Volume 7, Issue 1 (March 2025)
IEEPJ 2025, 7(1): 63-80 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Maleki M, Rahmani J, Fazlullahi S. (2025). Designing and Explaining the Professional Development Model for Preschool Educational Managers in Education: A Mixed Method Study. IEEPJ. 7(1), 63-80. doi:10.22034/7.1.63
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-633-en.html
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-633-en.html
1- PhD Student of Educational Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Educational Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran ,0384459@gmail.com
3- Department of Educational Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
2- Department of Educational Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran ,
3- Department of Educational Management, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
Abstract: (1938 Views)
Objective: This investigation was undertaken with the objective of formulating and elucidating a process model pertaining to the professional development of preschool educational administrators within the domain of education.
Methods: This study uses a mixed-methods approach (qualitative-quantitative) to explore educational management. The qualitative phase involved in-depth, unstructured interviews with 11 experts (educational administrators, scholars, and HR consultants) using snowball sampling until theoretical saturation was reached. Grounded theory guided the model construction. The quantitative phase surveyed 217 preschool managers in Tehran and Qom provinces via a 42-item researcher-developed questionnaire, analyzed using SPSS and smart-PLS software. The study integrates qualitative insights with quantitative data to develop a comprehensive model, employing convenience sampling for the quantitative segment and grounded theory for qualitative analysis.
Results: Ultimately, the findings of this research resulted in the formulation of a process model for the professional development of preschool educational administrators in education (anchored in the paradigm model structure), and the hypothesized relationships derived from the model were empirically tested and validated within a substantial population.
Conclusions: The results may provide valuable insights for educational administrators and planners in the formulation and execution of a procedural framework aimed at the professional development of preschool educational managers.
Methods: This study uses a mixed-methods approach (qualitative-quantitative) to explore educational management. The qualitative phase involved in-depth, unstructured interviews with 11 experts (educational administrators, scholars, and HR consultants) using snowball sampling until theoretical saturation was reached. Grounded theory guided the model construction. The quantitative phase surveyed 217 preschool managers in Tehran and Qom provinces via a 42-item researcher-developed questionnaire, analyzed using SPSS and smart-PLS software. The study integrates qualitative insights with quantitative data to develop a comprehensive model, employing convenience sampling for the quantitative segment and grounded theory for qualitative analysis.
Results: Ultimately, the findings of this research resulted in the formulation of a process model for the professional development of preschool educational administrators in education (anchored in the paradigm model structure), and the hypothesized relationships derived from the model were empirically tested and validated within a substantial population.
Conclusions: The results may provide valuable insights for educational administrators and planners in the formulation and execution of a procedural framework aimed at the professional development of preschool educational managers.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Psychology
Received: 2023/01/8 | Accepted: 2023/06/13 | Published: 2025/03/1
Received: 2023/01/8 | Accepted: 2023/06/13 | Published: 2025/03/1
References
1. Aghazadeh, F. (2022). A review of new evaluation methods in science education. Research in Experimental Science Education, 1(4), 46-64.
2. Ameri, A., Rahmani, M., & Khajehpour, L. (2024). Validation a Model of Learning Facilitators Club Related to Professional Training Development in Employees of Hormozgan Education Department [Original]. Iranian Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 13-26. [DOI:10.22034/3.1.13]
3. Avidov-Ungar, O. (2016). A model of professional development: Teachers' perceptions of their professional development. Teachers and teaching, 22(6), 653-669. [DOI:10.1080/13540602.2016.1158955]
4. Bacheler, M. (2015). Professional development of continuing higher education unit leaders: A need for a competency-based approach. The journal Of continuing higher education, 63(3), 152-164. [DOI:10.1080/07377363.2015.1085799]
5. Bizzell, B. E. (2011). Professional development of school principals in the rural Appalachian region of Virginia Virginia Tech]. Virginia Tech.
6. Brown, C., & Militello, M. (2016). Principal's perceptions of effective professional development in schools. Journal of educational administration, 54(6), 703-726. [DOI:10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0109]
7. Farzaneh, M., Javadpour, K., & Norozi, M. (2015). Providing a Model of Professional Competencies for Secondary School Principals. Educational Leadership & administration, 9(2), 83-95. http://sanad.iau.ir/fa/Article/857400
8. Gkolia, A., Koustelios, A., & Belias, D. (2018). Exploring the association between transformational leadership and teacher's self-efficacy in Greek education system: A multilevel SEM model. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 176-196. [DOI:10.1080/13603124.2015.1094143]
9. Han, X., & Feng, Z. (2013). School-based instructional research (SBIR): An approach to teacher professional development in China. In From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (Vol. 19, pp. 503-525). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [DOI:10.1108/S1479-3687(2013)0000019027]
10. Hayat, A. A., Abdollahi, B., Zeinabadi, H. R., & Arasteh, H. R. (2016). A qualitative study of the needs and methods of professional development of school administrators. Journal of Education and Learning Studies, 7(2), 41-62. [DOI:10.22099/jsli.2016.3689]
11. Hirsh, S. (2009). A new definition. Journal of staff development, 30(4), 10-16.
12. Ibrahim, N. (2011). Preparation and development of public secondary schools principals in Kenya. International journal of humanities and social science, 1(9), 291-301.
13. Khodabandelou, R., Mehran, G., Mohseni, H. s., & Rajabi, F. (2019). An Analytical Study of Professional Development in Preschool Education: An overview of the research carried out over the past 36 years. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 15(1), 7-26. [DOI:10.22051/jontoe.2019.18878.2096]
14. Kythreotis, A., & Pashiardis, P. (2006). Exploring leadership role in school effectiveness and the validation of models of principals' effects on students' achievement. CCEAM Conference Recreating Linkages between Theory and Praxis in Educational Leadership, Nicosia, Cyprus,
15. Militello, M., Fusarelli, B., Alsbury, T., & Warren, T. P. (2013). How professional standards guide practice for school principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(1), 74-90. [DOI:10.1108/09513541311289837]
16. Naderi, N., Khanifar, H., Rahmati, M. H., & Abeditorab, R. (2020). Identifying Formative Components of Professional Development for Elementary School Principals Qom Province. Educational and Scholastic studies, 9(1), 79-99. https://pma.cfu.ac.ir/article_1207_b3c65e649bca2e356ccbff8c0c44e3df.pdf
17. Ng, S.-w., & Szeto, S.-y. E. (2016). Preparing school leaders: The professional development needs of newly appointed principals. Educational management administration & leadership, 44(4), 540-557. [DOI:10.1177/1741143214564766]
18. Reston, V. (2015). National policy board for educational administration. professional standards for educational leaders. American Association of colleges of teacher education, 3(11), 207-212.
19. Scher, L., & O'Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development for K-12 math and science teachers: What do we really know? Journal of research on educational effectiveness, 2(3), 209-249. [DOI:10.1080/19345740802641527]
20. Shaidullina, R. M., Amirov, A. F., Muhametshin, V. S., & Tyncherov, K. T. (2017). Designing Economic Socialization System in the Educational Process of Technological University. European journal of contemporary education, 6(1), 149-158. [DOI:10.13187/ejced.2017.1.149]
21. Stynes, M., & McNamara, G. (2019). The challenge of perpetual motion: the willingness and desire of Irish primary school principals to juggle everything. Irish Educational Studies, 38(1), 25-42. [DOI:10.1080/03323315.2018.1512885]
22. Tahvildarzadeh, M., Moghaddasi, H., & Hosseini, M. (2017). A framework for quality management of university educational information: a review study. Research and Development in Medical Education, 6(1), 3-11. [DOI:10.15171/rdme.2017.002]
23. Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573-596. [DOI:10.1177/016146810911100205]
24. Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). McREL's balanced leadership framework: Developing the science of educational leadership. Ers Spectrum, 22(1), 4-10.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
