علوم تربیتی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

ارزیابی تعلق پارادایمی اعضای هیات علمی رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی:رویکردی به مطالعه فلسفه علم

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

3 دانشیار، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

4 استادیار، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزیابی تعلق پارادایمی اساتید رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی انجام شده است. این پژوهش به روش توصیفی – پیمایشی انجام گردید و جامعه آماری آن شامل کلیه اعضای هیات علمی رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی دانشگاههای دولتی کشور می‌باشند. پس از تعیین روایی و محاسبه پایایی ابزار، جهت‌گیری اعضای هیات علمی رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی نسبت به پیش فرض‌های شش‌گانه پارادایمی درباره هستی، انسان، معرفت ، روش تحقیقاتی، تعلیم و تربیت و برنامه درسی در هر کدام از پارادایم‌های پنجگانه انتقادی، تفسیری، پست مدرن، پوزیتویستی و اسلامی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. تحلیل نتایج با استفاده از آزمون‌های استنباطی فریدمن نشان داد که در پیش فرض‌های انسان شناختی، معرفت شناختی، تربیت شناختی، روش‌شناختی، مدل برنامه درسی و ارزشیابی، پارادایم اسلامی بالاترین رتبه میانگین، و در پیش فرض‌های هستی شناختی و محتوا پارادایم انتقادی بالاترین رتبه میانگین، و در ابعاد هدف و راهبردهای تدریس پارادایم تفسیری بالاترین رتبه میانگین را در بین عناصر مربوط به جهت گیری پارادایمی اعضای هیات علمی رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی به خود اختصاص دادند. همچنین نتایج وتحلیل واریانس اندازه‌گیری های مکرر نشان داد که اگر چه تفاوت معنی داری بین رویکرد اعضای هیات علمی در پارادایم های پنج ‌گانه وجود دارد، اما اعضای هیات علمی رشته مطالعات برنامه درسی دارای پارادایم غالبی نبودند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Paradigmic interests of faculty members in the field of Curriculum Studies : An approach to study of science philosophy

نویسندگان [English]

  • rahmatollah marzooghi 1
  • fatemeh karimi 2
  • Mehdi Mohammadi 3
  • Maryam shafiei sarvestani 4
  • Sosan Jabbari 4

1 Professor, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2  Ph.D. Student, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Faculty members in the field of Curriculum Studies as the experts in the humanistic and educational sciences, are the main agents of development in the curriculum field according to their philosophical orientations or paradigmic interests. Therefore, recognizing their paradigmic interests and approaches can determine their educational, research, and publication orientations. It can also define the paradigmic direction of science development in the field of Curriculum Studies.
Methodology
The aim of this descriptive-survey study was to recognize the paradigmic interest of the faculty members in the field of Curriculum Studies. After calculating the reliability and validity of the instruments, paradigmic interesst of faculty members wre studied based on the five Critical, Interpretative, Post-modern, Positivist, and Islamic paradigms with regard to the six paradigmic assumptions about Ontology, Anthropology, Epistemology, Methodology, Education and Curriculum .The participants of the study were included all the faculty members of the field of Curriculum Studies in all Iranian state universities, 58 of whom chosen by a convenience sampling method .
Results
Analyzing the results by using the Friedman inferential tests revealed that in the five paradigmic assumptions,Islamic paradigm had the highest mean, and in content and ontological assumptions, Critical paradigm had the highest mean, and in the dimentions of teaching strategies and aims, Interpretative paradigm had the highest mean among the faculty members of Curriculum Studies. Moreover, the results and analysis of variance of repeated measures showed that although there was a significant difference between the approaches of faculty members toward the five paradigms, they did not have a dominant paradigm orientations.
Conclusion
Based on the research findings , it can be claimed that there is no paradigmic coherence among the faculty members of curriculum studies , and they have not a fixed approach in their paradigmic assumptions with regard to ontology, epistemology, anthropology, methodology , education and curriculum elements. Therefore , it can lead to some contradictions in the faculty members theoretical viewpoints , research and educational approaches. The findings also showed that faculty members do not have a dominant paradigm and one paradigm cannot be selected as the main paradigm with certainty. However, it can be generally stated that the faculty members mostly tended to adhere to Islamic and Critical paradigms. Anyway, the final conclusion is that Curriculum studies teachers lack coherence in their paradigmatic intereste.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Paradigm- paradigmic interest
  • faculty members
  • Philosophy of Science
مراجع
Ashoori, M. (2017). Scientific progress, comparability of paradigms and the uncertainty of classification systems, Methodology of Social Science and Humanities, 22(87). [Persian]
Iman, M., & Kalateh sadati, A. (2013). Pathology of the Method of Development of Human Sciences in Iran, Culture Strategy, 19 [Persian]
Iman, M. T. (2008). Human Beings Paradigm Analysis As the main Component of diving Paradigm design, Methodology of Social Science, 14(54), 25-46. [Persian]
Burrel, G., & Morgan, G. (2018). Sociological paradigms and organizational Analysis. (Translated by Mohammad Taqi norozi): Tehran: SAMT.
Callaghan, C. W. (2016). Critical theory and contemporary paradigm differentiation. Acta Commercii, 16(2), 59-99
Chalmers, A. F. (2016). What is Thing Called Science? An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and it, s Methods. (Translated by Saeid Zibakalam): Tehran: SAMT. [Persian]
Chilisa, B., & Kawulich, B. (2012). Selecting a research approach: Paradigm, methodology and methods. C Wagner, B Kawulich, & M Garner, Doing social research: A global context, 51-61.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A Post- Modern perspective on curriculum: Teachers College. Press, New York.
Etemadi Bozorg, A., Aram, A., & Hasankhani, J. (2019). The viewpoints of the Philosophy of science schools on "Progress of Science"; Look ing at the views of Islam, Researchs on Science and Religion, Science and Religion Research, Institue Humanities and Cultural Studies, 9(1), 121-150. [Persian]
Fathi Vajargah, K. (2008). Curriculum toward new identities: Tehran: Ayeezh. [Persian]
Flinders. D. J., & Thornton S. J. (2004). The curriculum studies reader. Psychology Press.
Froner, K. (2018). Critical Paradigm Theory: A Deconstruction of the Dominant Discourse Shaping Public Education in America. The City University of New York.
Iman, M. (2015). Philosophy of Human Research Methods. Qom: Institute of Hawzeh and University Research. [Persian]
Khaleghi, A. H., & Pourezzat, A. A. (2012). Multi Paradigm and Meta Paradigm Approaches to Interdisciplinary Studies, Interdiciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3(4), 1-20. [Persian]
Khaleghinezhad, S. A., Maleki, H., & Hakimzadeh, R. (2015). Critique of Postmodern viewpoint in Curriculum based on philosophical foundation of Islamic Education. Qualitative Research in Curriculum, 1(1), 41-60. [Persian]
Khalilian Ashkzary, M. J., & Jowshagani Naeeni, S. H. (2015). The Indexes of Human's Wisdom and Epistemic Progress in the Viewpoint of Islam: Islamic Economy, 4(54). [Persian]
Kheiri, H. (2011). Comparing The Islamic Paradigm With the Positivistic, Hermeneutic and Critical Paradigms, Imam Khomeini Institute of Education and Research, 1(2), 7-31. [Persian]
Kisaka, S. T., & Osman, A. A. (2013). Education as a quest to freedom: reflections on Maxine Greene. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 4(2), 338.
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26-41.
Maftoon, P., & Shakouri, N. (2013). Paradigm shift in curriculum development in the third millennium: A brief look at the philosophy of doubt. Internatioanl Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALE), 4(3), 303-312.
Makombe, P. (2017). An expose of the relationship between paradigm, method and design in research. The kQualitative Report, 22(12), 3363-3382.
Marzooghi, R. (2017). Islamic Paradigm of Science Production (An Approach to Production of Islamic Education): Tehran: Avay noor. [Persian]
Marzooghi, R. (2018). Science Paradigms and Curriculum Theories: Tehran: Avay noor. [Persian]
McKenna, S. (2004). Paradigsm of curriculum design: Implications for South African educators. Tydskrif vir letterkunde, 37(2), 215-223.
Nowzari, H. A., & Sheikhlar, K. (2011). Methodology and Epistemology in Postmodern Approach, Political Science Quarterly, 12, 35-56. [Persian]
Okasha, S. (2008). Philosophy of Science. (Translated by Hooman Panahandehjoo): Tehran: Contemporary culture. [Persian]
Sharifian, F., & Mehrmohammadi, M. (2015). Explaining the disciplinary capabilities of curriculum and determining its position in the classification of academic disciplines, Journal of Theory & Practice in Curriculum, 4(2), 161-184. [Persian]
Sharifian, F. (2012). Typology of Curriculum Theories, Isfahan: Amookhteh. [Persian]
Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era: published Routledge
Trna, J., & Trnova, E. (2015). The current paradigms of science education and their expected impact on curriculum. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 271-277.
Willis, J. W. (2007). World views, paradigms, and the practice of social science research. Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical, 1-26.
Zarghani, A., Amin Khandaghi, M., Shabani Varki, B., & Mosapour, N. (2017). Rethinking on Paradigms for Curriculum Implementation: The Linkage between Teachers Theoretical and Practical Knowledg. Foundations of Education, 6(1), 46-68. [Persian]
علوم تربیتی
دوره 27، شماره 2
دی 1399
صفحه 183-200
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار