فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی
تحلیل چگونگی فهم برنامه درسی در مطالعات آموزش عالی ایران
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دوره دکتری آموزش عالی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 استاد دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
معنا و اهمیت برنامه درسی در آموزش عالی در ارتباط با تحولات آموزش عالی در عرصه اجتماعی، دگردیسی های بنیادینی را تجربه کرده است. از این رو، سؤال این است که چنین وضعیتی در زمینه ایرانی چگونه بازنمایی می شود؟ بدین منظور، تمرکز مطالعه حاضر بر تحلیل چگونگی فهم برنامه درسی در مطالعات آموزش عالی ایران با رویکرد پدیدارنگاری بود. در چنین بافتی، مطالعات یک دهه اخیر برنامه درسی در آموزش عالی ایران با روش مرور نظام‌مند گردآوری و نمونه منتخب به تعداد 57 مقاله علمی پژوهشی در دو سطح کدگذاری باز و محوری تحلیل کیفی شد. در برایند تحلیل‌ها چهار شیوه فهم؛ یعنی تکلیف گرایی، پاسخگوانگاری، پروژه محوری و شبه یادگیری پژوهی شناسایی، تعریف و با ذکر مصادیق تجربی تبیین شد. فصل مشترک سه شیوه فهم ابتدایی از سیطره معنای سنتی و محدود برنامه درسی (مکانیزم انتخاب، سازماندهی و انتقال دانش در یک دوره تحصیلی) بر مبانی فکری مطالعه برنامه درسی در آموزش عالی ایران حکایت دارد. علاوه بر این، فهم شبه یادگیری پژوهی نیز حاکی از سیطره ضمنی این معنای سنتی بر مبانی فکری محدود تحقیقاتی است که به مطالعه برنامه درسی در آموزش عالی ایران مبتنی بر معنای گسترده آن (فرایند مداوم درک و توسعه تجارب یادگیری معنادار در یک زمینه میان رشته ای) پرداخته اند. درنتیجه، فهم برنامه درسی در مطالعات آموزش عالی ایران درگیر دگماتیزم سنتگرایی است که می تواند سودمندی آن برای تعالی آموزش و یادگیری دانشگاهی را با مخاطرات جدی مواجه سازد. این مطالعه می تواند به بازاندیشی در فهم و جریان فکری برنامه درسی در مطالعات آموزش عالی ایران به منظور برونرفت از چنین دگماتیزم سنتگرایی کمک کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
An analysis of understanding curriculum in higher education studies in Iran
نویسندگان [English]
- Hamed Kamali 1
- Mohammad Yamani Duozi Sorkhabi 2
- Mahbobeh Arefi 3
1 Ph.D. Student in Higher Education with concentration in curriculum, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate professor, Faculty of Education Sciences & Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]
The meaning and importance of the curriculum in higher education in connection with the developments of higher education in the social field, has undergone fundamental changes. Hence, the question is how such a situation is represented in the Iranian context? Therefore, the focus of the present study was on the analysis of how to understand the curriculum in Iranian higher education studies using a phenomenological approach. In this context, curriculum studies in Iranian higher education was collected in the last decade by the systematic review method. Using a purposeful sampling technique, 57 articles were selected and qualitatively analyzed in two levels of open and axial coding. As a result, four ways of the understanding curriculum in selected articles, were identified, defined and explained by experimental examples: 1) task-oriented understanding, 2) responsive understanding, 3) project-oriented understanding and 4) learning- research understanding. These ways of understanding were defined and explained by citing empirical examples. The common denominator of the three primary ways is that it dominates the traditional and limited meaning of the curriculum (mechanisms for selecting, organizing and transferring knowledge in a course of study) on the intellectual foundations of curriculum studies in Iranian higher education. Also, the quasi-learning way indicates the dominance of the limited and traditional meaning of the curriculum on the intellectual foundations of the limited number of studies that have studied the curriculum in higher education is based on its broad meaning (the social process of understanding and developing meaningful learning experiences). As a result, understanding the curriculum in Iranian higher education studies is involved in the dogmatism of traditionalism, which can seriously jeopardize its usefulness for the excellence of university education and learning. This study can help to rethink the understanding and intellectual flow of the higher education field of study in order to get out of such an intellectual dogmatism.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Higher Education
- Understanding curriculum in higher education
- Curriculum studies in higher education
- Curriculum transformations in higher education
2. Altbach, P.G. (2010). The realities of mass higher education in a globalized world. In Higher education in a global society. Edward Elgar Publishing.
3. Amini, M., Marooghi, R., Mazidi, M., Torkzadeh, J., & Mohammadi, M. (2015). An investigation into the outcomes of implicit curriculum in higher education. Journal of Theory & Practice in Curriculum, 5(3), 23-44.
4. Bagheri, K. (2018). One Dream and Two Beds: De-stressing the University and the Humanities. Tehran: Institute of Cultural and Social Studies [in Persian].
5. Barnett, R. (2000). Supercomplexity and the curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 255-265.
6. Barnett, R. )2009(. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (4), 429-40.
7. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2004). Engaging the Curriculum. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
8. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
9. Carroll, M. (2018). Understanding curriculum: An actor network theory approach. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 9(3), 247-261.
10. Clegg, S. (2011). Cultural capital and agency: Connecting critique and curriculum in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(1), 93-108.
11. Cornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context. London: Falmer Press.
12. Davoodi, A., Keshtiaray, N., & Yusfi, A. (2016). Phenomenological explanation of curriculum principles of the teaching experience (internship) in Farhangian University. Journal of Theory & Practice in Curriculum, 6(3), 5-28 [in Persian].
13. Fathi Vajargah, K. (2017). Moving beyond reconceptualisation toward recontextualisation/multicontextualisation of curriculum studies in Iran. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 9(18), 45-69 [in Persian].
14. Ghorbani, H. (2019). Designing and validation of internship curriculum pattern based on collaborative autobiography in teacher education in Iran. Theory & Practice in Curriculum Journal, 7(14), 395-442.
15. Hicks, O. (2018). Curriculum in higher education: Confusion, complexity and currency. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 5, 5-30.
16. Hosseini, L.S.M., & Yadegarzadeh, G.R. (2021). University curriculum development models in higher education: A proposed model for higher education in Iran. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 11(22), 49-88 [in Persian].
17. Javadipour, M., Hakimzadeh, R., & Abadi, F. (2016). A review over the new concept of college student’s curriculum: Introducing and expanding the relevant concepts. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 8(15), 91-112 [in Persian].
18. Johnson-Mardones, D. (2014). Toward a multidimensional concept of curriculum: Understating curriculum as phenomenon, field and design. Euro-JCS, 1(2), 172-177.
19. Karami, M., & Fattahi, H. (2013). Changing higher education curriculum, case study: Graduate curriculum in educational planning. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 4(7), 110-36 [in Persian].
20. Khorsandi Taskoh, A., & Firozjaeian, T. (2018). Conditions for internationalization of universities by focusing on intercultural curriculum planning. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 9(18), 7-44 [in Persian].
21. Lattuca, L.R., & Stark, J.S. (1997). Shaping the College Curriculum: Academic Plans in Context. John Wiley & Sons.
22. Lindén, J., Annala, J., & Coate, K. (2017). The role of curriculum theory in contemporary higher education research and practice. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, 3, 137-154.
23. Marzooghe, R. (2016). Paradigms of Science and Curriculum Theory. Tehran: Avaye Noor [in Persian].
24. McKernan, J. (2007). Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. Routledge.
25. Mehrmohammadi, M., & Alehosseini, F. (2011). The development of institutional understanding of curriculum: From operational to the practical. Journal of Curriculum Studies (J.C.S.), 6 (22), 29-58 [in Persian].
26. Mohammadi, M., & Azizi, R. (2018) The perfectionistic experience of PhD students from the Learned University Curriculum: A phenomenological study. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 10 (20), 265-287 [in Persian].
27. Nasrollahinia, F., & Alamolhoda, J. (2020). Reviewing and presenting the proposed curriculum in the field of educational sciences in the master's degree course. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 11(21), 97-138 [in Persian].
28. Noorabadi, S., Musapour, N., Aliasgari, M., & Hajihosseinnajad, G. (2015). Evaluating the quality of interdisciplinary curricula of humanities in Iranian higher education. Theory & Practice in Curriculum Journal, 2(4), 61-84 [in Persian].
29. Peach, S. (2010). A curriculum philosophy for higher education: Socially critical vocationalism. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4), 449-460.
30. Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 221-237.
31. Rahimi, B. (2018). Meta-aanalysis of challenges of higher education environment in the 21st century and as a pattern for orientation of curricula. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 9(17), 115-166.
32. Rahimian, N., Saremi, A., Dehghani, M., & Mobaraki, M. (2020). Implemented curriculum of entrepreneurship faculty of University of Tehran and recommendations: A narrative inquiry. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 11(22), 221-248 [in Persian].
33. Salimi, J., Maleki, H., & MehrMohammadi, M. (2012). Providing a model of interdisciplinary curriculum design in under-graduate social sciences. Journal of Curriculum Research, 1(2), 105-130 [in Persian].
34. Schwartz, R.A. (2008). What is curriculum studies?. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 5(2), 57-59.
35. Toohey, S. (1999). Designing courses for higher education. McGraw-hill education (UK). [in Persian].
36. Trow, M. (2006). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to
universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern
societies since World War II. In Forest, J.J. F., & Altbach, P.G. (Eds.).
International Handbook of Higher Education, Springer International
Handbooks of Education. 18, 243-280.
37. Walker, D. (1990) Fundamentals of Curriculum (New York, Harcourt Brace).
38. Wheelahan, L. (2010). Why Knowledge Matters in Curriculum: A Social Realist Argument. London: Routledge.
39. Yadegarzadeh, G.R., Fathi Vajargah, K., Mehrmohammadi, M., & Arefi, M. (2016). An analysis of the necessities and requirements of rethinking the goals, strategies and curricula of specialized doctoral courses. Journal of Research in Teaching, 4(1), 1-18 [in Persian].
40. Young, M. (2015). Curriculum theory and the question of knowledge: A response to the six papers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 820-837.
41. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 11-27.
42. Zare, S.S., Dehghani, M., Hakimzadeh, R., Karami, M., & Salehi, K. (2019). Faculty members' experiences of professional development curriculum: A conceptual model. Journal of Theory & Practice in Curriculum, 13(7), 177-206 [in Persian].
)