توسعه مدل ارزیابی عملکرد مدارس جمهوری اسلامی ایران براساس الگوی کارت امتیاز متوازن (مطالعه موردی مدارس پروژه ایماوا) | ||
| مدیریت و برنامه ریزی در نظام های آموزشی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 14، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 27، 1400، صفحه 113-136 اصل مقاله (1.13 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.52547/MPES.14.2.113 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمدمهدی مهربان هلان* 1؛ سروش ملکوتی خواه2؛ علیرضا علی احمدی3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، گروه مدیریت و فلسفه علم و فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، مدیریت کسب و کار، دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استاد گروه مدیریت و مهندسی کسب و کار، دانشکده مدیریت، اقتصاد و مهندسی پیشرفت، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: تحقیق حاضر با هدف "توسعه مدل ارزیابی عملکرد مدارس جمهوری اسلامی ایران" با استفاده از الگوی "کارت امتیازی متوازن" انجام شده است. در همین راستا با تحلیل نتایج پروژه ملی ایماوا (الگوی یک مدرسه ایرانی و اسلامی) و سایر مطالعات تکمیلی، مهم‌ترین شاخص‌های کلیدی شناسایی شده است. مواد و روش‌ها: از لحاظ روش‌شناسی، رویکرد پژوهش ترکیبی است. بدین معنا که در گام اول (با رویکرد کیفی) ابتدا به مطالعه اسناد و تحقیقات مرتبط و بررسی اسناد و مدارک جمع‌آوری شده در پروژه ایماوا پرداخته شد و پس از آن مصاحبه‌های جمع‌آوری شده در پروژه (491 مصاحبه با مدیران، معاونین، معلمین و اولیاء دانش‌آموزان) مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت که با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند و با بررسی متون 100 مصاحبه با مدیران و معاونین مدارس تحقیق به مرحله اشباع نظری رسید. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: در بررسی‌های انجام شده 54 شاخص در خصوص ارزیابی عملکرد مدارس جمهوری اسلامی ایران احصاء شد که در قالب 15 مقوله و 5 بعد "مالی"، "فرایندهای داخلی"، "رشد و یادگیری"، "مشتری مداری"(ابعاد مدل کارت امتیاز متوازن متعارف) و بعد "مدیریت و مدرسه‌داری" قرار گرفتند. در مرحله دوم پژوهش (رویکرد کمی) با استفاده از "پرسشنامه محقق ساخته" و بکارگیری روش "تحلیل سلسله مراتبی و مقایسات زوجی"، مقوله‌های بدست آمده توسط تعدادی از خبرگان مورد مقایسه قرار گرفتند. از آنجا که مقوله‌ها از درون نتایج بررسی اسناد و مصاحبه‌ها بدست آمده است، روایی محتوایی آن براساس "دیدگاه متخصصین" بررسی شد. هم‌چنین با توجه به مقایسات گروهی انجام شده با استفاده از نرم‌افزار EXPERT CHOICE، نتایج ارزیابی و بهترین گزینه‌ها انتخاب شد. براساس نتایج حاصل شده از مطالعات، مقوله‌های "اهداف و راهبردهای مدرسه" و هم‌چنین "مدیریت نیروی انسانی" از بعد "مدیریت و مدرسه‌داری"، به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین مقوله‌ها و "برنامه‌های بهداشتی مدرسه" از بعد "فرایندهای داخلی" به‌عنوان کم اهمیت‌‌ترین مقوله است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| ارزیابی عملکرد؛ مدارس؛ کارت امتیازی متوازن؛ پروژه ایماوا؛ تحلیل سلسله مراتبی فاز گروهی (FGAHP) | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Development of the Model for School Performance in the Islamic Republic of Iran based on "Balanced Scorecard Model" (Case Study of IMAWA Project Schools) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Mahdi Mehraban Helan1؛ Soroosh Malakoutikhah2؛ ALireza Aliahmadi3 | ||
| 1: Ph.D. Student, Science and Technology Policy, Department of Management and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, Economics and Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Master Student, Business Management, Faculty of Management, Economics and Progress Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Professor, Department of Business Management and Engineering, School of Management, Faculty of Economics and Engineering, University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objectives: This study aimed to “develop a model for assessing the performance of schools in the Islamic Republic of Iran" using the "Balanced Scorecard" model. In this regard, by analyzing the results of the IMAWA National Project (pattern of an Iranian and Islamic school) and other complementary studies, the most important key indicators have been identified. Materials and Methods: the research approach is hybrid. This means that in the first step (with a qualitative approach), first, the relevant documents and research were studied and the documents collected in the IMAWA project were examined, and then the interviews collected in the project (491 interviews with managers, deputies, teachers and parents of students) were evaluated using targeted sampling method and by examining the texts of 100 interviews with school principals and deputies, the research stage reached the theoretical saturation stage. Discussion and Conclusion: In the conducted surveys, 54 indicators were evaluated regarding the evaluation of the performance of the schools of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are in the form of 15 categories and 5 dimensions: "financial", "internal processes", "growth and learning", "customer orientation" (dimensions of scorecard model (Normal balance) and then "management and schooling". In the second stage of the research (quantitative approach) using the "researcher-made questionnaire" and the method of "hierarchical analysis and paired comparisons", the categories obtained by several experts were compared. Since the categories were obtained from the results of document review and interviews, its content validity was assessed based on the "experts' point of view". Also, according to group comparisons performed using EXPERT CHOICE software, evaluation results and the best options were selected. Based on the results of studies on the categories of "school goals and strategies" as well as "human resource management" in terms of "management and schooling", as the most important categories and "school health programs" in terms of "internal processes" as It is the least important category. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Performance Evaluation, Schools, Balanced Scorecard, IMAWA Project, Group Hierarchy Analysis (FGAHP) | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahi, B. (2005). Designing Quality Assessment Systems for Primary and Middle Schools, Quarterly Journal of Education, No. 90. Alvani, S. M., Riahi, S. M. (2003). Teachings for establishing total quality management in the public sector of Tehran, Iran Industrial Training and Research Center. Amado, C. A. F., Santos, S. P. & Marques, P. M, (2012). Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis and the Balanced Scorecard approach for enhanced performance assessment.Omega, 40, 390-403. Amaratunga, D. & Baldry, D. (2000). Assessment of facilities management performance in higher education properties, Facilities, 18-7-8 (2000): 293-30. Gal, M. D. (2012). Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods in Educational Sciences and Psychology, translated by Ahmad Reza Nasr, Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Press. Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced scorecard: Measures that Drive performance, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp 9-71. Robert, K. & Norton, D. (2008). Performance Achievement: Linking Strategy to Operation to Achieve Competitive Advantage, Translated by Mohammad Reza Atefi, Harvard Publications. Parents, M. (2010). Designing a Performance Evaluation System, Research Centers affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran: Office of Research Review and Evaluation of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. Rahim, G. (2006). Evaluation of Performance and Continuous Improvement of the Organization, Tadbir Scientific, Educational Monthly, No. 173. Anvari Rostami, A. A. & Hosseini, S. H. (2005). Analytical study of the model and model for evaluating the performance of the executive organs of the country. The Second International Conference on Global Quality Management and Global Trade. Gholami, H. & Noor Alizadeh, H. (2010). Comparison of Performance Evaluation Methods, Proceedings of the First National Conference on Performance Management, Tehran: Jihad Danegshahi, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran. Ghasemi, A. R. & Ahmadi, S. H. (2013). Evaluation of higher education institutions with the help of balanced scorecard and multi-criteria group decision-making methods, Journal of Education Development in Educational Sciences, No. 10. Javadipour, M. & Ramezanali, M. (2009). Evaluating the performance of guidance teachers from the perspective of principals and primary school teachers in Tehran based on the model of John Wells and Joseph Bondi, Quarterly Journal of Management and Planning in Educational Systems, No. 3. Khwajahaei, S. & Nazemi, M. (2012). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the EFQM model in evaluating the performance of non-governmental middle and high schools from the perspective of their principals and teachers, Journal of Management and Planning in Educational Systems, No. 9. Mohajeran, B., Ghaleei, A. & Rahmanif, A. (2015). Comprehensive Model of School Performance Evaluation with Integrated Model (Balanced Scorecard-Data Envelopment Analysis), Quarterly Journal of Educational Management Innovations, Year 10, Issue 3. Tabarsa, Gh. (2008). Study and explanation of the role of strategic requirements in choosing a model for evaluating the performance of government organizations, Proceedings of the Second Shahid Rajaei Festival Performance Evaluation of Executive Bodies, Tehran: Administrative and Employment Affairs Organization. Valderrama, T.G., Mendigorri, E.M. & Bordoy, D.R. (2009). Relating the perspectives of the balanced scorecard for R & D by means of DEA, European Journal of Operational Research, 196(3):1177-89. Alizadeh, J. (2009). Evaluating the performance of the organization using the model of organizational excellence, Master Thesis, Bonab Branch of Azad University. Ansari Jaberi, M. (2010). Evaluation of Karaj Instructor Training Center Using Organizational Excellence Model, Master Thesis, Tarbiat Moallem University. Karimi, T. (2005): A Comparative Study of Organizational Performance Evaluation Models, M.Sc. Thesis in Production Management, University of Tehran. Shahmoradi, M. (2004). Evaluating the performance of a subsidiary of an industrial complex using a balanced scorecard, Master Thesis, University of Tehran, Faculty of Engineering. Yu, M. L. (2009). The e-balanced scorecard (e-BSC) for measuring academic staff performance excellence. Higher Education, 57.6 (2009): 813-828. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 7,278 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,123 |
||