نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

2 دانشیار، مرکز تحقیقات روانپزشکی و علوم رفتاری، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه: هدف از انجام پژوهش حاضر، طراحی و اعتبار سنجی الگوی برنامه درسی مبتنی بر علوم اعصاب شناختی در دوره ابتدایی می باشد.
روش ها: در این پژوهش از روش کیفی استفاده شده است. در مرحله اول، برای طراحی الگو و شناسایی عناصر الگو از روش کیفی از نوع نظریه زمینه ای و تحلیلی-استنباطی و در مرحله دوم برای اعتبارسنجی و اطمینان از کارآمدی الگوی برنامه درسی از ضریب لاوشه استفاده شده است. ابتدا الگوی برنامه درسی مبتنی بر علوم اعصاب شناختی براساس عناصر نه گانه کلاین طراحی گردید. الگوی پیشنهادی با استفاده از شیوه نمونه گیری هدفمند در اختیار 22 نفر از متخصصان حوزه مطالعات برنامه درسی و علوم اعصاب شناختی قرار گرفت و میزان اعتبار داده ها با استفاده از ضریب لاوشه مورد تحلیل قرار گرفتند.
یافته ها: نتیجه کدگذاری سه مرحله ای داده های گردآوری شده، استخراج 35 مقوله فرعی و 72 ویژگی برای هرکدام از عناصر برنامه درسی بود. نهایتاً شاخص سی وی آر لاوشه بیست و یک مضمون اصلی را تایید نمود.
نتیجه گیری: بطور کلی می توان اذعان کرد که الگوی مبتنی بر علوم اعصاب شناختی، مباحث جدیدی را در عرصۀ تعلیم و تربیت مطرح می نماید. توجه به ابعاد نظری این الگو و کاربرد آن در آموزش و پرورش از اهمیت ویژه ای برخوردار است. همچنین، تعامل علوم اعصاب و علوم تربیتی می تواند در بهبود نظریه، تفکر و عمل در حوزه علم یاددهی و یادگیری مؤثر افتد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing and Validating a Cognitive Neuroscience-based Model of Curriculum

نویسندگان [English]

  • Eskandar Fathiazar 1
  • Arash Mani 2
  • Yousef Adib 1
  • Zahra Sharifi 3

1 Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Research Center for Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student of Curriculum Planning, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction: The purpose of this study is to design and validate a curriculum model based on cognitive neuroscience in elementary school.
Methods: In this research, qualitative method design has been used. In the first step, the method of designing and identifying the elements of the model is based on the qualitative method of the Grounded theory and analytical-inferential and in the second stage, for validation and assurance of the effectiveness of the curriculum model (Lauvash's coefficient) was used. At first, a cognitive neuroscience-based curriculum based on the nine elements of Klein was designed. The proposed model was administered to 22 experts in curriculum and cognitive neuroscience using a purposive sampling method, and then we analyzed the validity of the data using Lauvash's coefficient.
Results: The result of the three-step coding of the collected data was the extraction of 35 sub categories and 72 attributes for each of the elements of the curriculum. Eventually, the Lauvash's coefficient also confirmed the twenty-one major themes.
Conclusion: it can be admitted that the cognitive neuroscience-based model introduces recent issues in education. Considering the theoretical dimensions of this model and its application in education is very important. Also, the interaction of neuroscience and education can be effective in improving theory, thinking, and practice in teaching and learning.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Curriculum
  • Cognitive neuroscience
  • Validation
  • Primary School
  1. Dorrani K, Alizadeh Y, Rezaei S. Cognitive Neuroscience and Education; Second Scientific Research Conference on Educational Sciences and Psychology of Social and Cultural Dangers in Iran, Qom, Islamic Studies Center, Soroush Hekmat Mortazavi, 2015,  https://www.civilica.com/Paper-PSCONF02-PSCONF02_134.html (Persian).
  2. Davis AJ. The Credentials of Brain-based Learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education 2004; 38(1): 21-36.
  3. Noori A, Mehrmohammadi M. Critical Explanation of the Status of Neurosciences in the Field of Knowledge and Practice, Quarterly Journal of Cognitive Science, 2010; 12(2): 83-100 (Persian).
  4. Howard Jones P. Neuroscience, Educational Sciences, and Brain: A Survey on Neurobiology, Translated by: Seyed Kamal Kharrazi, SAMT Publication. Department of Human Sciences Research and Development 2011; P120, (Persian).
  5. Torabinami M, Kharrazi K. Neuroscience, Cognitive Studies and New Methods of Medicine, Quarterly Journal of Cognitive Science, 2012; 9(8), https://www.civilica.com/Paper-JR_MEDIA-JR_MEDIA-3-2_004.html, (Persian).
  6. Ansari D, Coch D. Bridges over troubled waters: Education and cognitive neuroscience. Trends in Cognitive Science 2006; 10:146-151.
  7. Caine R N, Caine G, McClintic C L, Klimek K J. Brain/Mind Learning Principles in Action: Developing Executive Functions of the Human Brain, Corwin Press, and Thousand Oaks, CA; 2005: P 87.
  8. Jensen E P. Introduction to Brain-Compatible Learning, Corvine Press, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2007: P 50.
  9. Goswami U. Principles of Learning, Implications for Teaching: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective, Journal of Philosophy of Education 2008; 42(3-4): 381-399.
  10. Tokuhama-Espinosa T. The new science of teaching and learning: Using the best of Mind, Brain, and Education Science in the classroom, New York: Teacher College Press; 2010; P 180, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED527489.
  11. Noori, A. Brain-compatible curriculum design template, Iranian curriculum encyclopedia; 2011; http://www.daneshnamehicsa.ir/Default.aspx?PageNAme=Pages&ID=85 (Persian).
  12. Stephen R. Campbell. Educational Neuroscience: Motivations, methodology, and implications, Educational Philosophy and Theory 2011; 43(1): 7-16.
  13. Hardiman M, Rinne L. Neuroethics, Neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: where the brain sciences meet pedagogy, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012; 5:135-143.
  14. Hook C J, Farah M J. Neuroscience for educators: what are they seeking, and what are they finding? Springer Science Business Media B.V. 2013; 6(2), 331–341.
  15. Shepherd T C. Middle school teachers’ perceptions of Neuroeducation baseline knowledge, WALDEN University, 2012; 140 pages; 3512945, retrieved from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.
  16. Potvin P. Proposition for improving the classical models of conceptual change based on Neuroeducational evidence: conceptual prevalence. Neuroeducation 2013; 2(1): 16-43.
  17. Nouri A, Mehrmohammadi M. Defining the boundaries for Neuroeducation as a field of study. Educational Research Journal 2013; 27(1 & 2): 1-25.
  18. Lee W H, Juan C-H. What can cognitive neuroscience to do enhance our understanding of education and learning, Journal of neuroscience and neuroengineering 2013;2: 393-399.
  19. Cameron M. T. If not the brain then what? A paradigm for preservice intervention specialists that provides an understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning2011;11(1): 91-107.
  20. Franklin D J. Interactive Curriculum Based on Models of Mind & Brain; 2010; retrieved from: http://www.brains-minds-media.org/archive/1418.
  21. AdibHajBagheri M, Parvizi S, Salsali M. Qualitative Research Methods, Tehran: Bashari, Fourth Edition; 2013: 70 (Persian).
  22. Hafeznia M R. Introduction to Research Methods in the Humanities, Tehran: Samat, Edition 21; 2016 (Persian).
  23. Hajizadeh I, Asghari M. Methods and statistical analysis by looking at the method of research in biotechnology and health sciences, Jihaddaneshgahy, First edition; 2011: P 245 (Persian).
  24. Amini M, Alipour A, Zand B, Ebrahimzadeh I, Farajollahi M. The relationship between learning styles and student's cerebral congestion in order to use in educational design. New Approach Quarterly in Educational Management 2012; 3(11): 137-152. (Persian)
  25. Lotfi A. Relationship between learning mathematics and brain crests. The Growth of Elementary Education 2012; 16(5):12-13. (Persian)
  26. Rasoulnejad A, Rasoolinejad V. Studying the learning style of paramedical students of Kashan University of Medical Sciences, the steps towards development of medical education. Journal of Medical Education Development and Research Center 2005; 3 (1), 32-26. (Persian)
  27. Gray J A. Neural systems, emotion and personality, in:  Madden JIV.  (Editor), Neurobiology of   learning, emotion, and affect, Erlbaum; New York: Hillsdale NJ; 2012.
  28. Harris LA, Sadowski MA, Birchman J A. A comparison of  Learning  style  Models  and  Assessment  Instruments  For  university  Graphics  Educators.  The Engineering Design Graphics division Journal 2006; 70 (1): 6-15.
  29. Mohammadzadeh A A, Ghahremani Ochigaz M. Comparison of Brain Cycle Mastery and Behavioral Brain Systems in High and Low Impulsive Students, Third International Conference on Psychology, Educational Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, Tehran; 2018. 
  30. Talkhabi M, Rezazadehmottaghi N. Comparative Study of Iran and the UK national curriculum based on the principles of Mind, Brain and Education. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching 2019; 8(1):46.  http://jct.sciedupress.com.
  31. Tompkins AW.  Brain-based learning theory: An online course design model. A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education Liberty University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education; 2007; P 12.
  32. Talhabi M. The Relationship between Neuroscience and Education: Challenges and Hopes, Journal of Cognitive Sciences 2012; 12(8): 9-22. (Persian)
  33. Rahimi H, Montazer M, gowdali H. Brain-based Learning, Second Scientific Research Conference on Educational Sciences and Psychology of Social and Cultural Dangers in Iran, Qom, Islamic Studies Center, Soroush Hekmat Mortazavi; 2015.  https://www.civilica.com/Paper-PSCONF02-PSCONF02_097.html.
  34. Tracy Takooham-Spinoza Translated by Talakhabi M, Bozorgi A, Sahhafi L. Classroom Improvement (Application of the Principles of the Science of Mind, Brain and Upbringing), First Edition, the publication of the Farhangian University; 2016: P 95, 120. (Persian)
  35. Reisdana F. Curriculum Compatible with Brain Function. Journal of Educational Technology growth 2015; 31)6): 16-19. (Persian)
  36. Taraj, M. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Brain Learning and Cognitive-Metacognitive Strategies on Improving the Math Performance of Undergraduate Students in Urmia, Master's Thesis; 2012. (Persian)
  37. Neville H J. Training  Brains: Improving  behavior,  cognition  and  neural  mechanisms  of  attention  in  lower  SES  children.  In Conference presentation “Learning and the Brain”.  Boston MA; 2012.
  38. Stevens  C,  Harn  B,  Chard  D,  Currin  J,  Parisi  D, Neville,  H.  Examining  the  role  of  attention  and  instruction  in  at-risk  kindergarteners:  Electrophysiological  measures  of  selective  auditory  attention  before  and  after  an  early  literacy intervention.  Journal of Learning Disabilities 2011; 46: 73–86.
  39. Zadina J N. The emerging role of educational neuroscience in education reform. Psicología Educativa 2015; 21:  71–77.
  40. Saifi S, Ebrahimighavam S, Farokhi N. The study of the effect of brain-centered learning on reading comprehension and learning speed of third grade students. Journal of Educational Innovations 2010; 34: 45-60. (Persian)
  41. Khalilisadrabad A, Ebrahimighavam S. Brain-based learning: A new learning strategy, The first National Conference on Sustainable Development in Education and Psychology. Social and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Arvand Higher Education Institution, Center of Solutions for Developmental Stable, 2014; https://www.civilica.com/Paper-EPSCONF01-EPSCONF01_267.html, (Persian).
  42. William D. Embedded, formative assessment, Publisher Solution Tree Press; Bloomington, United States, 2011; https://www.bookdepository.com/Embedded-Formative-Assessment-Dylan-Wiliam/9781934009307.