طراحی مدل مفهومی تعامل مطلوبِ معلم با دانشآموز بر مبنای عاملیت معلم | ||
| مدیریت و برنامه ریزی در نظام های آموزشی | ||
| مقاله 6، دوره 17، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 33، 1403، صفحه 159-186 اصل مقاله (1.11 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/mpes.2025.235828.1466 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مهدی ناصرزعیم* 1؛ رضا محمدی چابکی2؛ خسرو باقری نوع پرست3؛ جلیل فتح آبادی4؛ امید شکری5 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2استادیار گروه فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استاد گروه فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 4دانشیار گروه روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 5استادیار گروه روانشناسی تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف: تعامل معلم با دانشآموز، اساس تعلیم و تربیت و از عناصر مهم مدیریت کلاس درس است و رابطه تعاملی صرفاً میان «عاملها» قابل تصور است. هدف این پژوهش، طراحی مدل مطلوب تعامل معلم با دانشآموز براساس عاملیتِ معلم از منظر رویکردی اسلامی (انسان به منزلۀ عامل) بود. در این رویکرد، شخصیتِ انسان، به طور عمده از طریق عمل و عاملیتِ او ساخته میشود و عاملیتِ وی مبتنی بر مبادی اساسیِ شناختی، گرایشی و ارادی است. تعامل بر مبنای رویکرد مذکور، به سبب اختلافِ سطح موجود میان مبادیِ سهگانۀ شناختی، گرایشی و ارادی میان معلم و دانشآموز، تعاملی ناهمتراز خواهد بود. مواد و روشها: روش پژوهش حاضر، کیفی بوده و دادههای پژوهش با استفاده از مصاحبۀ نیمه ساختار یافته با 17 نفر از خبرگان حوزۀ فلسفۀ تعلیم و تربیت، روانشناسی و برنامهریزی درسی که آشنا و مسلط بر حوزه عاملیت بودند و با روش نمونهگیری هدفمند از نوع نظری انتخاب شده بودند، گردآوری شد. تحلیل دادهها توسط تکنیک تحلیل مضمون از نوع شبکه مضمون انجام شد. به کمک شیوۀ 6 مرحلهای براون و کلارک (2006)، مفاهیم مستخرج از دادهها در طبقات کدهای اولیه (مفاهیم)، زیرمضامین (مضامین فرعی) و مضامین اصلی توسط نرم افزار مکس کیودا تحلیل شده و نقشه شماتیک مستخرج از دادهها ترسیم شد. همچنین اعتبار یافتهها، از طریق شیوههای کثرتگرایی در شیوه (باز آزمون روش کار) و کثرتگرایی در پژوهشگر (آزمون قابلیت اعتماد بین کدگذاران) موردتأیید قرار گرفت. بحث و نتیجهگیری: یافتههای پژوهش نشان داد که مدل مطلوب تعامل معلم با دانشآموز بر مبنای عاملیتِ معلم، متشکل از چهار مضمونِ اصلی شامل شناختی، عاطفی، ارادی و رفتاری، شخصیتی/ هویتی/ منشی است. مضمون شناختی یا معرفتی شامل مؤلفههای تفکرِ سطح بالا، حجیتِ علمی و عقلایی، جایگاه و نقش معلم و انعطافپذیری منطقی؛ مضمون عاطفی یا گرایشی دارای مؤلفههای پذیرش و نگرش مثبت، مهربانی (صمیمیت) و همدلی؛ مضمون ارادی و رفتاری شامل مؤلفههای تصمیم بر تغییرِ نظر، همکاری و گفتگومحوری، قدرت برانگیختن اراده دیگران، محتوا و نحوه گفتار، عمل به دانستهها و رفتارهای مطلوب؛ و نهایتا مضمون شخصیتی/ هویتی/ منشی شامل مؤلفههای ثبات شخصیتیِ و صفات و خلق مطلوب معلم است. نتایج پژوهش حاضر نشان داد که تعامل ناهمتراز معلم و دانشآموز بر مبنای عاملیت - به دور از دو قطبِ معلممحوری و دانشآموزمحوری- و با به رسمیت شناختن و استقبال از مبانی عاملیت معلم و دانشآموز، قابل صورتبندی خواهد بود به این معنا که آموزش و پرورش مبتنی بر رویکرد «انسان به منزله عامل» نه معلممحور بوده و در پیِ شکلدهی و انتقال دانش به شاگرد خواهد بود و نه دانشآموزمحور است که معلم صرفا به عنوان راهنمایی در حاشیه، کنار نهاده شده باشد. بلکه معلمِ منطبق با این رویکرد، غنی و پربار از میراث فرهنگی (دانش و ارزشهای انسانی) است و فرآیندِ آموزش و پرورش را دستِ کم با به رسمیت شناختن و دستِ بالا با استقبال از مبادیِ سهگانۀ عاملیت دانشآموزان، برنامهریزی و اجرا میکند و در تمامی مراحل مذکور، اعمال خود را همواره مورد نقد و ارزیابی مجدد از سوی خود و دانشآموزان قرار میدهد. پیشنهاد میشود تا موضوع مؤکدِ اقتدار مجاز و غیرمجاز در رویکرد «انسان به منزله عامل»، سرلوحۀ فعالیتهای حرفهای معلمین قرار بگیرد و معلمین گرامی تا حد امکان، خود را در زمینۀ اقتدار مجازِ محتوایی (دانشها، ارزشها و مهارتها)، بیش از پیش مجهز نموده و اقتدار صوری را تنها در سایۀ اقتدار محتوایی و با تدوین مشارکتیِ مقررات کلاسی مجاز بدانند و از هرگونه اقتدارجوییِ صوری که سبب تضعیف یا حذف عاملیت دانشآموزان و تعامل یکسویه میشود پرهیز نمایند. در واقع گرایش به اقتدارگراییِ محتوایی و اجتناب از اقتدارگراییِ صوری از ضروریات حرفۀ معلمی محسوب میشود. واژههای کلیدی: تعامل معلم با دانشآموز، تعامل ناهمتراز، تکنیک تحلیلمضمون، رویکرد انسان به منزله عامل، عاملیت. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| تعامل معلم با دانشآموز؛ تعامل ناهمتراز؛ تکنیک تحلیلمضمون؛ رویکرد انسان به منزله عامل؛ عاملیت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Designing a Conceptual Model of Optimal Teacher-Student Interaction based on Teacher Agency | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mahdi Naserzaeim1؛ Reza Mohammadi Chaboki2؛ Khosrow Bagheri Noparast3؛ Jalil Fathabadi4؛ Omid Shokri5 | ||
| 1Ph.D. Student of Educational Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Professor of Philosophy of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 4Associate Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 5Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Objective: Teacher-student interaction is the basis of education and one of the important elements of classroom management, and the interactive relationship can only be imagined between "agents". The purpose of this research was to design the optimal model of teacher-student interaction based on teacher agency from the perspective of the Islamic approach (human as an agent). In this approach, human personality is mainly built through his action and agency, and his agency is based on basic cognitive, tendency and volitional principles. The interaction based on the mentioned approach will be an asymmetric interaction due to the difference in the level between the three principles of cognitive, tendency and volition between the teacher and the student. Materials and methods: The current research method is qualitative and the research data was collected using semi-structured interviews with 17 experts in the field of philosophy of education, psychology and lesson planning who were familiar and proficient in the field of agency and and were selected using a theoretical sampling method were collected. Data analysis was done by thematic analysis technique of thematic network type. Using the 6-step method of Brown and Clark (2006), the concepts extracted from the data in the classes of primary codes (concepts), sub-themes (sub-themes) and main themes were analyzed by maxqda software and a schematic map was drawn from the data. Also, the validity of the findings was confirmed through the methods of triangulation in the method (re-examination of work methods) and triangulation in the researcher (reliability test between coders). Discussion and conclusion: The findings of the research showed that the desired model of teacher-student interaction based on agency consists of four main themes including cognitive, emotional, voluntary and behavioral, personality/identity/secretary. The cognitive or epistemological content includes the components of high-level thinking, scientific and rational validity, the position and role of the teacher, and logical flexibility; emotional theme or tendency with components of acceptance and positive attitude, kindness (intimacy) and empathy; Voluntary and behavioral content including the components of decision on change of mind, cooperation and dialogue-oriented, the power to arouse the will of others, the content and manner of speech, acting on knowledge and desirable behaviors; And finally, the theme of personality/identity/secretary includes the components of personality stability and desirable qualities and temperament of the teacher. The results of the present research showed that the asymmetric interaction between teacher and student based on agency - far from the two poles of teacher-centered and student-centered - and by recognizing and welcoming the basics of teacher and student agency, can be formulated in the sense that education and upbringing based on The approach of "man as an agent" is not teacher-centered and will seek to shape and transfer knowledge to the student, nor is it student-centered that the teacher is left aside only as a guide on the sidelines. Rather, a teacher who conforms to this approach is rich and fruitful in cultural heritage (knowledge and human values) and plans and implements the process of education and upbringing at least by recognizing and at least by welcoming the triple principles of students' agency, and in all The mentioned steps always criticize and re-evaluate their actions by themselves and the students. It is suggested that the emphatic issue of authorized and unauthorized authority in the approach of "man as an agent" should be at the forefront of teachers' professional activities, and dear teachers should equip themselves as much as possible in the field of authorized content authority (knowledge, values and skills). and allow formal authority only in the shadow of content authority and with the collaborative formulation of classroom regulations and avoid any formal authority seeking that weakens or eliminates students' agency and one-sided interaction. In fact, tending to content authoritarianism and avoiding formal authoritarianism is considered one of the necessities of the teaching profession. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Teacher-Student Interaction, Asymmetric Interaction, Thematic Analysis Technique, Human as an Agent Approach, Agency | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Adib Haj-Bagheri, M. (2006). Grounded theory research method. Tehran: Boshra Publishing Aghdasi, S., Kiamanesh, A., Mahdavi Hazaveh, M., & Safarkhani, M. (2014). Teacher-student interaction in successful and unsuccessful schools: A case study of primary schools participating in PIRLS 2006 and TIMSS 2007. Quarterly Journal of Education, (193), 93-120 Al-Hosseini, F., Sajjadi, S. M., Sadeghzadeh, A., & Mehrmohammadi, M. (2013). The philosophy of Islamic education and the mission of reviving Islamic educational practice. Research in Islamic Education, Issues, (20), 7-26 Andrzejewski, C. E., & Davis, H. A. (2008). Human contact in the classroom: Exploring how teachers talk about and negotiate touching students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 779–794 Armstrong,M.,Haskett,E., & Hawkins, L. (2017). The Student- Teacher Relationship Quality of Abused Children. Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 54(2). Avnon D (1998) Martin Buber: the hidden dialogue. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham. Bagheri, K. (2003). The identity of religious science. Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance Bagheri, K., & Khosravi, Z. (2006). Genetic epistemology in Piaget’s view. Wisdom and Philosophy, 1, 7-22. Bagheri, K., & Khosravi, Z. (2006b). A comparative study of human agency in an Islamic theory of action and Habermas’s critical theory. Wisdom and Philosophy, 3, 7-22 Bagheri, K. (2010). The optimal education model in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Borhan School Publishing Institute Bagheri, K. (2013). Teaching (to) and learning (from): Transformation in education in light of agency and interaction. Journal of the Fundamentals of Education, 3(2), 5-16 Bagheri, K. (2016). Islamic education as asymmetrical democratic interaction. In the Palgrave International Handbook (pp. 339-354). London: Macmillan Bagheri, K. (2020). Human agency: A religious and philosophical approach. Vakavosh Publishing Bahadori, B. (2022). Identifying classroom interactions in elementary school lessons and analyzing them from the perspective of the “human agent” theory: Implications for improving teaching. [Doctoral dissertation, Kharazmi University] Bandura, A. (1989).Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (2006).Toward a psychology of human agency, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164-180. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”,Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, Pp. 77-101. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (1st ed., Vol. 5, pp. 993- 1028). New York, NY: John Wiley. Buber M (1923, 2004) I and thou. Continuum, London Buber M (1925, 1961) The Address on Education. In Between Man and Man. Collins, London Campano, G., Ghiso, M., Badaki, O. & Kannan, Ch. (2020). Agency as Collectivity: Community-Based Research for Educational Equity. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 223-233. Cavagnetto, A.R., Hand, B., Premo, J. (2020). Supporting student agency in science. Theory into Practice, 59(2), 128-138. Claessens, L., van Tartwijk, J., Pennings, H., van der Want, A., Verloop, N., den Brok, P., & Wubbels, T. (2016). Beginning and experienced secondary school teachers' self-and student schema in positive and problematic teacher–student relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 88-99. Elder, Gelen H., Shanahan,M.J.,& Jennings.J.A. (2015). Human development in time and place. Handbook of child psychology and development science. New York: Wiley Enayati, T., & Kouhsari, S. (2017). Examining teachers’ interactive styles in mathematics classrooms. Educational and Evaluation Quarterly, 10(39), 13-28 Eskandari, H., Doroudi, H., & Bahrami, F. (2015). Teacher authority, anxiety, depression, and students’ academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 11(35), 105-121 Gablinkske, P. B. (2014). A Case Study of Student and Teacher Relationships and the Effect on Student Learning. Doctoral Dissertation, Rhode Island University Gholami, S., & Hossein Chari, M. (2011). Predicting students’ happiness based on their perception of teachers’ expectations, teacher interaction, and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational and Learning Studies, 3(1), 83-109 Greenberg, D. M., Kolasi, J., Hegsted, C. P., Berkowitz, Y., & Jurist, E. L. (2017). Mentalized affectivity: A new model and assessment of emotion regulation. PloS one, 12(10),e0185264. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child development, 72(2), 625-638. Hejazi, E., Ghazi Tabatabai, M., Lavasani, G., & Moradi, A. (2014). Teacher-student relationships and school engagement: The mediating role of basic psychological needs. Applied Psychological Research, 5(1), 19-40 Hilgard, E. R. (1980). The trilogy of mind: Cognition. Affection and conation. Journal of the History of the Behaviaral Sciences 16: 107-117 Hooman, H. (2012). Practical guide to qualitative research. SAMT Hosseini, S. M., Shah-Hosseini, M. A., Fani, A. A., & Ahmadzehi, A. (2020). Developing a competency-based teacher performance evaluation model in Iranian high schools: A mixed-method approach. Management and Planning in Educational Systems, 13(2), 195-236 Hosseini Largani, S. M., & Mojtabazadeh, M. (2021). Designing and validating an educational quality model for universities in Iran. Management and Planning in Educational Systems, 14(2), 221-258 Jensen, B., Rueda, R., Reese, L., & García, E. (2014). Designing sociocultural interactions to improve relevant learning opportunities for underperforming minority students. Unpublished manuscript Keshavarz, S., & Bagheri, K. (2015). The objectives of the social studies curriculum corresponding to philosophical foundations consistent with Islamic teachings and its implications for curriculum elements. Iranian Curriculum Studies, 9(36), 5-30 King, D. (2016). Internal Models of Attachment and the Teacher-Student Relationship during the Middle School transition: A Phenomenological Study: NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010), Interviews in qualitative research, London: Sage. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lari, N. (2019). The quality of teacher-student relationships in the school context: An ethnographic study. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran] Lari, N., Hejazi, E., Azhai, J., & Jokar, B. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of factors influencing teacher-student relationships: A phenomenological analysis. Educational Innovations, 18(2), 53-80 Lari, N., Hejazi, E., Jokar, B., & Azhaei, J. (2022). Teacher-student relationship quality in the school context: An ethnographic study. Educational Psychology Quarterly, 18(64) Longobardi, C., Iotti, N.O, Jungert, T & Settanni, M. (2018). Student-teacher relationships and bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 1–10. Maguire, Moira; Delahunt, Brid (2017), Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical,Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars, AISHE-J,Volume 8, Number 3, Autumn 2017, pp 3351-3364. Mahmoudi, S. N. (2019). Providing a causal model to examine the mediating role of teacher-student relationship quality in the relationship between academic self-regulation, school culture, and academic engagement with students’ creative thinking. Child Thinking Quarterly, 10(1), 237-259 Mainhard, M. T., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2011). The development of theclassroom social climate during the first months of the school year. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 190e200. Mainhard, M. T., Pennings, H. M. J., Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2012). Mapping control and affiliation in teacherestudent interaction with state space grids. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 1027e1037 Mainhard, T., Oudman, S., Hornstra, L., Bosker, R. Goetz, T. (2018). Student emotions in class: The relative importance of teachers and their interpersonal relations with students. Learning and Instruction, 53, 109-119 McHugh, Rebecca Munnell, Horner, Christy Galletta, Colditz, Jason B, & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron. (2013). Bridges and barriers adolescent perceptions of student–teacher relationships. Urban Education, 48(1), 9-43. Moses, L., Rylak, D., Reader, T., Hertz, Ch. & Ogden, M. (2020). Educators’ perspectives on supporting student Agency. Theory into practice, vol.59 (2), 213-222. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and Evaluation methods (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca:Sage. Pennings, J.M., Brekelmans,M., Sadler,P., Luce, C.A., Claessens, van der Want,C., Tartwijk. (2017). Interpersonal adaptation in teacher-student interaction. Learning and Instruction,1-17. Piaget, J. (1970). The Principles of genetic epistemology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource. Poulou, M. S. (2017). Students' Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties: The Role of Teachers' Social and Emotional Learning and Teacher-Student Relationships. International Journal of Emotional Education, 9(2), 72-89. Reeve, J. and M. Halusic (2009). How K-12 teachers can put self-determination theory principles into practice. Theory and Research in Education 7(2): 145-154. Roberson, R. (2014). Understanding the Development of Legitimate Teacher Authority through the Teacher-Student Relationship: A Qualitative Study. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma). Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 80e96. Sadeghzadeh Ghommsari, A., & Norouzi, L. (2019). The limits of using “habit” in moral education in selected contemporary approaches and their critique based on the human agent theory. Philosophy and Theology, 8(13), 106-143 Sajjadieh, N., & Azadmanesh, S. (2013). A critique of “detailed goals of preschool activities” in the National Curriculum of the Islamic Republic of Iran from an Islamic action perspective. Scientific-Research Biannual Journal of Theory and Practice in Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 65-98 Spilt, J. L., & Koomen, H. M. (2022). Three decades of research on individual teacher-child relationships: A chronological review of prominent attachment-based themes. In Frontiers in Education (p. 410). Frontiers. Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M., & Minnaert, A.. (2015). Need supportive teaching in practice: a narrative analysis in schools with contrasting educational approaches. Social Psychology of Education, 18(3), 585-613. Stouffer, J.D. (2016). Eternity in Mind: A Grounded Theory Study on Building Positive TeacherStudent Relationship in Christian Schools. Doctoral dissertation Liberty University. Theunissen M (1984) The other: studies in the social ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber (C. Macann, trans.). MIT Press, Cambridge The Holy Quran (M. Fooladvand, Trans.). (1999). Organization for Educational Research and Planning Tsigilis, N., Gregoriadis, A., & Grammatikopoulos, V. (2018). Evaluating the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale in the Greek educational setting: an item parcelling perspective. Research Papers in Education, 33(4), 414-426. Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. (2021). Dependency in teacher–child relationships: Deepening our understanding of the construct. Attachment & Human Development, 23(5), 481-489. Wubbels, T. (1993). Teacher-Student Relationships in Science and Mathematics Classes. Curtin Univ. of tech. Perth (Austrolia). National Key Centre for Science and Mathematics. Zarghami, S., Sajjadieh, N., & Ghaedi, Y. (2012). Rethinking the concept of “fostering thinking” as a cultural foundation for educational system transformation based on the human-as-agent theory. Cultural Strategy, (17 & 18), 123-151 Zhan, S., & Le, T. (2004). Interpersonal relationship between teachers and students: An Intercultural study on Chinese and Australian universities. In AARE 2004 International Education Research Conference (p. EJ). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,127 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,796 |
||