Causal Layered Analysis of Policy Enactment in Elementary Schools: Designing Alternative Scenarios with an Emphasis on Qualitative-Descriptive Evaluation

Document Type : Research Article


1 Ph.D. Candidate Department of Educational Management, , Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor. Department of Educational Management, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Prof. Department of Educational Management, , Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Prof. Department of Educational Management, , Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran


The present study is based on the theory of policy enactment and its purpose is to analyze layer by layer the reasons for policy enactment in Iranian primary schools to design alternative scenarios. To achieve this goal, the method of causal layer analysis has been used. In this way, the phenomenon of policy enactment was analyzed and deepened in four layers. The study population in this study are actors who are involved in the enactment of qualitative-descriptive evaluation policy. To find the participants, non-random snowball sampling method was used. MAXQDA 2018 software was also used for data analysis. Results at the Lithuanian level, Iranian students have failed to achieve a global average in international exams over the past two decades. At the level of the social system, human factors and cultural, economic and political contexts play an important role in policy enactment, which is not taken into account. At the worldview and discourse level, the paradigm of reductionism prevails in policy-making. At the level of myths and metaphors, policy-making is a conventional and generative metaphor that plays an important role in the linear implementation of policies. Based on the analysis and deepening of the four layers above, alternative policy enactment scenarios were designed and presented for each layer. Language does not just describe reality; Rather, it shapes reality. The use of the metaphor of development and policy enactment in language can play an important role in the success of policies. Thus, the adoption of politics is a complex, creative, intertwined, contextual and political process in which language and metaphor play a vital role but have received less attention.


  • بوستانی، افسانه؛ فانی، حجت اله؛ اوجی نژاد، احمد رضا. (1391). مقایسه میزان هم خوانی طرح ارزشیابی توصیفی قصد شده با اجرا شده در مدارس ناحیه یک شیراز، مجله پژوهش های برنامه درسی، ۲ (۲)، 140-123.
  • خوش­خلق، ایرج و پاشا شریفی، حسن. (1385). ارزشیابی اجرای آزمایشی ارزشیابی توصیفی در مدارس ابتدایی برخی از مناطق آموزشی کشور(85-1384). فصلنامه تعلیم و تربیت، 22(4)، 117 -147 .
  • چارتریس - ‌بلاک، جاناتان. (1398). تحلیل انتقادی استعاره رویکردی شناختی پیکره­ای.مترجم پناه­پور، یکتا. قم؛ انتشارات لوگوس.
  • کرمعلیان، حسن؛ هرندی، رضا جعفری؛ عبادی، حسین. (1392). بررسی مشکلات اجرای ارزشیابی کیفی توصیفی از دیدگاه معلمان و مدیران مدارس ابتدائی. رویکردهای نوین آموزشی، دانشکدة علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه اصفهان. 18(2)، 92-73.
  • حسنی، محمد. (1393). بررسی مقایسه ای ارزشیابی کیفی- توصیفی با نظام حقوق کودک در ایران. فصلنامه تعلیم و تربیت. 30 (118)، 128-105.
  • حسنی، محمد و پوزش شیرازی، حسین. (1393). بررسی تحلیلی تحقیقات انجام شده در موضوع ارزشیابی کیفی توصیفی. مجله­ی علوم تربیتی دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، 6 ()50-21.
  • صالحی، کیوان؛ بازرگان، عباس؛ ناهید، صادقی؛ شکوهی یکتا، محسن. (1394). بازنمایی ادراکات و تجارب زیسته معلمان از آسیب‌های احتمالی ناشی از اجرای برنامه ارزشیابی توصیفی در مدارس ابتدایی. فصلنامه مطالعات اندازه گیری و ارزشیابی آموزشی، ۵(۹)، ۵۹-۹۹.
  • عبداللهی، حسین. (1389). برنامه ریزی توسعه آموزش و پرورش(با تاکید بر تجربه ایران). چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات آموزش و پرورش.
  • علایی، توران و محمدپور، ابراهیم. (1397). بررسی نقاط قوت، ضعف، فرصت‎ها و تهدیدهای ارزشیابی توصیفی در درس ریاضی. فصلنامه توسعه حرفه­ای معلم، سال سوم، شماره 3. پاییز 1397، صص69-53.
  • قلتاش، عباس؛ اوجی نژاد، احمد رضا؛ دهقان منگابادی، علیرضا. (1394). آسیب شناسی الگوی ارزشیابی توصیفی به منظور ارائه الگوی مناسب در دوره ابتدایی. پژوهش در یادگیری آموزشگاهی و مجازی، 10 (3) 16-7.
  • Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. The Australian Journal of Education Studies,13(2), 10-17.
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: Some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education32(4), 611-624.
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education32(4), 625-639.
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge.
  • Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., Hoskins, K., & Perryman, J. (2012). How Schools Do Policy: Policy Enactment in the Secondary School.
  • Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education36(3), 306-313.
  • Ball, S. J. (2018). The tragedy of state education in England: Reluctance, compromise and muddle–a system in disarray. Journal of the British Academy6, 207-238.
  • Ball, S. J. (2020). Journal of education policy–1985–2020. 35:1, 1-2.
  • Ball, S. J. & Collet-Sabé, J. (2021). Against school: an epistemological critique. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-15.
  • Bamkin, S. (2021). Practitioner advocates in Japan: bringing in knowledge of practice for policy translation. Journal of Education Policy, 1-21.
  • Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge.
  • Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2015). Towards an analysis of the policies that shape public education: Setting the context for school leadership. Management in Education, 29(4), 146-150.
  • Bergmark, U., & Hansson, K. (2021). How teachers and principals enact the policy of building education in Sweden on a scientific foundation and proven experience: challenges and opportunities. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(3), 448-46f7.
  • Bubikova-Moan, J., & Opheim, V. (2021). ‘It’sa jigsaw puzzle and a challenge’: critical perspectives on the enactment of an RCT on small-group tuition in mathematics in Norwegian lower-elementary schools. Journal of Education Policy, 1-21.
  • Colman, A. (2021). School leadership, school inspection and the micropolitics of compliance and resistance: Examining the hyper-enactment of policy in an area of deprivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 268-283.
  • Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Comparing the receptions and translations of global education policy, understanding the logic of educational systems. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Humes, W., & Priestley, M. (2021). Curriculum reform in Scottish Education: Discourse, Narrative and Enactment. In Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice within and Across Diverse Contexts. Emerald Publishing Limited.
  • Innes, M. (2021). The micro-politics of the enactment of a school literacy policy. Oxford Review of Education, 1-15.
  • Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures,30(8), 815-829.
  • Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. foresight.
  • Inayatullah, S., Izgarjan, A., Kuusi, O., & Minkkinen, M. (2016). Metaphors in futures research.
  • Lambert, K., Alfrey, L., O’Connor, J., & Penney, D. (2021). Artefacts and influence in curriculum policy enactment: Processes, products and policy work in curriculum reform. European Physical Education Review, 27(2), 258-277.
  • Lambert, K., & Penney, D. (2020). Curriculum interpretation and policy enactment in health and physical education: Researching teacher educators as policy actors. Sport, Education and Society25(4), 378-394.
  • Leithwood, K. (2018). Postscript: Five insights about school leaders’ policy enactment. Leadership and Policy in Schools17(3), 391-395
  • Levin, B. (1998). An epidemic of education policy:(what) can we learn from each other?. Comparative education34(2), 131-141.
  • Long, M. H., & Low, C. (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, B. A., & Sutton, M. (2001). Introduction: Policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy1, 1-22.
  • Massouti, A. (2021). A New-Institutional Analysis of Inclusion Policy Enactment in a Teacher Education Program. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (195).
  • McDonnell, J. (2021). How do you promote ‘British Values’ when values education is your profession? Policy enactment of FBV amongst teachers of Religious Education, Citizenship Education and Personal, Social and Health Education in England. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(3), 377-394.
  • Melville, W., & Hardy, I. (2020). Teacher learning, accountability and policy enactment in Ontario: the centrality of trust. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 19(1), 1-17.
  • Ng, P. T. (2005). The learning school: Innovation and enterprise. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
  • Ní Laoire, C., Linehan, C., Archibong, U., Picardi, I., & Udén, M. (2021). Context matters: Problematizing the policy‐practice interface in the enactment of gender equality action plans in universities. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(2), 575-593.
  • Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: contested terrain (Milton Keynes, Open University Press).
  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research,72(3), 387-431.
  • Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. and Henry, M. (1997) Educational Policy and the Politics of Change, London: Routledge.
  • Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of education policy19(4), 433-451.
  • TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. (2021).
  • Thiel, C. (2021). Side effects and the enactment of accountability: results of a comparative study in two German federal states. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 1-23.
  • Wallace, M. (1998). A counter‐policy to subvert education reform? Collaboration among schools and colleges in a competitive climate. British Educational Research Journal24(2), 195-215.
  • Wallace, M. (1991). Coping with multiple innovations in schools: an exploratory study. School Organisation11(2), 187-209.
  • Walker, A., & Ko, J. (2011). Principal leadership in an era of accountability: A perspective from the Hong Kong context. School Leadership & Management31(4), 369-392.
  • Wilkinson, S. D., Penney, D., Allin, L., & Potrac, P. (2021). The enactment of setting policy in secondary school physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 26(6), 619-633.
  • Wilkinson, S. D., & Penney, D. (2021). Setting policy and student agency in physical education: Students as policy actors. Sport, Education and Society, 26(3), 267-280.