Developing a Model for Optimizing Cultural Events in the Education Sector

1. Introduction

Culture, as the foundation of individual and collective identity, has long played a pivotal role in shaping social and educational structures (Ballantine et al., 2021). In this context, the education system—as a formal and extensive institution—has consistently maintained a close and reciprocal interaction with culture, both influencing and being influenced by it (Patton, 2023). This intertwined, bidirectional relationship is so profound that some scholars consider education inherently a cultural process—one that, through continuous interaction with learners, facilitates the internalization of societal values, norms, and beliefs.

In recent decades, the emergence of interdisciplinary theories in the field of education has introduced novel concepts such as “education as culture” (Apfeld et al., 2023), “culturally responsive education” (Sawitri et al., 2021), “citizenship education” (Thelma, 2024), and “culture-building education” (Meng et al., 2024). These perspectives collectively underscore the dual role of the education system as both a recipient and producer of culture, positioning it not merely as a conduit for knowledge transmission but as a platform for the reproduction, renewal, and transformation of culture within society.

Within this framework, the school—as the core component of formal education—holds a distinguished position in the processes of socialization (Muldagaliyeva et al., 2025) and culture-building (Meng et al., 2024). Serving as a mediator between the individual and society, the school not only imparts scientific knowledge and skills but also transmits shared values, social norms, and patterns of interaction, thereby fostering competencies essential for students to assume future societal responsibilities (Tintori et al., 2021).

In Iran's national education policy documents, particularly the Fundamental Reform Document of Education, the school is conceptualized as a “center for holistic education” that must interact with local communities, cultural institutions, and families to promote balanced and comprehensive student development. This document places particular emphasis on the school's community-oriented role and its cultural function at the neighborhood level (Namdari Pejman, 2024).

Among the most significant instruments of culture-building in schools are cultural events. Drawing on established definitions in the social sciences, an event refers to a discrete occurrence or phenomenon with a clear beginning and end that results in some form of change or transformation. When imbued with cultural content, such occurrences are termed “cultural events” (e.g., festivals, exhibitions, traditional ceremonies, cultural competitions, literary gatherings, and artistic workshops) (Elsamanoudy, 2024). International studies highlight the critical role of cultural events in strengthening local identity, enhancing national pride, preserving cultural heritage, fostering social cohesion, and mitigating the homogenizing effects of globalization (Weber & Ali-Knight, 2012). By creating shared cultural experiences, these events contribute to social solidarity, civic participation, and sustainable cultural development.

Despite their substantial potential, an examination of the current state of education in Iran reveals a lack of coherence, systematic planning, and a clear model for the interaction between schools and society in implementing cultural events. Many cultural, social, and civil institutions capable of contributing to culture-building processes have limited or ineffective engagement with schools. Moreover, existing regulations and policies have not adequately facilitated the participation of these entities within school environments (Muldagaliyeva et al., 2025). This disconnect has resulted in a cultural rift between schools and broader society, thereby squandering valuable opportunities for meaningful culture-building.

Furthermore, recent social, cultural, and technological transformations have intensified the need to reexamine approaches to culture-building in schools. Globalization, the proliferation of new media, shifts in lifestyles, and identity-related challenges confronting the younger generation necessitate that the education system leverage innovative tools—including cultural events—to reinforce national identity, social cohesion, and active cultural participation among students. In this regard, the development of a robust model for streamlining (or optimizing) cultural events emerges as a promising and effective strategy to advance the educational and cultural objectives of the national education system.

2. Theoretical and Research Foundations

Drawing on research in cultural management, Bartolucci et al. (2024) examined the impact of ability grouping on individuals' general self-concept and, consequently, their civic participation choices. The findings indicated that ability grouping influences civic participation among high-ability individuals at age 33, particularly in terms of engagement in general elections. Similarly, Aidi et al. (2024) explored strategies for attracting and fostering student participation in cultural and sports programs. Their results emphasized the need to prioritize approaches such as program diversification, incentive and support systems, optimal management of financial and human resources, and targeted advertising to engage and promote student involvement in cultural and sports activities.

Ahmadipour et al. (2022) proposed a model for enhancing cultural literacy in education, structured around foundational factors (reform and fundamental documents, family, macro-cultural policies, approved curricula, and overall educational management); causal factors (technology, laws and regulations, media, and educational facilities and equipment); intervening factors (economic factors, individual and interpersonal skills, social factors, and cultural invasion); strategies (notables, national literature, national and global history, architecture, music, religion and faith, ethnic groups and customs, world literature, sports-games-recreation, art and handicrafts, kings and royal dynasties, theater); and outcomes (increased efficiency and effectiveness of education, heightened national pride and honor, and enhanced cultural awareness).

Drajat and Nor (2020), in a study titled "Models of Character and Moral Education for Children with Special Needs in an Inclusive School," concluded that education for all children must be personalized. All children require character and virtuous moral education. Bazgoli et al. (2021), in their research titled "Designing a Model for Developing Cultural Capital in Iran's Education System," identified five influential components—social identity, social capital, family interactions, media consumption, and lifestyle—and five affected dimensions: academic achievement, student empowerment, social responsibility, social acceptability, and student vitality.

Nonis et al. (2020), in a study titled "Developing Students' Global Mindset: An Event-Based Approach," found that international business education and learning require a broad and integrated perspective, which not only expands students' global mindset but also broadens their views on themselves, others, and the world they inhabit. Leppik et al. (2019) addressed the teaching of Russian language to school students in Russian Federation embassies, emphasizing the necessity of an event-oriented approach to shape and improve communicative educational activities. In modern educational realities, where children—regardless of their Russian language proficiency—become students in multi-ethnic classes at Ministry of Foreign Affairs schools, conditions must be created to enable them to develop their communicative skills both in Russian language lessons and extracurricular activities.

Moeini et al. (2020) presented a conceptual model for a comprehensive cultural map in Iran's education system. Data analysis revealed that this model encompasses a central phenomenon (values, foundations, and principles); causal factors (macro-cultural factors, organizational conditions, individual and family factors); intervening factors (national and general culture, laws and policies); contextual factors (organizational culture, supportive organizational climate); strategies (institutionalization strategy adoption, comprehensive participation, cultural infrastructure development); and outcomes of the comprehensive cultural map (organizational cultural flourishing, individual cultural development, and social cohesion).

Morovat (2024), in their research, arrived at a model encompassing eight domains: policymaking, implementation (implementing agents), evaluation and monitoring, process management, effects, resources, program content, and culture.

Abuzar et al. (2024) investigated key factors influencing students' motivation and behavior in higher education, with a special emphasis on student participation, counseling, and mental health services. The results demonstrated that intrinsic motivation—nurtured through an inclusive and supportive university culture—is the primary determinant of student success. Students actively engaged in academic and extracurricular activities exhibit more positive behaviors and higher levels of motivation and resilience. Counseling and mental health services play a crucial role in helping students navigate emotional and psychological stresses, thereby sustaining their engagement and well-being.

A review of prior research indicates that studies related to the present topic can be categorized into three broad groups:

1. Studies on the role of education in cultural upbringing and culture-building: These studies, grounded in sociological theories of education, examine the school's role in socializing students and transmitting cultural values (Namdari Pejman, 2025; Davies, 2024). While they elucidate the importance of culture-building in schools, they are predominantly theoretical and descriptive, lacking model-oriented and practical approaches.

2. Studies on designing macro-level cultural policymaking models in education: These works aim to provide national-level policy models, including comprehensive cultural maps, cultural policies, and macro-strategies (Ahmadipour et al., 2022; Bazgoli et al., 2021; Moeini et al., 2020). Although useful at the macro level, these models are abstract and lack implementability at the school level.

3. Applied studies on student cultural participation: This category investigates factors influencing students' participation in cultural, social, and sports activities (Aidi et al., 2024). While focused on the micro level, these studies lack a structural and institutional model-oriented perspective.

Given the above, a clear knowledge gap exists regarding the design of a model for streamlining cultural events in education. This gap is evident not only theoretically but also operationally. Most prior studies either explore the general role of education in cultural upbringing (Muldagaliyeva et al., 2025; Namdari Pejman, 2025) or propose macro-level, policy-oriented models lacking school-level applicability (Ahmadipour et al., 2022; Bazgoli et al., 2021). Furthermore, micro-level studies primarily concentrate on individual and social factors affecting students' cultural participation, without a structural and streamlining perspective (Aidi et al., 2024).

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study adopted a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018), a systematic approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation within a single study. In terms of purpose, the research is classified as applied, as its primary objective was to identify key components for streamlining cultural events in education and to propose a corresponding model.

The qualitative phase employed grounded theory with Glaser’s emergent approach (Glaser, 1978, 1992), emphasizing the emergence of theory directly from the data without preconceived frameworks. This method facilitated the extraction of strategies for streamlining cultural events through in-depth analysis of interview content. The quantitative phase utilized a descriptive-correlational design to test and validate the model derived from the qualitative findings on a larger sample.

3.2. Data Collection Instruments

In the qualitative phase, data were collected via semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded with participants' consent, and general questions and conditions were provided in advance. Participants determined the timing of interviews. Each recording was transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were reviewed multiple times alongside re-listening to audio files to ensure immersion in the data. Coding commenced only after thorough familiarization with the material.

To establish the trustworthiness of the qualitative instrument, reliability was confirmed through intra-coder agreement (repeated coding by the researcher) and inter-coder agreement (independent coding by a second coder). Validity was addressed using content validity for the interview questions, along with strategies such as prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, peer debriefing, consultation with colleagues, and member checking (Holloway & Galvin, 2023).

In the quantitative phase, a researcher-developed questionnaire with closed-ended items was constructed based on the qualitative results and the proposed model.

3.3. Population and Sampling

The qualitative population comprised three groups:

1. Planning and policymaking managers (senior education officials with experience in cultural management);

2. School principals and teachers (individuals whose schools demonstrated notable success in cultural activities, including recognition in cultural events, "life schools," specialized schools, etc.);

3. Students (both those with achievements in cultural events and those with no prior participation in such activities).

Purposive sampling was employed to select participants with direct knowledge, experience, or lived expertise in cultural goals, structures, and responsibilities within education. Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, eight students (four high-achieving in cultural activities and four non-participants) and eight managers actively involved in or responsible for cultural matters were selected.

The quantitative population included all education managers, cultural organization officials, school principals, and educational counselors across Iran. Due to the geographical dispersion of educational regions, cluster random sampling was applied. The country was divided into three zones based on population size, variance, and allowable error. Sample sizes were calculated using Cochran’s formula, resulting in 276 participants for managers and 263 for educational counselors, distributed proportionally across regions.

3.4. Data Analysis

Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, a systematic method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within qualitative data. In the quantitative phase, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to test the model extracted from the qualitative phase. Specifically, second-order CFA assessed whether the selected indicators adequately represented the latent (hidden) variable of streamlining cultural events.

4. Findings

4.1. Findings Related to Research Question 1 (What are the Main Components of Streamlining Cultural Events in the Education System?)

Table 2 presents the categories identified through coding and thematic analysis of the interviews conducted with participants.

4.2. Findings Related to Research Question 2 (What are the Strategies and Policies Related to the Components of Streamlining Cultural Events in Education?)

To address this question, following the extraction of Table 2, a focused group session was held with a panel consisting of two senior policymakers, two educational counselors, and two school principals. The findings from Table 2 were presented to the group, and strategies and policies were finalized during a two-hour discussion.

4.3. Findings Related to Research Question 3 (What is the Optimal Model for Streamlining Cultural Events in the Education System?)

After identifying the elements and components associated with streamlining cultural events, the selected elements and components were reorganized based on the following procedures, and core codes were extracted accordingly:

• Each conducted interview was reviewed to explicitly and implicitly identify the process of streamlining cultural events within the emerging discourse.
• The logical flow of any educational system, particularly the education sector, was considered to include three stages: inputs, processes, and outputs.
• Organizational excellence models and their elements were also taken into account as primary reference frameworks.

Accordingly, the final model was designed in four dimensions—contextual factors, processes, outcomes, and support systems—and the identified components were organized within these dimensions (see Figure 1).

4.4. Findings Related to Research Question 4 (Does the Proposed Model for Streamlining Cultural Events in the Education System Possess Sufficient Validity?)

A researcher-developed questionnaire was designed to test the conceptual model derived from the qualitative phase. Questionnaire items were formulated by re-examining the interview transcripts and drawing upon specialized literature related to streamlining cultural events, as well as aligned instruments measuring similar constructs. A five-point Likert scale was employed. Following initial development, the questionnaire underwent thorough review and validation by academic and executive supervisors, resulting in final approval.

Face validity was assessed through expert feedback from specialists in the field, who confirmed that the instrument was generally well-constructed. Some items were revised for sentence clarity, and others were merged to enhance coherence.

Content validity was evaluated by presenting the finalized version to the 16 participants from the qualitative phase (interviewees), who assessed the relevance of each item to its corresponding component. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was calculated. Items 6, 12, 29, 34, 41, 46, 60, 66, 77, and 84 yielded CVR values below 0.33 and were removed. Items 17, 21, 74, and 81 received unanimous agreement from all 16 experts for retention. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for all components exceeded 0.80. The highest reliability coefficients were observed for Motivation and Enhancement (α = 0.88), Design and Content (α = 0.87), and Cultural Governance (α = 0.87), while the lowest was for Context and Infrastructure (α = 0.82). Following these refinements, the final questionnaire comprised 75 items and was distributed for quantitative data collection. The construct of streamlining cultural events was operationalized as comprising five main components: Cultural Governance, Context and Infrastructure, Design and Content, Motivation and Enhancement, and Participation and Implementation. Second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine whether these first-order latent factors (components), measured by their respective observed variables, are themselves influenced by a higher-order underlying latent variable (Gorsuch, 2014).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.95, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yielded a chi-square value of 7482.86 (df = 231, p < 0.001), both indicating suitability for factor analysis. Data normality was examined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test across the five components; z-values were non-significant at p > 0.05, confirming the normality assumption and permitting CFA.

Table 3 presents the standardized estimates, standard errors, t-values, and squared multiple correlations (R²) for the second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the streamlining cultural events construct.

In a measurement model, each latent variable is represented by paths from the latent construct to its observed indicators, with associated non-standardized and standardized parameters, standard errors, and t-values. All paths were statistically significant, indicating that the observed items effectively predicted their respective components. Table 4 displays the goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model.

The chi-square statistic (measuring discrepancy between observed and estimated matrices) was significant (p < 0.001). However, in large samples—as required for second-order CFA—the chi-square test tends to reject models unrealistically; thus, its limitations are acknowledged (Mueller & Hancock, 2018).

Two interrelated absolute fit indices are the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI). The AGFI is similar to the GFI but adjusts for the degrees of freedom in the model. Both indices range from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1 indicating better fit and generally considered acceptable.

Other important indices include the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The RMR represents the average discrepancy between the observed and expected correlations, taking into account all estimated parameters. The RMSEA is a parsimony-adjusted index that accounts for discrepancies within the model. In a perfectly fitting model, both values would be zero. In general, values below 0.08 are considered acceptable, while values below 0.05 are deemed highly desirable (Tinsley & Brown, 2000). The RMR is interpreted on the scale of the correlations (typically < 0.05 is desirable; Hooper et al., 2008).

Based on the information in Table 4, the RMSEA value of 0.07 and RMR value of 0.03 indicate acceptable error indices. The GFI (0.98), AGFI (0.97), and NFI (0.98) demonstrate a strong correspondence between the proposed model and the observed data.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The final model extracted from this study represents a systemic and dynamic framework organized into four key dimensions: contextual factors, processes, outcomes, and support systems. This model illustrates that streamlining cultural events is not a linear or simplistic process but rather a complex, interdependent ecosystem in which all elements interact organically and reciprocally.

The proposed model can be metaphorically likened to a robust tree. The roots symbolize the contextual factors, encompassing components such as school structure redesign, cultural economy, cultural strategy orientation, and unity in decision-making. These elements form the foundational bedrock of any cultural transformation. Without structural reform, sustainable financing, macro-level strategic planning, and coordinated decision-making among institutions, enduring cultural progress remains unattainable. This dimension aligns closely with the findings of Moeini et al. (2020), who emphasized “contextual factors” (e.g., organizational culture and supportive climate) in their comprehensive cultural mapping model for Iran’s education system. It also corroborates Morovat (2024), who identified policymaking and process management as critical domains in analyzing cultural activities.

The trunk and main branches represent the core processes of streamlining. This is the pulsating heart of the model, comprising more operational components that directly engage students: cultural talent mapping, awareness raising, purposefulness of events, delegation of responsibility, content standardization, cultural timing, diversification, needs orientation, motivation building, alignment with educational life, cultural personalization, student networking, and cultural guidance. These components describe the transformation of a cultural idea into a vibrant, impactful flow within the school environment. This dimension resonates strongly with Namdari Pejman (2025), who highlighted needs orientation, student-centered methods, and student profiling as key drivers of participation. The emphasis on networking and responsibility delegation also fully aligns with Abuzar et al. (2024), who demonstrated that participatory and student-led group approaches enhance self-awareness and empathy.

The fruits of the tree represent the outcomes and results of the process, including intelligent reward systems, sustainable support, and event evaluation. These components ensure that student participation is not a fleeting experience but leads to internalized motivation, a sense of belonging, and continuous personal growth. This aspect addresses a notable gap in Morovat (2024), which focused on effectiveness analysis and outcome measurement in cultural activities.

Finally, media coverage functions as the supporting leaves—performing a photosynthetic role that nourishes and sustains the entire tree. This component acts as a catalyst and facilitator throughout the process.

This integrated model underscores that sustainable cultural flow cannot be achieved by focusing solely on one or a few components. For instance, heavy investment in media coverage without attention to content standardization or student responsibility delegation would merely generate superficial noise without deep impact. In summary, the model advocates for a holistic, systemic, and process-oriented approach to school culture.

The strategies and policies derived for each component serve as the bridge between theory and practice, translating conceptual elements into concrete, implementable actions within the school context. Analysis of these strategies reveals several core principles in cultural management:

Principle 1: Systematization and Process Orientation Many strategies emphasize the creation of “systems,” “frameworks,” and “mechanisms.” Examples include designing a systematic cultural talent identification system at entry or establishing a merit-based system for cultural experts. This marks a shift from ad hoc, subjective approaches to a scientific, structured paradigm. This principle is central to Leppik et al. (2019), who advocated an event-oriented approach to create systematic models in language education. When talent identification moves from incidental teacher observation to a defined system with clear indicators, both accuracy and inclusivity improve.

Principle 2: Decentralization and Participation Strategies such as bottom-up policymaking, formation of student cultural councils with executive authority, and delegation of event implementation to student groups reflect a paradigm shift from top-down centralized management to participatory, empowering governance. This directly aligns with Nonis et al. (2020), who found that event-based participatory approaches strengthen self-understanding and empathy. When students play active roles in designing and executing events, those events cease to be imposed tasks and become personal projects that foster commitment and ownership.

Principle 3: Data-Driven and Effectiveness-Oriented Strategies including cost-benefit analysis for cultural events, systematic needs assessment, and continuous evaluation underscore that cultural decision-making must be evidence-based rather than speculative or tradition-bound. This directly responds to Morovat (2024), which revealed that many cultural organizations lack systematic tools for effectiveness measurement. Budget allocation based on activity volume and impact could revolutionize resource management in constrained cultural environments.

Principle 4: Integration and Alignment The strategy of aligning cultural events with curriculum content and real-life experiences addresses a longstanding dichotomy between “culture” and “instruction” in education. Intelligent integration of cultural events with literature, history, arts, or science subjects enriches both cultural and academic learning. This perspective shares the foundational philosophy of Drajat and Nor (2020), who emphasized personalization and integration for optimal educational outcomes.

Ultimately, the strategy of active engagement in virtual spaces for media coverage demonstrates that the model is attuned to contemporary realities and students’ digital lifeworld. A high-quality cultural event that fails to resonate in the virtual sphere—where much of students’ lives unfolds—loses substantial momentum.

This model establishes a virtuous cycle in which success in one dimension reinforces progress in others, propelling the entire system toward excellence. This dynamic, cyclical view distinguishes the present model from earlier ones, such as Ahmadipour et al. (2022), which, while identifying similar dimensions (causal, contextual, strategic), placed less emphasis on interactive and cyclical relationships among them.

In summary, this study successfully developed a comprehensive, contextually grounded model for streamlining cultural events in the education system. At its core lies a paradigm shift from a passive, centralized, event-focused approach to an active, decentralized, flow-oriented one. In the traditional paradigm, students are passive recipients and consumers of cultural products; in the new model, they become active agents, producers, and social capital contributors in the cultural domain.

This paradigmatic transition aligns with broader developments in educational management and cultural sociology theories that emphasize participation, empowerment, and asset-based development. The findings affirm that cultural capital is not a luxury but a fundamental asset for realizing the objectives of Iran’s Fundamental Reform Document of Education. This perspective strengthens Bazgoli et al. (2021), who linked cultural capital to student empowerment and social responsibility. Implicitly, the study also highlights the critical need for cultural literacy among administrators and teachers. Successful implementation requires cultural agents capable of talent recognition, high-quality content production, networking, and virtual space management—thus reinforcing the importance of cultural literacy enhancement as advocated by Ahmadipour et al. (2022).

Recommendations for Future Research

• Comparative International Studies Conduct comparative analyses with successful educational systems (e.g., Finland’s focus on participation and well-being, or Singapore’s integration of technology and cultural identity) to enrich and refine the model. Such studies could provide concrete benchmarks and innovative mechanisms for strengthening the model’s components.
• Longitudinal Impact Assessment Undertake longitudinal research (e.g., over 3–5 years) to evaluate the sustainability and long-term effects of pilot implementation on outcomes such as school vitality, students’ social responsibility, and local cultural identity reinforcement. This would provide the strongest evidence of the model’s effectiveness and durability.
• In-Depth Stakeholder Lived Experiences Employ phenomenological qualitative studies to explore teachers’ and students’ lived experiences, barriers, facilitators, motivations, and interpretations of participation in cultural events based on this model. These insights would offer valuable data for refining implementation processes.
• Integration with Emerging Educational Technologies Investigate complementary technological models, such as the use of artificial intelligence for personalized cultural event promotion, augmented reality, or gamification to enhance engagement and attractiveness. Such research would align with the model’s emphasis on creativity in content and multimedia communication.

This study contributes a theoretically robust, practically oriented framework that can guide policymakers, school administrators, and cultural educators toward more effective, sustainable, and student-centered cultural programming in schools.