Evaluation and Provision of an Optimal Model of Semi-Centralized Curriculum in Accordance with National Curriculum of First Period of High School in Iran

Keyvan TIARI, Ezatolah NADERI, Maryam Seif NARAGHI
2.006 457

Abstract


Abstract. The purpose of this study is to provide an optimal model for semi-centralized curriculum in accordance with the national curriculum of the first period of high school in Iran and its evaluation from the perspective of the curriculum experts and related teachers and presentation of recommendations in relation to semi-centralized curriculum to improve the national curriculum. Research methodology, is applied and this study is an evaluative study. The researcher has used "field research" in order to conduct the study. Statistical population studied in this research consists of two groups: (1) 79 people from faculty members and third semester students studying curriculum planning in universities of Tehran, including Kharazmi University, Tarbiat Modarres University, Shahid Beheshti University, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Shahid Rajai University, Tehran University and Islamic Azad University, Research and Sciences Branch 2- first period of high school teachers of Baharestan with job titles including teachers, deputies and assistants with a bachelor's degree, master's degree and Ph.D students who were 466 subjects. In the present study, three hypotheses were tested, all of which were rejected in this study. The data collection tools included a researcher made questionnaire, and this questionnaire consisted of 36 questions with five options (Likert range). To check the validity of the questionnaire the opinions of advisor and supervisor professors were used who confirmed the face and content validity. To obtain reliability coefficient the questionnaire was conducted in a smaller statistical population and its reliability was estimated to be 0.96 using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. In general, Data Analysis showed the sameness of the opinion distribution of the experts (professors and Ph.D students studying curriculum planning) and teachers to use the semi-centralized curriculum model to explain the semi-centralized curriculum component in accordance with National Curriculum of first period of high school in Iran which was at the average level or higher than the average. Curriculum can be developed both by internal factors such as available forces in the schools, local areas or regions and external factors such centers central institutions in the country. The results of this study are a strategy to develop decentralization in the national curriculum planning.


Keywords


National Curriculum, Implementation Indices, Decentralization, Semi-Centralized Curriculum

Full Text:

PDF


References


Izadi, Samad (2000). Designing a semi-centralized model for the curriculum. Tehran: Tarbiat Modarres University.

Javidi Kalateh J. Abadi, T. (2006). Negotiations Curriculum Model, a new approach to decentralization of high school education, proceedings of the Conference of centralization and decentralization in the process of curriculum development, Curriculum Studies Association, pp. 85-102.

Khandaghi, Maghsoud Amin, Goudarzi, Mohammadali. (2011). Iran's regional system curriculum design. Journal of Curriculum Studies. Year 6th, Number 23, Pp. 76-109.

Khandaghi, Maghsoud Amin, Goudarzi, Mohammadali. (2012). Analysis of the current state of social education curriculum design of middle school course based on the content analysis of books and documents related to the curriculum. Scientific Research Journal, Vol. I, number 2, pp. 131 -176.

Secretariat for curriculum design and development (2010). The curriculum of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The fifth map. Tehran, research organization and curriculum development.

Salsabeeli, N. (2007). Transition of curriculum planning system of Iran towards decentralization in curriculum design and development with an emphasis on school- based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. The first year, No. 4, Pp. 49-68.

Salsabeeli, Nader. (2010). designing learning opportunities in a process-oriented compilation from the views of the curriculum. Journal of Education. No. 105, Pp 63- 91.

Seif Ali Akbar (2005). Educational psychology (Psychology of Learning and Teaching) .Tehran: Agah publication.

Osareh, A. (2012) Globalization and development of national curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies of Iran. Seventh year, No. 25, Pp 67-94.

Fathi Vajargah, K. (1998). Designing an "assessment model in the curriculum." Ph.D. Thesis in curricula, Tarbiat Modarres University.

Fathi Vajargah, K. (2011). The principles of curriculum planning. Tehran: Iranzamin.

Fathi Vajargah, K. (2007). Curriculum into new identities. Tehran: Ayizh. 13-Fathi Vajargah, K. (2008). Research needs assessment. Tehran: Ayizh. Second edition.

Qadiri, M., (2009). Critical theory of education: a critique of modern curriculum and recent capitalist Tehran, Memorial of book.

Karami, M. Bahman Abadai, Somayeh. Ismaeli, Arezoo (2012) optimal structure of decision-making in higher education curriculum development, view of faculty members and experts research journal in curriculum, ninth year, No. 7

Gouya, Zahra. Izadi, S. (2003). The status of teachers at levels of curriculum decision-making. Scientific-Research Journal of Human Sciences in Al-Zahra University. Twelfth years, No. 42, pp. 147-173.

Gouya, Zahra. Ghadaksazkhosroshahi, Leila (2007) a new explanation for centralization and decentralization in Iran, Journal of Curriculum Studies. The first year, No. 4, Pp. 17-28.

Mousapoor, Nematollah (1992) dos and don’ts in the curriculum of Iran, education experts’ point of view, Literature and humanities Journal, Pp 61-39

Mousapour, Nematollah (2006). Proceedings of the Conference process of centralization and decentralization in the curriculum.

Mousapour, Nematollah (2011). Fundamentals of high school education planning. Tehran: Behnashr.

Naderi, E. Seif Naraghi, M. (2010) Ignorance and deficiencies in the Research and their realizations, Tehran Arasbaran publication.

Naderi, E. Seif Naraghi, M (2011) evaluation and measurement and analytical foundations of its tools in the Education and Psychology, Tehran Arasbaran publication.

Naderi, E. Seif Naraghi, M (2015) Research Methods and its evaluation in the human sciences, Tehran Arasbaran publication

Norouzzadeh, R., et al (2006). Devolution university curriculum, a step towards decentralization of curriculum in the higher education. Proceedings of the Conference process of centralization and decentralization in the curriculum. Curriculum Studies Association, Pp 570-597.

Yarmohammadian, Mohammadhossein et al. (2002) feasibility and solutions for the decentralization of educational system and delegation of authority. Knowledge and research. Islamic Azad University Khorasgah Esfahan branch. No. thirteenth and fourteenth. Pp. 1-24, English References

ADAMS,D. AND A. GOLDBARD.(1995), Comprehnsive cultural policy for the state of California. C. A: icd WWcd. Org{8.21.2000}.

Bocher, T. (1989). The national curriculum and the implementation gap in preedy M (ed) Approaches to curriculum management milton keyhes open university press.

Belton (2005). What is Design? http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk /trinity/watdes.html

Brady, L. (1994). Outcome-based education: imposing a model for curriculum development. International Journal of Educatory, 9(2): 180- 192.

Henson,Kenneth T. (1998). Curriculum Development for Education Reform, New York: Longman Inc.

Hunkins, F. P. A. (1993). Systematic Model for Curriculum Planning In: Curriculum Develop ment. Edited by G. Hass and M. parkay. Allyn &Bacom.

Londono Polo, Isabel (1996). Decentralization of education in Colombia fromthe perspective of the local participants: Learning in the context ofimplementation. Ed. Dissertation. Harvard University.

8-Saylor Galen J.&Alexander W.H. &Lewis A.J. (1974). Curriculum Planning for Better TeachingAnd Learning. 4th.ed. New York: Holt Rinehart And Winston Inc.

Schubert Wiliam H.(1986). Curriculum. Perspective, Paradigm and Possibility. New York: Macmillan Pub.co.

Schwab Joseph J. (1969).The Practical, A language For Curriculum.

In Flinders & Thornton (ed.). 1997. New York: The Curriculum Studies Readers, Routledge.

Short , Edmond C. (1982). A Historical Look at Curriculum Design.In Journal of Theory into Practice. 12-Skager R. (1984).Organizing Schools to EncourageSelf- Direction in Learners.Hamburg: UIE. Pergamon press.

Utomo, Erry (2005). Challenges of curriculum reform in the context of decentralization: The response of teachers to a competence-based curriculum (CBC) and its implementation in schools, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Skilbeck. M. (1991). School Based Curriculum Development.Harper and Row. London.

Short, E. (1973). Knowledge production and utilization in curriculum. Paper presented at Annual Meeting, AERA, and New York.

Schuberts, W. H. (2006). Curriculum inquiry. In F.M.Connelly, Fang He M., & Phillion J. (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruction(1st ed., pp. 399- 419). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Wilson,B(1997).The Post modern paradigm. http://www.cudenver.edu/bwilson

Wiles John & Bondi Joseph. (1993). Curriculum Development. A Guide to Practice. 4th ed. NewJersey: Merrill Prentice – Hall Inc.

Wiles, Jon. (2003). Curriculum Essentials, A Resource for Educators. Second ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.