The approaches used by university professors to participate in the process of curriculum development

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the approaches used by university professors to participate in the process of curriculum development. Qualitative research methodology is used and its approach is grounded theory. The population consists of all Bu-Ali-Sina university professors and their graduate students in second semester of 2012-2013 academic year. Using purposeful sampling (critical case sampling method),11 university professors of the faculties of  literature and humanities, economics and social sciences and the graduate students of the same professors were selected as research participants. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with professors, classroom observation and focus group interviews with students. The research data were analyzed based on grounded theory approach and open coding, axial coding and selective coding were used. That is, data were conceptualized and categorized and finally analyzed. The findings showed that the approaches used by professors to participate in the process of curriculum development have varied from fidelity to curriculum implementation to limited curriculum planning. The professors’ approaches include: fidelity to curriculum implementation, transferring curriculum with the least changes, developing curriculum with minimum adaptation, developing curriculum with maximum changes and planning curriculum in a limited level. The dominant approach among these professors was curriculum development with limited adaptation. 

Keywords

References

اقدسی،مریم. (1381).بررسی  راهکارهای  مشارکت اعضای هیئتعلمی  دانشکده­هایعلومتربیتیدانشگاه­هایدولتیتهراندربرنامهریزی  آموزشی و  درسی.پایان­نامه­ی کارشناسی ارشد، تهران:دانشگاهعلامهطباطبایی،دانشکدهعلوم تربیتیوروان­شناسی.
زین­الدینی میمند، ز؛ موسی­پور، ن؛ جوادی، ی. (1384). آمادگی اعضای هیئت علمی برای پذیرش برنامه­ریزی درسی غیرمتمرکز در آموزش عالی ایران. کرمان: همایش تمرکز و عدم تمرکز در فرایند برنامه­ریزی درسی، 375 - 355.
فتحی واجارگاه، ک. (1385). اصول برنامه­ریزی درسی. تهران: انتشارات ایران زمین.
کرمی، م؛ بهمن­آبادی، س؛ اسماعیلی، آ. (1391). ساختار تصمیم­گیری مطلوب در طراحی برنامه درسی آموزش عالی: دیدگاه اعضای هیئت علمی و متخصصان برنامه درسی. پژوهش در برنامه­ریزی درسی، سال نهم، دوره دوم، شماره هفتم، 104-92.
گویا، ز؛ ایزدی، ص. (1381). جایگاه مدرسان در سطوح تصمیم­گیری برنامه­ریزی درسی. فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، سال دوازدهم، شماره چهل و دوم، 173-147.
منصوریان، یزدان. (1386) درآمدی بر روش تحقیق کیفی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
مهرمحمدی،محمود. (1391).برنامهدرسی:نظرگاه­ها،رویکردهاوچشم­اندازها.مشهد:انتشاراتآستانقدس رضوی.
مؤمنی مهموئی، ح؛ فتحی واجارگاه، ک. (1384). بررسی نقش عوامل مؤثر بر مشارکت اعضای هیئت علمی در برنامه­ریزی درسی آموزش عالی گامی در جهت تمرکززدایی. کرمان: همایش تمرکز و عدم تمرکز در فرایند برنامه­ریزی درسی، 444-432.
مؤمنی مهموئی، ح؛کرمی، م؛ مشهدی، ع. (1389). بررسی نقش عوامل کاهش­دهنده­ی­ فاصله­ی بین برنامه درسی قصد شده، اجرا شده و تجربه شده­ی آموزش عالی. دوفصلنامه­ی مطالعات برنامه درسی آموزش عالی، سال یکم، شماره دوم، 110-90.
میلر، ج. پ. (1386). نظریه­های برنامه درسی. ترجمه­ی محمود مهرمحمدی. تهران: انتشارات سمت.
نوروززاده، ر؛ محمودی، ر؛ فتحی واجارگاه، ک؛ نوه ابراهیم، ع. (1384). تفویض اختیارات برنامه­ریزی درسی به دانشگاه­ها، گامی در جهت تمرکززدایی برنامه­ریزی درسی در نظام آموزش عالی کشور. کرمان: همایش تمرکز و عدم تمرکز در فرایند برنامه­ریزی درسی، 597 -570.
وزارت علوم، تحقیقات و فناوری. (1379). آیین­نامه واگذاری اختیارات برنامه­ریزی درسی به دانشگاه­ها.
Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The Teacher-Curriculum Encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. New York: State University of New York Press.
Brady, L. (1995). School-based curriculum development and national curriculum:can they coexist? Curriculum and Teaching, 10(1), 47–53.
Bush, W.  (1986). Pre-service teachers’ sources of decision in teaching secondary mathematics Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.  17 (1),  21–30.
Carl, A.(2005).The “voice of the teacher” in curriculum development: a voice crying in the wilderness? South African Journal of Education .Vol, 25(4),223–228.
Clemente, M. , Ramirez, E., & Dominguez, B. (2000). The selection of contents in school projects in Spain. Curriculum Inquiry, 30, 295–317.
Corbin, J. , & Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theoryprocedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Craig, C. J. (2006). Why is dissemination so difficult?  The nature  of teacherknowledge and the spread of curriculum reform. American Educational ResearchJournal, 43(2), 257–293.
Education, 55(1), 55–69.
Fishman, B. J. , Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and studentlearning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching andTeacher Education, 19, 643–658.
Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematicsinstruction in elementary schools? American Educational ResearchJournal, 26(3), 403–421.
Kelly, A. (1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice (4th ed.). London: PaulChapman.
Knowles, J. G. (1999). Pre-service teachers’ professional development: researchingthe first years of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(1), 99–105.
Oreck, B. (2004). The artistic and professional development of teachers: a study ofteachers’ attitudes toward and use of the arts in teaching. Journal of Teacher
Ornstein,A.C.(1987).the field of curriculum:what approach?what definition?The high school Journal.The High School Journal, 208-216.
Parker, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the post-modern world: A manifesto foreducation in post modernity. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Pollard, A., & Triggs, P. (1997). Reflective teaching in secondary education: A handbookfor schools and colleges. London: Cassell.
Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform:a framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. CurriculumInquiry, 29, 315–342.
Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: theory andpractice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building newunderstandings (pp. n/a). London: Falmer.
Shawer, S.(2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers,curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 ,173–184.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook of research on curriculum, 402–435. New York: Macmillan.
Sosniak, L. A., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: materials use in fourfourth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 249–275.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt.
Terwel, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: multiple perspectives and developmentsin education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(4), 653–670.
The Southern African Development Community.(2000).Curriculum Theory,Design and Assessment.the commonwealth of learning.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a socio-cultural practice and theory ofeducation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Educational and Scholastic studies
Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 8
February 2014
Pages 61-86

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics