From Philosophy of Action to the Philosophy of University: An Introduction to Indigenous Educational Planning

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Corresponding Author, An Assistant Professor, Research Institute of Hawzeh and University, Qom, Iran

2 An Associate Professor, Research Institute of Hawzeh and University, Qom, Iran

Abstract

A Human action always starts with a need, and the action occurs following the need. Thus, need assessment is the most basic element in the educational planning process. In a general sense, a university as a social institution is a social identity which has been shaped to meet human beings’ needs, and its duties are defined according these needs. In order to shape the identity of educational planning, the concepts necessarily related to it, including ‘need’, ‘action’ and ‘institution’, should find their definitions. Therefore, educational planning is a concept which depends on our definition of three identities and itself is a part of the second one i.e. action. Thus, in educational planning, these three basic steps have a fundamental feature:
1. Assessing educational needs;
2. Defining the action of actors (including teachers, students and facilitators) as the goal of curriculum planning;
3.Defining the relevant institution in curriculum planning (including a school, university or seminary (hawzeh)).
Without assessing needs and identifying the hierarchy of macro individual and social needs, it is not possible that we understand correctly how the action should be done. Since social actions, because of its social identity, are necessarily formed within the institution, we cannot have desirable educational planning without a proper definition of a university. The standard route to reach this model is realizable through examining the main elements in the philosophy of action because philosophy of action provides us with the basic elements of an action both individually and institutionally.

Keywords

References

  1. ابراهیم‏آبادی، حسین (1393)، سیاست‌گذاری فرهنگی آموزش عالی؛ ایده، تجربه، راهبرد، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی وزارت علوم تحقیقات و فناوری.
  2. ارسطو (1385)، اخلاق نیکوماخوس، ترجمه محمدحسن لطفی، تهران: طرح نو.
  3. بارو، رابین و ودز، رونالدو (1376)، درآمدی بر فلسفه آموزش و پرورش، ترجمه فاطمه زیباکلام، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  4. حسنی، سیدحمیدرضا و هادی موسوی (1391)، «ساخت و عامل در نظریه اعتباریات علامه طباطبایی و نظریه ساخت‌یابی گیدنز»، نظریه‌های اجتماعی متفکران مسلمان، ش3، ص129−159.
  5. کافمن، راجر و هرمن، جری (1393)، برنامه‌ریزی استراتژیک در نظام آموزشی، ترجمه فریده مشایخ و عباس بازرگان، تهران: سازمان پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی آموزشی وزارت آموزش و پرورش.
  6. طباطبایی، سیدمحمدحسین (1416)، نهایة الحکمة، قم: مؤسسه نشر اسلامی.
  7. ملاصدرا، صدرالدین محمد شیرازی (1981)، الحکمة المتعالیة فی الاسفار العقلیة الاربعة، بیروت: دارالاحیاء التراث العربی.
  8. موسوی، هادی و سیدحمیدرضا حسنی (1394)، «مواجهه تخنه ارسطو با فلسفه تکنولوژی هایدگر»، روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، ش85، ص31−46.
  9. موسوی، هادی (1392)، «هستی‌شناسی پیچیدگی»، روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، ش76، ص91−112.
    1. Abbott, Ann A. (1981), Durkheim's Theory of Education: A Case of Mainstreaming, Peabody Journal of Education, July, 235-241.
    2. Barbazette, Jean (2006), Training Needs Assessment, San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
    3. Gupta, Kavita (2007), Practical Guide to Needs Assessment, San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
    4. Hatch, Mary jo (2013), Organization Theory, Oxford & New York: Oxford University press.
    5. Lukes, Steven (1985), Emile Durkheim, California: Stanford university press.
    6. Morgan, Gareth, (2006), Images of Organization, London: sage.
    7. Moya, Carlos J. (1990), The Philosophy of Action, UK: Polity press.
Journal of Islamic Education
Volume 15, Issue 34 - Serial Number 34
December 2020
Pages 97-112

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics