摘要：Improvement of curriculum development by the members of a faculty can be facilitated by identifying their own and others’ ideology. This work is aimed to survey types of curriculum development ideologies that exist among members of faculty in educational sciences departments in Tehran universities. Research society was comprised of all faculty members in the departments in 2010-11, adopted through census. Among the 95 members, 30% were women and 70% men. The research was carried out as a descriptive (surveying) study using a standard questionnaire of curriculum ideology developed by Schiro (2008). The questionnaire focuses on six curriculum factors (including: Purpose, Teaching, Learning, Knowledge, Childhood, and Evaluation) and four curriculum ideologies (Scholar Academic Ideology, Social Efficiency Ideology, Learner Centred Ideology, Social Reconstruction Ideology). Data analysis involves examining frequency and percentage frequency of ideologies held by faculty and graphs of their ideologies.In general, results of the surveys over each quadrant of the ideology graphs are as follows. Greatest ideological preference was inclined toward (“the”) Learner Centred Ideology (69%), followed by Social Reconstruction Ideology (11%), social Efficiency ideology (11%), Scholar Academic Ideology (5%) and finally the combination of the Learner Centred Ideology and social Efficiency ideology (4%). In addition, the ideologies least preferred by academic board members included tendencies toward Scholar Academic Ideology (70%), Social Reconstruction Ideology (13%), Social Efficiency Ideology (7%), Scholar Academic and social reconstruction ideologies in combination (7%) social reconstruction and social Efficiency ideologies in combination (3%) and finally Learner Centred Ideology with (0%) Therefore, it can be concluded that ideological preference among academy members most favors the Learner Centred Ideology and least favors the Scholar Academic Ideology. Seemingly, the reason for the inclination towards the Learner Centred Ideology among the faculty members had to do with the fact that they were all engaged in educational fields at governmental universities. More, one could also deems it wise to believe that the participants coming from humanities pay more tribute to interactive relations with the students compared to those who come from non-humanities.
