@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):167-173
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):167-173
Effective Factors on Education Policies and Academic Technology
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Ronaghi M. (* )Feyzi K. (1 )
(* ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Article History
Received: July 10, 2013Accepted: September 23, 2013
ePublished: July 7, 2014
ABSTRACT
Aims
Recognition of the effective factors on policy formulation is effective on the policymaking
and their administration processes, therefore, this study aimed to recognize the
effective factors on educational and technological policies in the uniuversities.
Materials & Methods The present descriptive survey was done in 2012-13 at the University of Tehran as the biggest University of Iran and as a reference and mother university as well. 112 persons who were the deputy of school or dean of faculties in last 10 years to the time of study were selected using simple random sampling. Designing the researcher-made questionnaire was done in three phases. Data were analyzed by factor analysis method using LISERL 8.8 Software and one-sample T test. RMR, CFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, RMSEA, GFI, RFI and Chi-square were used to assess the fitness of the model.
Findings All components were confirmed regarding factor analysis results. The 6 introduced domains in this study and all of their components had appropriate and acceptable fitness. Based on the appropriate fitness of conceptual model of the study, consistency of the study method was approved with obtained data.
Conclusion Factors affecting the educational and technological policies can be classified in six economic, political, institutional, educational, technological and legal domains.
Materials & Methods The present descriptive survey was done in 2012-13 at the University of Tehran as the biggest University of Iran and as a reference and mother university as well. 112 persons who were the deputy of school or dean of faculties in last 10 years to the time of study were selected using simple random sampling. Designing the researcher-made questionnaire was done in three phases. Data were analyzed by factor analysis method using LISERL 8.8 Software and one-sample T test. RMR, CFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, RMSEA, GFI, RFI and Chi-square were used to assess the fitness of the model.
Findings All components were confirmed regarding factor analysis results. The 6 introduced domains in this study and all of their components had appropriate and acceptable fitness. Based on the appropriate fitness of conceptual model of the study, consistency of the study method was approved with obtained data.
Conclusion Factors affecting the educational and technological policies can be classified in six economic, political, institutional, educational, technological and legal domains.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analyzing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2007;74(4):413-32.
[2]Birkland TA. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. 3rd ed. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2010.
[3]Bach T, Niklasson B, Painter M. The role of agencies in policy-making. Polic Soc. 2012;31(3):183-93.
[4]Furst E. Making the way to the university environmentally sustainable: A segmentation approach. Transport Environ J. 2014;31:1-12.
[5]Stephens JC, Wilson EJ, Peterson TR. Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(8):1224-46.
[6]Behague D, Tawiah C, Rosato M, Some T, Morrison J. Evidence-based policy-making: The implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(10):1539-46.
[7]Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (Editors). The Oxford handbook of public policy (Oxford Handbooks of Political Science). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
[8]Phaal R, Muller G. An architectual framework for roadmappin: Towards visual strategy. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2009;76(1):39-49.
[9]Lall S. Structural adjustment and African industry. World Dev. 1995;23(12):2019-31.
[10]Cagnin C, Keenan M. Positioning future-oriented technology analysis. In: Cagnin C, Keenan M, Johnston R, Scapolo F, Barré R. Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.
[11]Eriksson EA, Weber KM. Adaptive foresight: Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(4):462-82.
[12]Amazt IH, Idris AR. Lecturers’ Satisfaction towards University Management & Decision-making Styles in some Malaysian Public Universities. Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:3957-70.
[13]Bell S, Morse S. Towards an understanding of how policy making groups use indicators. Ecol Indic. 2013;35:13-23.
[14]Craig LE, Smith LN. The interaction between policy and education using stroke as an example. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28(1):77-84.
[15]Stone N. Evaluating inter professional education: The tautological need for interdisciplinary approaches. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(3):260-75.
[16]Lundvall BA, Borrás S. Science, technology and innovation policy. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR. (Editors). The Oxford Hand Book of Innovation. London: Oxford Handbooks Online; 2006.
[17]Akbarian M, Dorri B. Strategic planning and information technology in University. Pub Manag J. 2010;4:63-82. [Persian]
[18]Bales BL. Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teach Teacher Educ. 2006;22(4):395-407.
[19]Blignaut AS, Hinostroza JE, Els CJ, Brun M. ICT in education policy and practice in developing countries: South Africa and Chile compared through SITES 2006. Comput Educ. 2010;55(4):1552-63.
[20]Bradbard D, Peters C, Caneva Y. Web accessibility policies at land-grant universities. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(4):258-66.
[21]Titova N, Shutov A. Predictive Model of Strategic Development of a University. Comput Sci J. 2014;31:459-67.
[22]Zakersalehi Gh, Zakersalehi A. An evaluation of educational manager’s view about independent university in Iran. Iran High Educ Assoc J. 2010;3(1):33-59. [Persian]
[2]Birkland TA. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts and models of public policy making. 3rd ed. New York: M.E. Sharpe; 2010.
[3]Bach T, Niklasson B, Painter M. The role of agencies in policy-making. Polic Soc. 2012;31(3):183-93.
[4]Furst E. Making the way to the university environmentally sustainable: A segmentation approach. Transport Environ J. 2014;31:1-12.
[5]Stephens JC, Wilson EJ, Peterson TR. Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(8):1224-46.
[6]Behague D, Tawiah C, Rosato M, Some T, Morrison J. Evidence-based policy-making: The implications of globally-applicable research for context-specific problem-solving in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(10):1539-46.
[7]Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (Editors). The Oxford handbook of public policy (Oxford Handbooks of Political Science). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
[8]Phaal R, Muller G. An architectual framework for roadmappin: Towards visual strategy. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2009;76(1):39-49.
[9]Lall S. Structural adjustment and African industry. World Dev. 1995;23(12):2019-31.
[10]Cagnin C, Keenan M. Positioning future-oriented technology analysis. In: Cagnin C, Keenan M, Johnston R, Scapolo F, Barré R. Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.
[11]Eriksson EA, Weber KM. Adaptive foresight: Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2008;75(4):462-82.
[12]Amazt IH, Idris AR. Lecturers’ Satisfaction towards University Management & Decision-making Styles in some Malaysian Public Universities. Soc Behav Sci. 2011;15:3957-70.
[13]Bell S, Morse S. Towards an understanding of how policy making groups use indicators. Ecol Indic. 2013;35:13-23.
[14]Craig LE, Smith LN. The interaction between policy and education using stroke as an example. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28(1):77-84.
[15]Stone N. Evaluating inter professional education: The tautological need for interdisciplinary approaches. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(3):260-75.
[16]Lundvall BA, Borrás S. Science, technology and innovation policy. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR. (Editors). The Oxford Hand Book of Innovation. London: Oxford Handbooks Online; 2006.
[17]Akbarian M, Dorri B. Strategic planning and information technology in University. Pub Manag J. 2010;4:63-82. [Persian]
[18]Bales BL. Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teach Teacher Educ. 2006;22(4):395-407.
[19]Blignaut AS, Hinostroza JE, Els CJ, Brun M. ICT in education policy and practice in developing countries: South Africa and Chile compared through SITES 2006. Comput Educ. 2010;55(4):1552-63.
[20]Bradbard D, Peters C, Caneva Y. Web accessibility policies at land-grant universities. Internet High Educ. 2010;13(4):258-66.
[21]Titova N, Shutov A. Predictive Model of Strategic Development of a University. Comput Sci J. 2014;31:459-67.
[22]Zakersalehi Gh, Zakersalehi A. An evaluation of educational manager’s view about independent university in Iran. Iran High Educ Assoc J. 2010;3(1):33-59. [Persian]