علوم تربیتی

شناسایی عوامل زمینه‌ساز و تبعات برنامه درسی متراکم در دوره ابتدایی و ارائه راهکارهایی برای مقابله با آن

https://doi.org/10.22055/edus.2024.47237.3618
دوره 32، شماره 1
اردیبهشت 1404
صفحه 139-160
علوم تربیتی

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

فرزانه عسکری 1
محمد جوادی پور 2
رضوان حکیم زاده 3
کیوان صالحی 4

1 دانش آموخته دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

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

3 دانشیار ، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 دانشیار بخش تخصصی پژوهش و سنجش؛ دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم‌تربیتی؛ دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده
برنامه درسی متراکم، پدیده‌ای نوظهور است که شناخت همه جانبه‌ی آن برای هر نظام آموزشی ضرورت محسوب می‌شود. هدف پژوهش حاضر، شناسایی عوامل زمینه‌ساز و تبعات برنامه درسی متراکم در دوره ابتدایی به منظور ارائه راهکارهای مقابله با آن بوده است. رویکرد پژوهش حاضر کیفی است که به روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها با طرح Charmaz (2006) انجام شده است. شرکت‌کنندگان پژوهش را متخصصان، معلمان، دانش‌آموزان و والدین تشکیل می‌دادند که به صورت نمونه‌گیری هدفمند در دو مرحله‌ی مقدماتی (ملاک‌‌محور) و نظریه‌ای انتخاب شدند. گردآوری داده‌ها از طریق مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته انجام گرفت و داده‌ها با روش ساخت‌گرایانه‌ی چارمز و از طریق کدگذاری اولیه، متمرکز و نظری تحلیل شد. در طی فرایند کدگذاری، ۷۴ کد اولیه، ۱۷ کد متمرکز و ۳ کد نظری استخراج گردید. جهت ارزیابی کیفیت و اعتبار پژوهش، از ملاک‌های Lincoln and Guba (1985) و Charmaz (2006) استفاده گردید و بدین منظور روش‌های بازبینی اعضا، ممیزی بیرونی و بازبینی همگنان (با توافق ۸۹ درصد بین دو کدگذار اول و دوم) بکار گرفته شد. یافته‌های پژوهش حاکی از این بود که ساختار جزیره‌ای و رویکرد مهندسی، فرهنگ عمومی جامعه، شتابزدگی در اصلاحات، سستی در پایش، ضعف در اجرا و بی‌اعتمادی به توانایی معلمان عوامل زمینه‌ساز برنامه درسی متراکم در دوره ابتدایی ایران بوده است و تبعات یاددهی عجولانه و سلیقه‌ای، یادگیری سطحی و زودگذر، کم‌توجهی به پرورش استعداد و خلاقیت، بی‌رغبتی به درس و مدرسه، فرسودگی شغلی معلمان و ناکارآمد جلوه کردن آموزش و پرورش را به دنبال داشته است. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد، چرخش از رویکرد مهندسی به فرهنگی و مشارکت دادن معلمان در تدوین برنامه درسی، پویایی به روزرسانی برنامه درسی، اجرای آزمایشی محتوا قبل از تعمیم، بازنگری در تخصیص زمان بین دروس، کاهش تعداد کتاب‌های درسی و جایگزینی با بسته‌های آموزشی و حفظ تعادل بین وسعت و عمق محتوا، راهکارهایی هستند که می‌تواند به منظور مقابله و پیشگیری از برنامه درسی متراکم بکار گرفته شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

برنامه درسی متراکم
دوره ابتدایی
زمان
محتوا

عنوان مقاله English

Identifying the Predisposing Factors and Consequences of Overloaded Curriculum in the Primary Education and Providing Solutions to Deal with it

نویسندگان English

Farzaneh Askary 1
Mohamad Javadipour 2
Rezvan Hakimzadeh 3
Keyvan Salehi 4
1 Ph.D in Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Associate professor, Division of Research and Assessment, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction
Overloaded curriculum is an emerging and complex phenomenon in the field of curriculum, which is considered a necessity for every educational system. Prevention of this issue requires a comprehensive investigation in terms of underlying factors and its consequences. The aim of the current research was to identify the predisposing factors and consequences of dense curriculum in the elementary school in order to provide solutions to deal with it.
 
Method
The current research is a qualitative, which was carried out by the method of  Grounded theory Raised byCharmaz (2006). The participants of the research were education specialists, teachers, students and parents who were selected as a purposeful sampling in two stages of preliminary sampling (by criterion method) and theoretical sampling. Data collection was done through semi-structured interviews and the data was analyzed using the Charmas constructivist method and through initial, focused and theoretical coding. Lincoln and Guba (1985) four criteria and Charmas (2006) credit enhancement criteria were used to evaluate the quality and the methods of member check, external audit and peer review (with 89% agreement between the first and second coders) were used.
 
Results
In the process of coding, four theoretical codes were obtained, according to which, the research Substantive-level theory was presented and examined in the context of Iran's primary education. During the coding process, 74 initial codes, 17 focused codes and 3 theoretical codes were extracted. The findings of the research indicated that the silo’ structure and engineering approach, the general culture of the society, haste in changing the structure and reforms, laxity in monitoring, weakness in implementation and lack of confidence in the ability of teachers were the main factors in creating an overloaded curriculum in the primary education of Iran, and the consequences hasty and personalized teaching, shallow and ephemeral learning, Attention defecit to the cultivation talent and creativity, reluctance to study and school, burnout of teachers, and ineffectiveness of education have followed.
 
Discussion
The results of the research showed the solutions of turning from the engineering approach to the cultural approach and involving teachers in developing the curriculum, updating the curriculum, Implementation of content piloting, reviewing the allocation of time between courses, reducing the number of textbooks and replacing them with educational packages, eliminating difficult and ambiguous contents and maintaining a balance between the breadth and depth of the content can be effective in dealing with and preventing an overloaded curriculum.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • Content
  • Overloaded curriculum
  • Primary education
  • Time
ACARA (2018). Monitoring the effectiveness of the foundation - Year 10 Australian curriculum.  https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/curriculum/2018-monitoring-the-effectiveness-of-f-y10-australian-curriculum-report.pdf.
Alexander, R., & Flutter, J. (2009). Towards a New Primary Curriculum. Part 1: Past and Present, Cambridge Primary Review, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3460.0086.
Amadio, M. (Ed.). (2016). What makes a quality curriculum? Current and critical issues in the curriculum and learning. UNESCO-IBE, Geneva. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243975e.pdf.
Amini, M., Rahimi, H., & Esfandiari, E. (2014). Examining and analyzing the implementation problems of the sixth grade from the view of of the curriculum elements. Curriculum research, 4(2), 33-54. [Persian]
Angus, M., Olney, H., & Ainley, J. (2007). In the balance, The future of Australia’s primary schools. Victoria: APPA. https://appa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/In-the-balance.pdf.
Askary, F., Javadipour, M., Hakimzadeh, R., & Salehi, K. (2023). Identifying the Dimensions and Characteristics of Overloaded Curriculum in the Primary Education. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 17(63), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2024.420665.3058 [Persian]
Baham, E. (2014). School capacity and overload review (S.C.O.R.E): Measuring school capasity to maximize school improvement. A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1bb1n3v5.
Charmaz, K .(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: SAGE.
Chen, A., Brown, S., Mark, K., & McBane, S. (2023). An overview of Instructional approaches and decision making strategies to curtail curricular overload. AJPE, 87(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2022.12.001.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eduwem, J. D., & Ezeonwumelu, V. U. (2020). Overloaded Curriculum, Excessive Daily Academic Activities and Students’ Learning Effectiveness. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science. 33(8), 70-75. https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2020/v33i830252.
Elbedour, S., Alsubie, F., & Aluqdah, Sh. (2020). Bawalsah school crisis management planning. Children & Schools, 42(4), 208-215.
Etuk, N. E., Udosen,  A. U., Emah,  I. E., Edem, E., & Afangideh, M. E. (2019). Curriculum: The basics of planning and implementation. Uyo: Onpeic Resources.
European Commission (2014). Final Curriculum Development. DEVCO B4 Education discussion paper. University of Geneva, Switzerland. https://capacity4dev.europa.eu/library/discussion-paper-curriculum-development_en
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 514–525. https://doiorg.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013.
Gholamazad, S. (2022). Implementation of the first grade math curriculum: challenges and solutions. Theory and practice in the curriculum, 20(10), 389-424. [Persian]
Gonzalez, P. B., & Reiss, M. (2023). Science teachers’ views of creating and teaching Big Ideas of science education: experiences from Chile. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(2), 523-543, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1919868.
Gravand, Y., Omidian, M., Farhadirad, H., & Razavi, S. A. (2023). Explaining the process of socialization of learning in the experimental sciences: a qualitative research. Journal of Educational Sciences, 30(1), 41-62. https://doi.org/10.22055/edus.2022.39996.3333 [Persian]
Javidiporkhabaz, M., & Salimi, S. (2022). Representation of teachers' experiences of the opportunities and challenges of the lesson research process. Journal of Educational Sciences, 29(2), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.22055/edus.2022.41027.3371 [Persian]
Karimnezhad, S., Sheikhzadeh, M., & Azizinezhad, S. (2013). Internal evaluation of the sixth grade math curriculum from teachers' point of view. Research teaching, 1(2), 43-54. [Persian]
Kelley, K. A., Williams, V. L., & Chen, A. M. H. (2023). The Challenge of Curricular Overload in the Pharmacy Academy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe9434
Kuiper, W., & Berkvens, J. (Eds.). (2013). Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Majoni, C. (2017). Curriculum overload and its impact on teacher effectiveness in primary schools. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(3), 155-162. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/516.
Marhefka, J. (2011). Sleep deprivation: Consequences for students. Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv, 49(9), 20-25.
Mbale, G., & Hara, A. (2022). Examining Challenges that Affect the Implementation of the National Reading Programme by Teachers: A case of selected schools in malawi. Law and Social Sciences, 4(3), 45-64.
Mousapour, N. (2011). Approaches governing change in Iran's educational system and curriculum: from the engineering approach to the cultural approach. Culture Strategy, 17, 274-243. [Persian]
Najafipazoki, M., & Delbari, M. (2022). The content element in the Quran curriculum of the first grade of elementary school. Educational innovations, 83(21), 151-184. [Persian]
Nazari, H., Talaee, E., Hatami, J., Imaninaeeni, M., Timas, A. (2023). An investigation on writing quality of elementary school students: an evaluating study. Journal of Educational Sciences, 30(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.22055/edus.2022.38746.3282 [Persian]
Oates, T. (2013). Using International Comparisons to Refine the National Curriculum. Cambridge University Press.
OECD (2020). Curriculum overload: A way forward. OECD publishing, paris. http://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
Ramezani, F. (2017). New approaches and missions of primary education. Development of primary education, 21(2), 22-26. [Persian]
Rasmussen J., Rasch-Christensen, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2021). Knowledge or competencies? A controversial question in contemporary curriculum debates. European Educational Research. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14749041211023338.
Romanelli, F. (2020). Curricular hoarding. Am J Pharm Educ, 84(1). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe847714
Schmidt, W., & Houang, R.  (2012). Curricular Coherence and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12464517.
Stabback, P., Male, B., & Georgescu, D. (2011). What makes a good quality school curriculum? UNESCO. IBE. https://www.academia.edu/3008064.
Taylor, B. D. (2022). A Reductionist Approach in Curricular Planning for Teaching Language Arts. Curriculum Studies Research, 4(2), 30- 43. http://dx.doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2022.10

صفحه اصلی

راهنمای نویسندگان

ارسال مقاله

داوران

تماس با ما