تبیین جایگاه عاملیت کودک در سند تحول بنیادین آموزش و پرورش

کیانی, معصومه; هاشمی, سیده چنور

doi:10.22055/edus.2025.46442.3578

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.

² دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد رشته تاریخ و فلسفه آموزش و پرورش، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.

10.22055/edus.2025.46442.3578

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر تبیین مفهوم عاملیت کودک و بررسی جایگاه آن در سند تحول بنیادین آموزش و پرورش است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نوع تحقیقات کیفی است. برای تبیین مفهوم عاملیت کودک، از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، و برای بررسی جایگاه مفهوم عاملیت کودک، از روش تحلیلی- استنباطی استفاده شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد مولفه‌های مربوط به نگاه به کودک به عنوان فرد عامل عبارتند از: اراده و اختیار، آزادی، متفکر بودن، انجام‌دهنده بودن، و مسئولیت‌پذیری کودک؛ و عاملیت در فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری ناظر به مؤلفه‌هایی مانند مشارکت فعال کودکان، انتخاب‌گری کودک، یادگیری مادام‌العمر، توجه به رویکرد دانش‌آموز/کودک محوری؛ و عاملیت در فرایند ارزشیابی ناظر به مؤلفه‌هایی مانند اولویت بخشیدن به ارزشیابی تکوینی، مشارکت کودک در ارزشیابی، توجه به تفاوت‌های فردی کودکان در فرایند ارزشیابی و خودارزیابی آنان است. در بخش دوم نیز میزان توجه به مولفه‌های مربوط به نگاه به کودک به عنوان فرد عامل در سند تحول بنیادین به ترتیب عبارتند از: اختیار و اراده، (31/51 درصد)؛ آزادی، (31/26 درصد)؛ متفکر بودن (10/17 درصد)؛ انجام دهنده بودن (26/5 درصد)؛ مسئولیت‌پذیری (14/19) میزان توجه به عاملیت در فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری در سند تحول بنیادین به ترتیب عبارتند از: مشارکت فعال کودک (04/18 درصد)، انتخابگری کودک (05/21 درصد)، توجه به یادگیری مادام العمر (01/6 درصد)، تعامل دانش‌آموز و معلم (79/18 درصد)، توجه به رویکرد دانش‌آموزمحوری (05/21 درصد)؛ میزان توجه به عاملیت در فرایند ارزشیابی در سند تحول بنیادین به ترتیب عبارتند از: ارزشیابی تکوینی (35 درصد)، مشارکت کودک در فرایند ارزشیابی (5 درصد)، توجه به تفاوت‌های فردی کودکان در فرایند ارزشیابی (10 درصد) و خود خودارزیابی کودکان (40 درصد). یافته‌های فوق الذکر بیانگر عدم توجه کافی سند تحول بنیادین به نگاه به کودک به مثابه فرد عامل و نیز عاملیت کودک در فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری و ارزشیابی است. نیز عدم استقلال مفهوم عاملیت کودک و ارتباط آن با عوامل متعدد از جمله اهمیت نقش بزرگسالان، محیط‌های متعدد، و ارتباط با ساختارها برجسته شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the child agency status in Fundamental Transformation Document of Education

نویسندگان [English]

Masume Kiyani ¹
seydeh chenoor hashemi ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Member of Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.

² Master student in History and Philosophy of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction
The purpose of the current research is to exploring the concept of child's agency and examine its place in the Document of the Fundamental Transformation of Education.

Method
This research was conducted using a qualitative method. The descriptive-analytical method was used to explain the concept of a child's agency, while the analytical-inferential method was employed to examine its position.

Results
The findings showed that the components related to looking at the child as an agent are will and authority, freedom, being a thinker, being a doer, and child responsibility. Child agency in the teaching-learning process regarding components such as children's active participation, possibility of selection by the child, lifelong learning, paying attention to the student-centered approach; And child's agency in the evaluation process refers to components such as formative evaluation, participation in evaluation, individual differences, and self-evaluation. In the second part, the amount of attention to the components related to the view of the child as an agent in the Fundamental Transformation Document are: authority and will (31.51 percent), freedom (26.31 percent), being a thinker (17.10 percent) and being a doer (5.26 percent) and responsibility (19.14); The amount of attention to child agency in the teaching-learning process in the Fundamental Transformation Document are: active child participation (18.04 percent), child choice (21.05 percent), lifelong learning (6.01 percent), the interaction between students and teachers (18.79 percent), paying attention to the student-centered approach (21.05 percent); The amount of attention to child's agency in the evaluation process in the Fundamental Transformation Document are: formative evaluation (35 percent), participation in evaluation (5 percent), attention to individual differences in evaluation (10 percent), and

Discussion
Child agency is essential for early learning, and children have the right to autonomy and freedom and to fully participate in and influence the issues related to them. Due to the importance of this issue, it is expected that those involved will pay more attention to the child's agency in the upstream documents. Not hearing the students' voices, not considering their abilities, and controlling the children's freedom and authority too much can cause irreparable damage.
The above findings indicate that the Fundamental Transformation Document does not pay enough attention to the view of the child as an agent person, as well as the child's agency in the teaching-learning and evaluation process. Also, the lack of independence of the concept of child agency and its relationship with many factors, including the importance of the role of adults, multiple environments, and relationships with structures, was highlighted.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

child's agency
teaching-learning process
evaluation
Document of Fundamental Transformation of Education

مراجع

Annan, J. (2016). Student agency in interactive learning environments. http://infinitylearn.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Student-Agency-in-Interactive-Contexts-V2-9-06-2017-.pdf

Ansell, N., & Blerk, B. (2007). Doing and belonging: Toward a more-than-representational account of young migrant identities in Lesotho and Malawi. In Global Perspectives on Rural Childhood and Youth: Young Rural Lives. Edited by Ruth Panelli, Samantha Punch and Elsbeth Robson. London: Routledge, pp. 17–28. ISBN9780203942222

Ashrafzade, T., Mesrabadi, J., Yarigholi, B. and Sheikhalizade, S. (2023). Meta-analysis of the Impact of Cooperative Learning on Academic Performance. Journal of Educational Sciences. 30(2), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.22055/edus.2023.43488.3448

Bagheri, N. KH. (2010). An Intruduction to the Philosophy of Education of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Aims, foundation & Principle. Vol.1, 2nd ed. Tehran: Elmi Farhangi. [Persian]

Bagheri, N. KH. (2012). Islamic Education; a theoretical framework and its application. Tehran: Board of Supporting Forums of Theorization, Criticism and Debate. [Persian]

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of education policy, 18, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52, 1–26.

Barton, A. C., & E. Tan. (2010). We be Burning! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530044

Behroz, F. (2017). Investigating the educational process of human agency in the Qur'an and Hadith, Master's thesis, Ilam University, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies. [Persian]

Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and teaching, 21(6), 624-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University.

Carpendale, J., & Lewis, C. (2006). How Children Develop Social Understanding. Carlton, Australia; Oxford, UK; MA, USA.: Blackwell.

Cavagnetto, A. R., Hand, B., & Premo, J. (2020). Supporting student agency in science. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702392

Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6.

Cumming, J. J., & Van der Kleij, F. M. (2016). Effective enactment of Assessment for Learning and student diversity in Australia. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Implementation (55–73). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_4

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294

Esser, F., Meike S., Baader, Tanja, B., & Beatrice H. (2016). Reconceptualizing agency and childhood. An introduction. 1–12 in Reconceptualising Agency and Childhood. New perspectives in Childhood Studies, edited by F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland. London: Routledge. ISBN9781315722245

Etela¨pelto, A., Va¨ha¨santanen, K., Ho¨kka¨, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001

Heritage, M. (2018). Assessment for learning as support for student self-regulation. The Australian Educational Researcher, 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0261-3

Jabarooti, N., & Bagherimajd, R. (2023). Canonical analysis of lifelong learning on teachers' professional development. Journal of Educational Scinces, 30(1), 127-144. DOI: 10.22055/edus.2022.42154.3399 [Persian]

Jamshidiha, Gh., Shaban, M. (2020). Reversed Orientalism of Child Rights: Emphasizing IranianIslamic Child Rights. Quarterly of Social Studies Research in Iran. 9(4), 967-994. DOI: 10.22059/jisr.2020.295848.1004 [Persian]

Kiyani, M. (2023). A reflection on the Montessori, Waldorf, and Bank Street curriculum patterns in three areas; Child agency, Assessment and Learning Environment. 11(21), 113-150. URL: http://cstp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3418-en.html [Persian]

Kiyani, M., & Javidi Kalateh Jafarabadi, T. (2022). Educational Hints of Preschool Curriculum Models in the Axes of Child Agency, Nature and Strategies of TeachingLearning, and Professional Competence of Educators. Thinking and Children, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. 13(1), 203-237. Doi: 10.30465/FABAK.2022.7246

Klemenčič, M. (2015). What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement. Student engagement in Europe: Society, higher education and student governance, 11, 29. url={https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:45900212}

Macfarlane, K., & Cartmel, J. (2008). Playgrounds of learning : valuing competence and agency in birth to three-year-olds. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33, 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910803300207

Mahghani, Z., Hejazi, E., & Sajadieh, N. (2021). Adolescents’ Perception and Knowledge of Agency: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Applied Psychological Research. 12(1), 19-38. 10.22059/JAPR.2021.279514.643239 [Persian]

Manyukhina, Y., & Wyse, D. (2019). Learner agency and the curriculum: A critical realist perspective. Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1599973

Markström, A.-M., and G. Halldén. (2009). Children’s Strategies for Agency in Pre-school. Children & Society 23, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00161.x

Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.001

Mercer, S. (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Apples - Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 41–59. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201302041153

Mortimer, J. T., Staff, J., & Lee, J. C. (2005). Agency and Structure in Educational Attainment and the Transition to Adulthood. Advances in Life Course Research. 10(0), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1040-2608(05)10004-5

Mullin, A. (2007). Children, Autonomy, and Care. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38(4), 536-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00397.x

Murillo, F. J., & Hidalgo, N. (2017). Students’ conceptions about a fair assessment of their learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.001

Paris, C., & Lung, P. (2008). Agency and Child-Centered Practices in Novice Teachers: Autonomy, Efficacy, Intentionality, and Reflectivity. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(3), 253-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802275302

Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18, 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001

Rasulova, M., & Ottoson, K. (2022). The Impact of Learner Agency and Self-Regulated Learning in EFL Classes. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 712. DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i2-44, Impact factor-5.586

RazaviTaheri, S. (2012). Investigating the implications of the concept of human agency in Islamic thought for childhood education, Master's thesis, University of Tehran, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. [Persian]

Roshanghias, P., Liaghatdar, M., Zamani, B., & Sharifian, F. (2021). Development and validation of the Curricular Elements Evaluation Scale based on the Lifelong Learning Approach in Higher Education. Journal of Educational Sciences, 28(1), 43-66. DOI: 10.22055/edus.2022.38188.3261 [Persian]

Ruodi Aliabadi, S., Ayati, M., & Akbary, M. (2023). Factors Affecting Lifelong Learning in Educational Environments (Systematic Review). Journal of Educational Sciences, 30(2), 235-260. DOI:10.22055/edus.2023.43562.3450 [Persian]

Tong, P. (2023). Nurturing agentic children in early childhood education: thinking about children's agency with a childhood studies lens. He Kupu, 7(3), 30-39. ISSN:1179-6812

Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). How does your teacher help you to make your work better? Children’s understanding of formative assessment. The Curriculum Journal, 22, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517960070205

Williams, P., S. Sheridan, and I. Pramling Samuelsson. (2016). Barngruppens storlek i förskolan. Konsekvenser för utveckling och kvalitet. [Group Size at Preschool. Implications for Development and Quality. (unofficial translation)]. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.

Willis, J. (2011). Affiliation, autonomy and assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.604305

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909

Zokaei, S. (2017). Childhood studies: Concepts, approaches and key issues. Cultural Studies & Communication, 13(46), 13-36.

Sheikheh, R., Safaee, M., Pakseresht, M., & Maradhi, M. (2019). The social constructionism approach to childhood, and what it has for philosophy for children program (p4c). Tafakkor Va Kudak (Thinking and Children), 10(2), 69-94.

Kardan, A. M. (2012). The course of educational opinions in the West, Tehran: Samt Publications.

Gardner, H. (2015). Changing minds: the art and science of changing one's own and others' minds, translated by Seyyed Kamal Kharazi, Tehran: Nei Publishing.

Sheikheh, R., & Pakseresht, M. J. (2019). A deconstructive analysis of childhood in social constructionism. Philosophy of Education, 3(1).

Postman, N. (2015). The role of visual media in the deterioration of childhood, translated by: Sadegh Tabatabai, Tehran: Information Publishing.

تبیین جایگاه عاملیت کودک در سند تحول بنیادین آموزش و پرورش

مراجع

مراجع

دوره 32، شماره 1اردیبهشت 1404صفحه 71-96

دوره 32، شماره 1
اردیبهشت 1404
صفحه 71-96