پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,261 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,847 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 22,205,766 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 14,929,553 |
نشانگرهای عنصر ارزشیابی در برنامه درسی توانمندساز در راستای اشتغالزایی دانشآموختگان و میزان توجه به آنها | ||
| فناوری و دانش پژوهی در تعلیم و تربیت | ||
| دوره 5، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 18، دی 1404، صفحه 95-116 اصل مقاله (871.08 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/t-edu.2025.74239.1268 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مصطفی باقریان فر* 1؛ سیده مریم حسینی لرگانی2؛ مهران عزیزی محمودآباد3 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه نوآوری آموزشی و درسی، موسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشیار گروه نوآوری آموزشی و درسی، موسسه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی آموزش عالی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3استادیار، گروه آموزشی علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران. ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی نشانگرهای عنصر ارزشیابی در برنامه درسی توانمندساز در راستای اشتغالزایی دانشآموختگان و میزان توجه به نشانگرها انجام شد. این پژوهش با هدف کاربردی، ماهیت عملگرایی، رویکرد آمیخته از نوع اکتشافی متوالی صورت پذیرفت. در بخش کیفی پژوهش از روش پدیدارشناسی و در بخش کمی از روش توصیفی - پیمایشی استفاده شد. مشارکتکنندگان بخش کیفی شامل خبرگان و متخصصان آموزشعالی بودند که با بهرهگیری از رویکرد نمونهگیری هدفمند از نوع موارد مطلوب و گلولهبرفی و معیار کفایت نظری، 23 نفر انتخاب شدند. در بخش کمی پژوهش با استفاده روش نمونهگیری تصادفی طبقهای نسبی 275 نفر انتخاب شدند. ابزار جمعآوری اطلاعات در بخش کیفی مصاحبه نیمهساختاریافته و در بخش کمی، پرسشنامه مستخرج از بخش کیفی پژوهش بود. اطلاعات بهدستآمده در بخش کیفی با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون و در بخش کمی با استفاده از روشهای تحلیل آماری توصیفی (میانگین، انحرافمعیار) و استنباطی (آزمون t تکنمونهای و آزمون مانوا) تجزیه و تحلیل شدند. یافتههای بخش کیفی پژوهش نشان داد مهمترین نشانگرها شامل موقعیتی بودن ارزشیابی، توجه به آزمونهای عملکردی بهجای آزمونهای کتبی، تأکید بر فعالیتهای عملی و تیمی، تناسب نوع ارزشیابی با اهداف و محتوای دروس، ارائه بازخورد مستمر و دورهای به دانشجویان برای تقویت عملکرد آنها، ارزشیابی یادگیری دانشجویان بر اساس مسئولیت آنها در گروههای یادگیری، شفافیت و عدالت در معیارها و طراحی ارزشیابیها، تأکید بر یادگیری از ارزشیابیها، توجه به تفاوتهای فردی دانشجویان و ارزشیابی بر مبنای توانمندیهای شغلی بود. یافتههای بخش کمی نشان داد میزان توجه به نشانگرها در رشتههای علومتربیتی و روانشناسی مطلوب نیست و نیاز به توجه بیشتری دارد. در نهایت میتوان گفت تحقق برنامه درسی توانمندساز مستلزم عبور از ارزشیابیهای سنتی و توجه به روشهای متنوع، عادلانه و یادگیریمحور است تا زمینه ارتقای کیفیت آموزش و افزایش قابلیت اشتغال دانشآموختگان فراهم شود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| برنامه درسی توانمندساز؛ اشتغالزایی؛ ارزشیابی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Indicators of the Evaluation Element in the Empowering Curriculum Aimed at Job Creation for Graduates and the Level of Attention Given to Them | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mostafa Bagherian Far1؛ Seyedeh Maryam Hosseinilargani2؛ Mehran Azizi Mahmoodabad3 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor Department of Educational and Curriculum Innovations Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Curriculum and Innovation Educational , Higher education research and Planning Institute, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present study was conducted with the purpose of identifying indicators of the evaluation element in the empowering curriculum in line with the employment of graduates and the level of attention to the indicators. This study was conducted with an applied purpose, a pragmatic nature, and a mixed approach of sequential exploratory type. In the qualitative part of the research, the phenomenological method was used, and in the quantitative part, the descriptive-survey method was used. The participants in the qualitative part included experts and specialists in higher education, who were selected using a purposive sampling approach of desirable cases and snowball types and the theoretical adequacy criterion. In the quantitative part of the research, 275 people were selected using a relative stratified random sampling method. The data collection tool in the qualitative part was a semi-structured interview, and in the quantitative part, a questionnaire extracted from the qualitative part of the research. The information obtained in the qualitative section was analyzed using the content analysis method and in the quantitative section using descriptive (mean, standard deviation) and inferential (one-sample t-test and MANOVA test) statistical analysis methods.The findings of the qualitative section revealed that the most important indicators included the situational nature of evaluation, emphasis on performance-based tests instead of written exams, a focus on practical and team activities, the alignment of the type of evaluation with course objectives and content, providing continuous and periodic feedback to students to enhance their performance, evaluating students' learning based on their responsibilities within learning groups, transparency and fairness in criteria and evaluation design, emphasizing learning from evaluations, attention to individual student differences, and evaluating based on professional competencies. The findings of the quantitative section indicated that the level of attention to the indicators in the fields of educational sciences and psychology is not satisfactory and requires greater attention. In conclusion, the realization of an empowering curriculum necessitates moving beyond traditional assessments and embracing diverse, equitable, and learning-centered approaches to enhance the quality of education and improve the employability of graduates. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Empowering Curriculum, Job Creation, Evaluation, Expertise | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abed, E. R & Abu Awwad, F. M. (2016). Students' Learning Assessment Practices Used by Jordanian Teachers of Mathematics for Grades (1-6). International Education Studies, 9(1), 63-78.
Abrami, PC, Rosenfeld, S & Dedic, H. (2007). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: an update on what we know, do not know, and need to do, in RP Perry & JC Smart (eds). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an evidence-based approach, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 446–456.
Afriadi, B. Komarudin, K & Sutisna, A. (2024). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Civic Education Curriculum in Indonesia: A Case Study of the KTSP Curriculum, the 2013 Curriculum, and the Independent Curriculum. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 13, 5, 331 – 343. doi:10.5430/jct.v13n5p331.
Ajjawi, R. Tai, J. Nghia, T. Boud, D. Johnson. L & Patrick, C. (2020). Aligning assessment with the needs of work-integrated learning: the challenge of authentic assessment in a complex context, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45:2, 304-316, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1639613.
Arreola, RA. (2007). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: a guide to designing, building, and operating large-scale faculty evaluation systems. 3rd edn, Anker, San Francisco.
Ashford-Rowe, K. J. Herrington & C. Brown. (2014). Establishing the Critical Elements That Determine Authentic Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (2): 205–222. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.819566.
Azhar, F. (2013). Class-based performance evaluation: An evaluation. Asian Social Science, 9(12), 187.
BagherianFar, M & HosieniLargani, S. M. (2025). Designing indicators of empowering curriculum elements to increase the employability of humanities bachelor's degree graduates. Studious project. Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education. [In Persian]
BagherianFar, M. NasrEsfahani, A., Javadipour, M. and zamani, A. (2024). Favorable Indices for Assessing The Performance of University Students in The Humanities Fields and The Amount of Attention They Receive. Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 20(3), 81-98. doi: 10.22051/jontoe.2022.37656.3414 [In Persian]
Baidoo-Anu, D & DeLuca, C. (2025). Do students perceive assessment differently? Exploring the diverse ways students conceive assessment and its impact on their assessment experiences and engagement. Education Inquiry, 1-24.
Bamberger, M. (2020). The culture of evaluation in the age of big data: The need for a new evaluation paradigm for the 4th Industrial Revolution. Evaluation Matters Q, 1, 74-85.
Berk, RA. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 48–62.
Blackmore, J. (2009). Academic pedagogies, quality logics and per formative universities: evaluating teaching and what students want. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (8), 857–872.
Boud, D & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning Assessment with Long‐term Learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 31 (4), 399–413. doi:10.1080/02602930600679050.
Brown, G. T. (2022, November). The past, present and future of educational assessment: A transdisciplinary perspective. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 1060633). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1060633
Cannon, R. (2001). Broadening the context for teaching evaluation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 87–97.
Chabeli, M., A. Nolte, and G. Ndawo. (2021). Authentic Learning: A Concept Analysis. Global Journal of Health Science 13 (4): 12–23. doi:10.5539/gjhs.v13n4p12.
Cizek, G. (2009). Reliability and validity of information about student achievement: Comparing large-scale and classroom testing contexts. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 63-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577627.
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-Centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77,113–143.
Creswell, W. (2011). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson pub.
Darling, L & Hammond, L. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00015-9
Darwin, S. (2011). Moving beyond face value: re-envisioning higher education evaluation as a generator of professional knowledge. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37 (6),733–745.
Dehghanizadeh, Z. Alinejad, M & Azimi Nejadian, M. (2025). Understanding the characteristics of the service-oriented university curriculum (A Phenomenological Study). Technology and Scholarship in Education, 5(2), 77-90. doi: 10.30473/t-edu.2025.72197.1192 [In Persian]
DeLuca, C. (2012). Preparing teachers for the age of accountability: Toward a framework for assessment education. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 576–591.
DeLuca, C. Coombs, A & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2019). Assessment mindset: Exploring the relationship between teacher mindset and approaches to classroom assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 159-169.
DeLuca, C. LaPointe-McEwan, D & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 1–22.
Ellis, C. K. Van Haeringen, R. Harper, T. Bretag, I. Zucker, S. McBride, P. Rozenberg, P. Newton, and S. Saddiqui. (2020). Does Authentic Assessment Assure Academic Integrity? Evidence from Contract Cheating Data. Higher Education Research & Development, 39 (3): 454–469. doi:10.1080/07294360.2019.1680956.
Endedijk, M. D., & Vermunt, J. D. (2013). Relations between student teachers’ learning patterns and their concrete learning activities. Studies in educational evaluation, 39(1), 56-65. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2012.10.001.
Fischer, J. Bearman, M. Boud, D & Tai, J. (2024). How does assessment drive learning? A focus on students’ development of evaluative judgement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(2), 233-245.
Gerritsen-van Leeuwenkamp, K. J. Joosten-ten Brinke, D & Kester, L. (2019). Students’ perceptions of assessment quality related to their learning approaches and learning outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 72-82.
Gibbs, G. (1999). Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In S. Brown & A. Glasner (Eds.), Assessment matters in higher education: Choosing and using diverse approaches (pp. 41- 53). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gitanjali, M. (2016). The three Rs of written assessment: The JIPMER experience. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 7(3), 115-119. doi: 10.4103/0976-500X.189650.
Herrington, J. Reeves, T. C & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among learner, task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247. doi:10.1080/01587910600789639.
IBE-UNESCO. (2015). Defining the curriculum content [Text]. International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/geqaf/annexes/technical-notes/defining-curriculum-content
Jacob, S. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Evaluation: From Augmented to Automated Evaluation. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 6(1), 1-10.
Johnson, TD & Ryan, KE. (2000). A comprehensive approach to the evaluation of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83(9), 109–123.
Kearney, S. Perkins, T & Kennedy-Clark, S. (2015). Using self- and peer-assessments for summative purposes: Analysing the relative validity of the AASL (Authentic assessment for sustainable learning) model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1039484
Lutfi, Arismunandar, Suardi, Suryadi, F.A & Husain, H. (2024). Relevance of curriculum development with national education goals and 21st century competencies. Global Education Scientific Journal, 5(4), 2475-2482. https://doi.org/10.55681/jige.v5i4.3529
Maghami, H. (2025). The Impact of Gamified AI-Driven Assessment on Collaborative Learning and Learning Performance of Students. Technology and Scholarship in Education, 5(1), 81-96. doi: 10.30473/t-edu.2025.74118.1263 [In Persian]
Markle, R. (2017). Continuing a culture of evidence: student-level assessment. ETS research Report, 10-17.
Marsh, HW. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness’, in RP Perry & JC Smart (eds). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an evidencebased approach, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
McArthur, J. (2023). Rethinking Authentic Assessment: Work, Well-Being, and Society. Higher Education, 85 (1), 85–101. doi:10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y.
Mikk, J. (2006). Students homework and TIMSS 2003 mathematics results. Paper presented at the International Conference “Teaching Mathematics: Retrospective and Perspectives, ” Tartu, Estonia.
Murillo, F. J & Hidalgo, N. (2020). Fair student assessment: A phenomenographic study on teachers’ conceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 65, 100860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100860
Nicholson Perry, K., Donovan, M. Knight, R & Shires, A. (2017). Addressing professional competency problems in clinical psychology trainees. Australian Psychologist, 52, 121-129. doi:10.1111/ap.12268
Oliveri, M.E & Markle, R. (2017). Continuing a culture of evidence: expanding skills
Overono, A. L., and A. S. Ditta. (2023). The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: A Clarion Call for Higher Education to Redefine Learning and Reimagine Assessment. College Teaching: 1–4. doi:10.1080/87567555.2023.2233653.
Pereira, D. Flores, M. A. Simão, A. M. V & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 49, 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004
Pettifor, J. L & Saklofske, D. H. (2012). Fair and ethical student assessment practices. In C. F. Webber, & J. L. Lupart (Eds.). Leading student assessment (pp. 87–106). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Pfund, R. Norcross, J. Hailstorks, R. Stamm, K & Christidis, P. (2018). Introduction to psychology: course, purposes, learning outcomes, and assessment practices. Teaching of Psychology, 45(3), 213-219. doi:10.1177/0098628318779257
Rasooli, A. Zandi, H & DeLuca, C. (2018). Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 164-181.
Schneiderhan, J. Guetterman, T. C & Dobson, M. L. (2019). Curriculum development: A how to primer. Family Medicine and Community Health, 7(2), e000046. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-000046.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
Sokhanvar, Z. K. Salehi & F. Sokhanvar. (2021). Advantages of Authentic Assessment for Improving the Learning Experience and Employability Skills of Higher Education Students: A Systematic Literature Review. Studies in Educational Evaluation 70: 101030. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101030.
Struyven, K. Dochy, F & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 325–341.
Tai, J. R. Ajjawi, M. Bearman, D. Boud, P. Dawson & T. Jorre de St Jorre. (2023). Assessment for Inclusion: Rethinking Contemporary Strategies in Assessment Design. Higher Education Research & Development 42 (2): 483–497. doi:10.1080/07294360.2022.2057451.
Tazdan, A.R. Sadeghi, A. Maleki, H. Ghaderi, M., Yadegarzadeh, G. R. (2025). Explaining the elements of the elements of the task - based learning curriculum .journal of education, online publishing . [In Persian]
Tierney, R. D. (2014). Fairness as a multifaceted quality in classroom assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.12.003
Vanden Bergh, V. Mortelmans, D. Spooren, P. Van Petegem, P. Gijbels, D & Vanthournout, G. (2006). New assessment modes within project-based education-the stakeholders. Studies in educational evaluation, 32(4), 345-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.005
Villarroel, V. Boud, D. Bloxham, S. Bruna, D & Bruna, C. (2020). Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 38-49.
Vu, T & Dall´Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualization. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46, 778–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.795110
Watkins, D. Dahlin, B & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of backwash effect of assessment: A phenomenographic study of the views of Hong Kong and Swedish lectures. Instructional Science, 33, 283-309. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-3002-8.
Wurf, G & Povey, R. (2020). They show how smart you are: A mixed methods study of primary students' perceptions of assessment tasks. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 1162-1182. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.465544805512579
Xu, Y & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Yuliani, Y. Az-Zahra, N. N & Alawiah, W. (2025). Utilization Of Evaluation Results And Reflection On Evaluation Implementation. Jurnal Konseling Pendidikan Islam, 6(1), 67-80. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.32806/jkpi.v6i1.184
Zaim, M. Refnaldi & Arsyad, S. (2020). Authentic Assessment for Speaking Skills: Problem and Solution for English Secondary School Teachers in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 587-604. doi.10.29333/iji.2020.13340a. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 141 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 24 |
||