتمل بر محورهایی چون مجریان برنامه‌­های درسی، ساختار آموزشی دانشگاه و سطح حمایت و پشتیبانی) و راهبردها و پیامد (ضعف در فرایند طراحی و تدوین برنامه‌­های درسی) سازمان یافت.
نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به یافته‌­ها می­توان نتیجه­ گرفت وضعیت جاری ارزشیابی برنامه­ های درسی طراحی و تدوین شده در آموزش عالی مناسب نیست و در این زمینه نیازمند تدوین معیارهای استاندارد برای ارزشیابی برنامه­ های درسی طراحی و تدوین شده و ایجاد ساختار لازم برای ارزشیابی برنامه‌های درسی طراحی شده است.        
کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Analyzing the Current Status of Curriculum Design and Development Process Evaluation in the Higher Education System: A Contextual Analysis Approach

نویسنده English

Meysam Gholampour
Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
چکیده English

Objective: Curricula are the most important element of education in the higher education system. In the meantime, the process of designing and developing curricula, although it is the most important part in the process of specifying curricula, has received less attention. Evaluation of designed and developed curricula leads to improvement of the processes of designing and implementing curricula in universities. The purpose of the present study is to identify the current status of the evaluation of the process of designing and developing curricula in the higher education system.
Methods: This research was conducted with a qualitative approach and data-driven method. The statistical population includes all agents involved in the higher education curriculum, who were selected through purposive sampling of the criterion-based type. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with seventeen university professors and six directors of educational groups. In order to analyze the data, open, axial and selective coding methods were used. Lincoln and Cuba criteria were used to ensure validity and reliability.
Results: The gap in evaluating the process of designing and developing curricula was organized as a central category and causal conditions (including areas such as; unbalanced evaluation of curriculum design, inconsistent development of curricula, weakness of curriculum quality evaluation standards in higher education, and quantitativeness in the curriculum design process), contextual factors (including areas such as; macro policy areas, contextual factors related to the Ministry of Education and academic fields), strategic factors (including areas such as developing comprehensive evaluation standards, networking, creating a change and reform mechanism, participatory design and development approach, realism, and layered mechanism), intervention conditions (including areas such as curriculum implementers, university educational structure, and level of support), and strategies and consequences (weaknesses in the curriculum design and development process) of the organization.
Conclusion: According to the findings, it can be concluded that the current status of evaluating designed and developed curricula in higher education is not appropriate, and in this context, it is necessary to develop standard criteria for evaluating designed and developed curricula and create the necessary structure for evaluating designed curriculam.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: Evaluation
Curriculum
Higher Education
Grounded Theory
References
Akhlaqi, F., Yarmohammadian, M. H., Khoshgam, M., Mohebi, N. (2011). Evaluating the quality of educational programs in higher education using the CIPP model. Health Information Management, 8(5), 621-629. [Persian]
Amani, M., Noh-Ebrahim, A., Zeinabadi, H R., Abdolahi, B. (2020). Pathology of the regulation on the transfer of curriculum planning authority to universities and higher education institutions. Quarterly Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 14(49), 7-23. [Persian]
Apliliani, R. (2016). http://rosiapril.blogspot.com/. Retrieved December Monday, 20121, from Curriculum Evaluation Function: http://rosiapril.blogspot.com/2016/10/function-evaluation-kurikulum.html.
Bahri Ghamichi, K., Samari, M., Soltan Ahmadi, J. A. (2018). Investigating the challenges of the electrical engineering curriculum for the purpose of revision and modernization. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 20(79), 1-25. [Persian]
Bamri, Kh., Momeni Mahmoui, H., Zirak, M., Ajam, A. A. (2023). Current status of evaluation of primary education curricula. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 13(43), 63-88. [Persian]
 Behardien, N., Titus, S., Roman, N. (2024). Exodontia curriculum evaluation: fit for purpose teaching and learning strategies. Higher Education, 9(7), 1-10.
Fathi Vajargah, K. (2023). Basic Principles and Concepts of Curriculum Planning. Tehran: Alam Ostadan. [Persian]
 FU, Y. (2016).  A Study on Curriculum Evaluation Methods in Higher Education. 3rd International Conference on Management, Education Technology and Sports Science (METSS 2016).
Ghasemi, K., Etemad Ahri, A., Makki Al-Agha, B. (2019). Curriculum design with a globalization approach and preserving cultural identity and its validation from the perspective of experts. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 13(47), 77-95. [Persian]
Ghorbani, M. A., Zolfaghari Zafarani, R., Imani, M. N. (2023). Designing a conceptual model of innovative educational methods in higher education (case study of Islamic Azad University of Tehran). Islamic Lifestyle with a Health Focus, 7(2), 218-226. [Persian]
Goodwin, A. L., Smith, L., Souto-Manning, M., Cheruvu, R., Tan, M. Y., Reed, R. and Taveras, L. (2014). What should teacher educators know and be able to do? Perspectives from practicing teacher educators. Teacher Education, 65(4): 284-302.
Guzman, J. H. E., Zuluaga-Ortiz, R. A., Donado, L. E. G., Delahoz-Dominguez, E. J., Marquez-Castillo, A., & Suarez-Sánchez, M. (2022). Cluster analysis in Higher Education Institutions' knowledge identification and production processes. Procedia Computer Science, 203, 570-574. DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2022.07.081
Hamdi, MM (2020). EDUCATION CURRICULUM EVALUATION. Intizam, 66-75.
Hutahaean, B. (2014). Development of a Multidimensional Curriculum Evaluation Curriculum Model for Competency-Based Curriculum. Education Horizon, 21-54.
Javadani, M., Anari-Nejad, A. (2018). Evaluating the quality of e-learning curriculum elements in Iranian higher education. Curriculum Research, 8(1), 104-122. [Persian]
Khosravi, K., Fathi Vajargah, K., Maleki, H. and Nowruz, D. (2018). Analysis of the acceptance of curriculum innovations in the higher education system (Case study: Curriculum revision regulations of Iranian universities). Quarterly Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(27), 136-168. [Persian]
Mehrmohammadi, M. (2023). Curriculum of Perspectives, Approaches and Perspectives. Roshd Publications: Tehran. [Persian]
Mohammadi, M. (2022). A study of geography students' experiences with the geography curriculum at Farhangian University. Research in Social Studies Education, 4(4), 95-110. [Persian]
Moradi Doliskani, M., Mirshah Jafari, S E., Neistani, M. R. (2020). Analysis of the type and degree of influence of curriculum role-players in the curriculum planning committee of Iranian universities: A pathological look at the current situation. Theory and Practice in Curriculum, 8 (16), 119-154. [Persian]
Nasrollahinia, F., Alamhuda, J. (2020). Review and presentation of the proposed curriculum for the field of educational sciences in the master's degree program (case study: Higher Education Management and Planning). Bi-Quarterly Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 11(21), 138-97. [Persian]
Németh, B. (2019). Learning Cities Sisyphus. Journal of Education, 7(2), 9-23. DOI: https://Doi.org/10.25749/sis.17702
 Priyambada, S., ER, M., Yahya, BN. (2017). Curriculum Assessment of Higher Educational Institution Using Aggregate Profile Clustering. Procedia Computer Science, 124(30, 264-273.
Rajabi, M., Amin Bidakhti, A. A. Jafari, S. (2024). Evaluating Farhangian University Curricula: From Theory to Practice, the Reality of Educational Management. Applied Educational Leadership, 5(4), 63-88. [Persian]
Safai Mohd, S., Hajizadeh, M., (2019). Curriculum evaluation as a complex phenomenon. Theory and Practice in Curriculum, 8(16): 191-214. [Persian]
Sanjaya, W. (2010). Curriculum and Learning. Jakarta: Rawamangun.
Saraji, F., Marouf, Y., Razeghi, T. (2014). Identifying the challenges of evaluating students' learning in the Iranian higher education system. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 4(5), 33-54. [Persian]
Syafnidawaty. (2020, November 13). Raharja.ac.id. Retrieved December Sunday, 2021, from Raharja University: https://raharja.ac.id/2020/11/13/apa-itu-evaluation/
Syafnidawaty. (2020, November 13). Raharja.ac.id. Retrieved December Sunday, 2021,
Taghi Pourzahir, A. (2018). Educational and Curriculum Planning. Tehran: Agah Publications. [Persian]
Tuju, R.S., Rumbekwan, G., Sinaga, D.C.,  Ellss, V., Mandacan, Y. (2022). Curriculum Evaluation Model in Development Higher Education Curriculum.  Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 5(1), 2025-2032.
Ubachs, G. (2009). USBM: university strategies and Business models for lifelong learning in higher education. Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency.
Wiji, H., Syaefudin, & Umi, M. (2021). Curriculum Management and Educational Programs. Yogyakarta: The Universe of Letters.
Xiaozhou, X. (2001). The role of the university in lifelong learning: perspectives from the People's Republic of China. Higher Education Policy, 14 (4), 313-324. DOI:10.1016/S0952-8733(01)00027-7
Xu, X., & Mei, W. (2018). Policies of Lifelong Learning. In Educational Policies and Legislation in China (pp.191-217). Springer, Singapore.
Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2017). Fundamentals and Principles of Curriculum Planning. Yadvareh Kitab Publications: Tehran. [Persian]
Zuo, M., Wang, J. (2021). Higher Education Curriculum Evaluation Method Based on Deep Learning Model. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 7(15), 1-15.