طراحی الگوی ارزشیابی مدارس استعدادهای درخشان مبتنی بر شاخص‌های مدرسه تراز سند تحول بنیادین

احمد مهاجری; سید احمد هاشمی; علی اصغر  ماشینچی

Authors

Ahmad Mohajeri Ph.D. Student of Curriculum Planning, Department of Education, Lam. C., Islamic Azad University, Lamerd, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5846-2063
Seyed Ahmad Hashemi Professor, Department of Education, Lam. C., Islamic Azad University, Lamerd, Iran Corresponding author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4191-9673
Aliasghar Mashinchi Associate Professor, Department of Education, Lam. C., Islamic Azad University, Lamerd, Iran Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-7468

Keywords:

Evaluation Model Design, Gifted Education, Standard School, Fundamental Reform Document, Qualitative Meta-Synthesis, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

Abstract

The present study aimed to design and validate an evaluation model for gifted schools based on the indicators of the Standard School framework in Iran’s Fundamental Transformation Document of Education and to explain the structural relationships among its dimensions. This applied-developmental study used a qualitative meta-synthesis approach combined with Interpretive Structural Modeling. The study population included domestic and international studies on school evaluation, standard schools, and gifted education. Following a systematic search of national and international databases, 30 eligible studies were selected from 470 initial records using the CASP checklist and analyzed in MAXQDA 2022 through open, axial, and selective coding. In the structural phase, 15 experts were purposively selected. Content validity was assessed using CVR and I-CVI, while structural relationships among dimensions were analyzed through ISM and MICMAC. The meta-synthesis resulted in 7 main dimensions, 15 subcomponents, and 58 operational indicators. The overall mean CVR was 0.89 and the mean I-CVI was 0.91. Coding reliability coefficients were 0.967 for Holsti’s coefficient, 0.838 for Scott’s Pi, 0.839 for Cohen’s Kappa, and 0.841 for Krippendorff’s Alpha. ISM revealed a five-level, multi-path structure in which educational leadership and management was the most foundational dimension and educational and developmental outcomes the most dependent. MICMAC classified educational leadership and management and educational environment as driving variables; instructional quality and research and innovation as linkage variables; students’ individual and social development and educational and developmental outcomes as dependent variables; and mental health and educational support as an autonomous variable. The proposed model indicates that evaluating gifted schools should extend beyond general Standard School indicators and academic outcomes by integrating managerial, instructional, research, social, developmental, and psychological dimensions within a systemic structural framework.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Baydar F, Demirci ME. The Relationship between School Principals’ Instructional Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization. BMC Psychology. 2026;14:350. doi: 10.1186/s40359-026-04090-8.

2. Ping MT, Aditomo A, Rachmat H, Lestari T, Lie A, Maulana R. Perceptions of Teaching Quality and Student Achievement: An Analysis of a Large-Scale National Assessment in Indonesia. Learning Environments Research. 2026;29(1):Article 4. doi: 10.1007/s10984-025-09559-8.

3. Vergeer J, van Weerdenburg M, Schils T, Bakx A. Teachers in Gifted Education: Their Perception of Involvement of and Interacting with Parents, School Leaders, and Other Teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2026;70(1):52-69. doi: 10.1177/00169862251351940.

4. Reis SM, Renzulli SJ, Renzulli JS. Enrichment and Gifted Education Pedagogy to Develop Talents, Gifts, and Creative Productivity. Education Sciences. 2021;11(10):615. doi: 10.3390/educsci11100615.

5. Aksoy F, Özer B, Gencel N. Evaluation of Training Workshop Curriculums for Gifted and Talented Students. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists. 2023;11(4):569-86. doi: 10.17478/jegys.1380004.

6. Breit M, Preuß J, Scherrer V, Moors T, Preckel F. Relationship between Creativity and Intelligence: A Multimethod Investigation of Alternative Theoretical Assumptions in Two Samples of Secondary School Students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2023;67(2):95-109. doi: 10.1177/00169862221118558.

7. Özdemir D, Işıksal Bostan M. From Which Aspects Do Differentiated Tasks Nurture Mathematically Gifted Students? Journal of Advanced Academics. 2025;36(3):493-520. doi: 10.1177/1932202X251325326.

8. Nicholas M, Skourdoumbis A, Bradbury O. Meeting the Needs and Potentials of High-Ability, High-Performing, and Gifted Students via Differentiation. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2024;68(2):154-72. doi: 10.1177/00169862231222225.

9. Bodur NC, Tuysuz C, Ugulu I. Qualitative Evaluation of the Science Curriculum Applied in Science and Art Centers (SACs) for Gifted Students in Turkey within the Framework of the CIPP Approach. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2022;33(4):604-35.

10. Yalçın Çer Ö. Evaluating the Turkish Classroom-Teaching Undergraduate Program: A CIPP Model Approach. SAGE Open. 2026;16(1). doi: 10.1177/21582440261416973.

11. Gubbels J, Hornstra L, van Weerdenburg M, Diepstraten I, Bakx AWEA. Educational Professionals’ Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Classroom Practices toward High-Ability Students: The Role of Collaborative School Culture and Schools’ Collective Efficacy. Roeper Review. 2025;47(1):32-46. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2024.2420362.

12. Topçu M, Aktan O. Professional Competencies for the Education of Gifted Students. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research. 2025;12(1):70-91. doi: 10.30900/kafkasegt.1533469.

13. Smeets K, Rohaan E, Peijnenburg J, Samsen-Bronsveld E, Bakx AWEA. Elementary Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Professional Development Needs Concerning Gifted Students and Their Educational Needs in the Netherlands. Gifted and Talented International. 2023;38(2):91-106. doi: 10.1080/15332276.2023.2237553.

14. Vergeer J, van Weerdenburg M, Schils T, Bakx A. School Leaders in Gifted Education: Their Perceptions of Involvement of and Interacting with Parents, Teachers, and Other School Leaders. Education Sciences. 2025;15(3):281. doi: 10.3390/educsci15030281.

15. Gilson CM, Lee LE. Cultivating a Learning Environment to Support Diverse Gifted Students. Gifted Child Today. 2023;46(4):235-49. doi: 10.1177/10762175231186454.

16. Minić V, Jovanović M, Milenović Ž. An Encouraging Environment for the Development of Gifted Students within the Knowledge Society. Društvene i humanističke studije. 2021;6(4):375-90. doi: 10.51558/2490-3647.2021.6.4.375.

17. Çimen İ, Yücel C, Karadağ E. Modelling the Effectiveness of Schools Based on Their Equality of Opportunities. Journal of Pedagogical Research. 2024;8(2):1-25. doi: 10.33902/JPR.202426078.

18. Raoof A, Shokri O, Fathabadi J, Panaghi L. Unpacking the Underachievement of Gifted Students: A Systematic Review of Internal and External Factors. Heliyon. 2024;10(17):e36908. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36908.

19. Rinn AN. A Critique on the Current State of Research on the Social and Emotional Experiences of Gifted Individuals and a Framework for Moving the Field Forward. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2024;68(1):34-48. doi: 10.1177/00169862231197780.

20. Özden C, Atasoy R. Shaping Future Trajectories: Skill Development, School Challenges, and Innovativeness at BILSEM. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2026;70(1):35-51.

21. Subotnik RF, Olszewski-Kubilius P, Corwith S, Calvert E, Worrell FC. Transforming Gifted Education in Schools: Practical Applications of a Comprehensive Framework for Developing Academic Talent. Education Sciences. 2023;13(7):707. doi: 10.3390/educsci13070707.

22. van Gerven E. Educational Paradigm Shifts and the Effects on Educating Gifted Students in the Netherlands and Flanders. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 2021;44(2):171-200. doi: 10.1177/01623532211001452.

23. Bakhtiari M, Dehghani M. A Review of Studies Related to the Fundamental Reform Document of Education in Iran: A Meta-Synthesis Study. Educational Sciences from the Perspective of Islam. 2022;10(19):5-47.

24. Khosravi S, Gorgich M, Sanchuli S. The Position of Efficient School from the Perspective of the Fundamental Reform Document with an Approach to the School in the 1404 Vision Horizon. Modern Advances in Psychology, Educational Sciences and Education. 2022;5(52).

25. Namdari Pezhman M. The Standard School from the Perspective of the Transformative Documents of the Iranian Education System: In Search of an Optimal Model. Educational Sciences from the Perspective of Islam. 2024;12(25):5-35.

26. Shahab Lavasani M, editor The Standard School Model Based on the Transformative Documents of Education: Identifying Dimensions and Components in the First Secondary School Level2025; Tehran, Iran.

27. Sharaf J, Ghoorchian NG, Nami K, Sabahi Zadeh M. Providing Mechanisms for Establishing an Efficient School in the Educational System Based on the General Policies and the Fundamental Reform Document. Strategic and Macro Policies. 2024;12(47):452-82.

28. Sobhani M, Sharifi A, Shahrakipour H. Investigating the Outcomes of the Standard School with an Approach Based on the Fundamental Reform Document. Sociology of Education. 2022;7(2):289-98.

29. Taheri M, Jalili Z, Abbaspour A, Gandamkar R. Exploring the Barriers to Implementing the Fundamental Reform Document from the Perspective of School Principals. Educational Management and Planning in Educational Systems. 2024;17(1):123-48.

30. Lee SH, Park MS, Yang DH, Park SY, Kil HJ. Development of Performance Indicators for Gifted Education Policies at the Level of Provincial and Municipal Offices of Education. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education. 2024;34(3):361-90. doi: 10.9722/JGTE.2024.34.3.361.

31. Almerino PM, Martinez M, Sala R, Maningo KN, Garciano L, Catyong C, et al. Constructing an Interpretive Structural Model to Unravel the Interconnected Drivers of Teaching Quality in Higher Education. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS). 2024;15(1):1-23. doi: 10.4018/IJKSS.339564.

32. Latiff NA, Ghani MFA. Interpretive Structural Modelling: Hierarchical Relationship Model of Appreciating Diversity Competency for Educational Leaders. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE). 2023;12(2):647-58. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v12i2.24624.

33. Samsudin M, Sari R, Casnan, Hanafi AI. Strategic Pathways to Educational Excellence: An ISM Analysis of Leadership, Curriculum, and Service Quality in Muhammadiyah Schools amid Society 5.0. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education. 2025;7(2):361-74. doi: 10.23917/ijolae.v7i2.9705.

34. Ozodova M. The Effect of Collectivist Culture on Teachers’ Wellbeing: Mediating Role of Social Justice Leadership. International Journal of Educational Management. 2025;39(4):898-915.