سنجش اثربخشی نظام آموزش مجازی ضمن خدمت فرهنگیان

محورهای موضوعی : فن‎آوری اطلاعات

فریدون یزدانی ¹

1 - استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه پیام نور، نهاوند، ایران

تاریخ دریافت : 1393/04/12 تاریخ پذیرش : 1393/09/18 تاریخ انتشار : 1393/11/12

کلید واژه: اثربخشی, رضایت‌مندی, آموزش ضمن خدمت مجازی, ارزش‌مندی, معلم‎ها,

چکیده مقاله :

این پژوهش با هدف سنجش اثربخشی نظام آموزش مجازی ضمن خدمت فرهنگیان به روش توصیفی- پیمایشی انجام شد. جامعه آماری آن را تمامی معلم‌های شهرستان ملایر تشکیل می‎دادند که حداقل یک‌بار در یکی از دوره‌های مجازی ضمن‌خدمت فرهنگیان تا زمان اجرای این پژوهش (سال تحصیلی 93-1392) شرکت داشته‌اند که تعداد آنها حدود 2040 نفر بود. برای نمونه‌گیری از روش در دسترس استفاده شد و 325 آزمودنی در پژوهش شرکت داده شدند. ابزار جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، پرسش‎نامه‌ای محقق ساخته، به نام پرسش‎نامه سنجش ارزش‌مندی- رضایت‌مندی از خصوصیات نظام آموزش مجازی بود. روایی محتوایی کلی پرسش‎نامه مذکور بر اساس شاخص روایی لاشه، محاسبه و 63/0 به دست آمد و پایایی آن با آزمون آلفای کرونباخ محاسبه شد و برای سازه‌های ارزش‌مندی و رضایت‌مندی به ترتیب 92/0 و 90/0 به دست آمد. نتایج نشان داد که هیچ رابطه معناداری میان سازه‌های ارزش‌مندی و رضایت‌مندی وجود ندارد و این دو، سازه‌های مستقلی هستند. هم‎چنین نتیجه تحلیل داده‌ها با شبکه تحلیل ماتریسی ارزش‌مندی- رضایت‌مندی، نشان داد که نظام آموزش مجازی یاد شده در هر یک از مؤلفه‌ها (کیفیت پشتیبانی، کیفیت محتوا، دسترسی‌پذیری و فن‎آوری) و نیز در کل، اثربخشی بالا و مناسبی ندارد. هم‌چنین، تحلیل داده‌ها با ابزار محک‌زنی لویس نشان داد که نظام آموزش مجازی مذکور در هر یک از مؤلفه‌ها و نیز در کل اثربخشی متوسطی دارد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of teachers’ in-service virtual training system. The method of the study was descriptive-survey. The statistical population of the study included all 2040 teachers who have participated at least once in one of the teachers’ in-service virtual training courses. For sampling, a convenience method was used, through which 325 subjects were selected. For data gathering, a researcher-made questionnaire, namely 'questionnaire for value-satisfaction assessment of virtual training system' was used. Validity of the questionnaire based on Lawshe’s Content Validity Ratio was 0.63. Reliability of the questionnaire was estimated using Chronbach's Alpha test that was 0.92 and 0.90 for constructs value and satisfaction, respectively. Results revealed that there was no significant correlation between value and satisfaction constructs, so they were independent constructs. Furthermore, the results out of the data analysis with value-satisfaction grid analysis indicated that teachers' in-service virtual training system was effective neither at any one of four dimensions (supporting quality, content quality, availability and technology) nor with respect to the overall system. In addition, the results out of data analysis by benchmarking instrument of LeVIS index showed that the effectiveness status of teachers’ virtual system both at any one of four dimensions and with respect to the overall system was moderate.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Aczel, J., & Saaty, T. L. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93-102.


2. Alavi, S. SH., EbrahimZadeh, I., KarimZadeghan Moghadam, D., Ataran, M., Mehrdad, R., & Gholestan, B. (2009). Investigating about the new approach of fast e-learning at in-service training of workers of medical science university. Quarterly Journal of Higher Education Organization of Iran, 2(3), 67-87. (in Persian).


3. Chau, B. B., & Dyson, L. E. (2004). Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an e-learning system. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http: //www.ascilite. org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/chua.html


4. Chute, A. G., Thompson M. M., & Hancock, B. W. (1999). The handbook of distance learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.


5. Dvořáčková, M., & Kostolányová, K. (2012). Complex model of e-learning evaluation focusing on adaptive instruction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1068-1076


6. Fathi Vajarghah, K., & Nasiri, F. (2005). Assessing the readiness of education ministry of Iran for implementing an in-service training system. Quarterly journal of Educational Innovations, 4(11), 48-65. (in Persian).


7. Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.


8. Ghaedi, B., Ali Asghari, M., & Ataran, M. (2007). Evaluating the curriculum of virtual education of computer engineering field at Elm-o-Sanat University of Iran, from professors and students’ point of view. The Complex Articles of Second E-Learning Conference. Zahedan: University of Sistan Baluchistan, AL Mahdi Publication. (in Persian).


9. Kazem Pour, I., & Ghafari, K. (2011). Assessing the readiness of Islamic Azad University of Iran for implementing an in-service training system. Quarterly Journal of New Ways in Educational Management, 2(5), 167-193. (in Persian).


10. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 602-609.


11. Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costabile, M. F. (2006). eLSE methodology: A systematic approach to the e-learning systems evaluation. Retrieved January 26, 2009, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/9_4/5.pdf


12. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personal Psychology, 28, 536-575.


13. Levy, Y. (2006). Assessing the value of e-learning systems. Hershey: Infosci.


14. Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of
    e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education 53, 1285-1296.


15. Rokeach, M. (1969). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Fransisco: Jossey-Basss, Inc., Publishers.


16. Sadri, S. (2004). The educational system of government’s workers: Fundamentals, principles, strategies, & design models. Tehran: The Second base of Management Development and Human Resources, Organization of Management and Planning of Country. (in Persian).


17. Sampson, S. E. (1999). Axiomatic justification for a geometric quality aggregation function. Decision Sciences, 30(2), 415-441.


18. Shee, D. Y., & Wang, Y. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based
    e-learning system: A methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers & Education 50, 894-905.


19. Shultz, K. S., & Whitney, D. J. (2005). Measurement theory in action. London: Sage.


20. Straub, D. (1989). Validating instrument in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147-170.


21. Sun, S. (2001). Base closure: An application of the analytic hierarchy process. Infor, 39(1), 17-32.


22. Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), 54-70.


23. Jamejam Online. (2014, Feb 25). Virtual in-Service Teachers Training. Retrieved from http://www.jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?NC=1&newsnum=1008312335 08. (in Persian).


24. Wang, Y. S. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information and Management, 41(1), 75-86.


25. Yazdani, F. (2011). Evaluating the e-learning systems’ effectiveness: The case of Shahr-e-Rey’s virtual college of anecdote sciences. Tehran: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, the Central Payam Noor University, Iran. (in Persian).


26. Yazdani, F. (2012). Theoretical foundations of e-learning. Tehran: Chapar. (in Persian).


27. Zakeri, A. (2002). Internet-based university. Quarterly Journal of Education for (Jehad-e-Daneshghahi), 5(1). (in Persian).