عوامل مؤثر بر تعاملات در محیط های یادگیری الکترونیک (مطالعه ای فراترکیب)

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت آموزشی

جواد پورکریمی ¹ , زهره علیمردانی ²

1 - استادیار، گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران
2 - دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/03/22 تاریخ پذیرش : 1399/06/03 تاریخ انتشار : 1399/07/01

کلید واژه: تعامل, یادگیری الکترونیکی, فراترکیب,

چکیده مقاله :

پژوهش حاضر باهدف شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر تعاملات در محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی انجام‌شد که از منظر نظریه‌پردازان مختلف به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین عنصر حیاتی در فرایند یادگیری شناسایی‌شده است.روش پژوهش حاضر، کیفی وازنظر هدف بنیادی است که به‌صورت فراترکیب و روش کتابخانه‌ای، با استفاده از مدل هفت مرحله‌ای سندلوسی و باروس (Sandelowski & Barroso,2007)گردآوری شده است. در این مطالعه، پس از طراحی سؤال پژوهشی، جستجوی سیستماتیک براساس کلمات کلیدی مربوط به یادگیری الکترونیکی و تعاملات طی سال‌های(2010-2020 وهم‌چنین 1398-1388)در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی ایرانی و خارجی شاملcivilica،SID،springer،magiran،‌Proquest،Elsevier،Google.Scholar مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. پس از انجام 7 مرحله از روش متا سنتز و بازبینی تعداد 30مقاله از بین 106 مقاله یافت شده، 5 مؤلفه اصلی و35 مؤلفه فرعی به‌عنوان عوامل مؤثر بر تعاملات در محیط آموزشی الکترونیکی قابل استناد است. بر این اساس مؤلفه‌های اصلی عوامل مؤثر بر تعاملات در محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی شامل: 1.عوامل فناوری( فناوری در آموزش، کیفیت ابزارهای دیجیتال، زیرساخت‌های مخابراتی) 2. عوامل فردی( انگیزه، نگرش، تعهد و نظم ) 3. عوامل آموزشی( بازخورد، تعداد افراد کلاس، شیوه تدریس، مشارکت کلاسی ) 4. عوامل علمی ( تناسب محتوا، طرح درس، سرفصل وتسلط بر محتوا) 5. عوامل مدیریتی ( رهبری فرایند و ساختار، نظارت بر عملکرد دوره‌های آموزش الکترونیکی) می‌باشد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

The aim of this study was to identify the factors affecting interactions in e-learning environment, which has been identified as the most important vital element in the learning process from the perspective of different theorists' theories. Sandlossi and Barroso (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007) have been collected. In this study, after designing the research question, systematic search based on keywords related to e-learning and interactions during the years (2010-2020 as well as 2009-2010) in Iranian and foreign databases including civilica, SID, springer, magiran, ‌Proquest, Elsevier, Google.Scholar was reviewed. After performing 7 steps of meta-synthesis method and reviewing 30 articles out of 106 found articles, 5 main components and 35 sub-components can be cited as factors affecting interactions in e-learning environment. Accordingly, the main components of factors affecting interactions in the e-learning environment include: 1. Technological factors (technology in education, quality of digital tools, telecommunication infrastructure) 2. Individual factors (motivation, attitude, commitment and order) 3. Educational factors (feedback) , Number of class members, teaching method, class participation) 4. Scientific factors (content fit, lesson plan, topic and content mastery) 5. Management factors (process and structure leadership, monitoring the performance of e-learning courses).

منابع و مأخذ:

[1]Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murph, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., ... & Weber, N. (2019). EDUCAUSE Horizon Report 2019 Higher Education Edition (pp. 3-41). EDU19. [2]Amanzadeh, Ameneh,  Al Noman F, Mansour. (2015). Investigating the effectiveness of web-based, computer-based and mobile learning on the skill of critical thinking and creative thinking of students of Mazandaran universities. Scientific-Research Quarterly, Research in School and Virtual Learning, 3 (9), 57-68. [3]Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. [4]Azami, B, Attaran, M. (2011). Phenomenological research in the experience of learner interaction in a virtual university. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 2 (2), 2-10. (In Persian). [5]Baran, E., Correia, A. P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439. [6] barari, N; Khorasani, A; Rezaeizadeh, M & Alami, F. (2019). Training standards for feedback design in e-learning environments, based on Bloom-Anderson classification. Educational Sciences, 1 (26), 155. (In Persian). [7]Carroll, F., Jenkins, A., Woodward, C., Kop, R., & Jenkins, E. (2012). Exploring how social media can enhance the teaching of action research. Action Research, 10(2), 170-188. Bear, A. G. (2012). Technology, learning, and individual differences. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 41(2), 27–42. [8]Berry, S. (2019). Faculty Perspectives on Online Learning: The Instructor's Role in Creating Community. Online Learning, 23(4). [9]Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25-36.Byrd, J. C. (2016). Understanding the Online Doctoral Learning Experience: Factors That Contribute to Students' Sense of Community. Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 102-135. [10]Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278. [11]Chigeza, P., & Halbert, K. (2014). Navigating E-Learning and Blended Learning for Pre-Service Teachers: Redesigning for Engagement, Access and Efficiency. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(11), n11. [12]Dehghan, A., Dugger, J., Dobrzykowski, D., & Balazs, A. (2014). The antecedents of student loyalty in online programs. International journal of educational management, 28(1), 15-35. Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.  (In Persian). Randy Garrison, D., & Anderson, A. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. [13]Haghani, F., Rahimi, M., & Ehsanpour, S. (2014). An investigation of" perceived feedback" in clinical education of midwifery students in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 14(7), 571-580.  (In Persian). [14]Huang, W. H. D. (2010). A case study of wikis’ effects on online transactional interactions. Journal of online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1-13. [15]Kharazi, S; Bazargan, A; Naranji Thani, F & Mostafavi, Z. (2016). Investigating the relationship between the amount of interaction between students of Mehr Alborz Institute of Higher Education, Technical and Engineering Department and academic performance. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 17 (68), 89-111. (In Persian). [16]Kilburn, A., Kilburn, B., & Cates, T. (2014). Drivers of student retention: System availability, privacy, value and loyalty in online higher education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 18(4), 1. [17]Kim, Y. (2018). The Framework of Cloud e-Learning System for Strengthening ICT Competence of Teachers in Nicaragua. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol, 8(1), 62. [18]Kolloff, M. (2011). Strategies for effective student/student interaction in online courses. In 17th annual conference on distance teaching and learning. [19]Lee, J., Carter-Wells, J., Glaeser, B., Ivers, K., & Street, C. (2006). Facilitating the development of a learning community in an online graduate program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1). [20]Liu, A., Hodgson, G., & Lord, W. (2010). Innovation in construction education: the role of culture in e-learning. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6(2), 91-102. [21]Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2016). Students’ perceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroom. TechTrends, 60(3), 245-252. [22]Mahmodi, M., & Ebrahimzade, I. (2015). The analysis of Iranian students’ persistence in online education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 98-119. (In Persian). [23]Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222. [24]Mashayekh, F. (2010). The position of pedagogy in quality of e-learning: From theory to application. Efficient Sch, 5, 92-7. (In Persian). [25]Masoumi Fard, M. (2019). Study of the relationship between different types of interaction in e-learning with the quality of participatory learning (Case study: Master's students in environmental education). Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, 7 (3), 103-114. (In Persian). [26]Mazloom, A. M., Mansoori, S., & Okhovat, M. A. (2018). Factors influencing the use of e-learning in Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences according to interpretative structural model.13(3),194-208. (In Persian). [27]McKerlich, R., Riis, M., Anderson, T., & Eastman, B. (2011). Student perceptions of teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence in a virtual world. Moradi, R; Aliabadi, Kh & Mohammadi Mehr, M. (2014). Pedagogical Principles of Distance Learning Interaction Theories: A Study of Anderson's Interaction Pattern in Web-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Educational Studies, 5, 29-41. (In Persian). [28]Niculae, R. L. (2011). The Virtual Architectural Studio–An Experiment of Online Cooperation. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 1(1), 38-46. [29]Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & education, 54(1), 222-229. [30]Paul, J. A., & Cochran, J. D. (2013). Key interactions for online programs between faculty, students, technologies, and educational institutions: A holistic framework. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 49. [31]Picciano, A. G. (2015). Planning for online education: A systems model. Online Learning, 19(5), 142-158. [32]Pour Jamshidi, M. (2016). Ability to predict interaction preferences based on students' learning styles of web-based training courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12 (39), 175-197. (In Persian). [33]Pourkarimi, J., Ramezanpour, E. (2019). Model of professional development of the members of the faculty of e-learning in the country: qualitative research. Journal of Human Resources Education and Development, 6 (21), 125-146. (In Persian). [34]Purjamshidi, M., Fardanesh, H., & Norouzi, D. (2014). Effective Factors on Student-Teacher Interaction in Web-Based Learning Environment. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 7(1), 41-50. (In Persian). [35]Quintana, M., & Morales, A. (2015). Learning from listservs: Collaboration, knowledge exchange, and the formation of distributed leadership for farmers' markets and the food movement. Studies in the Education of Adults, 47(2), 160-175. [36]Rajabalee, B. Y., Santally, M. I., & Rennie, F. (2020). A study of the relationship between students’ engagement and their academic performances in an eLearning environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 1-20. [37]Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109. [38]Saied, N, Zare, H, Moosapour, N, Sarmadi, M, Hormozi, M (2011). Investigate the relationship between cognitive strategies, metacognitive and interactions of students in learning and academic achievement, Journal of Research and planning in higher education, No, 58, pp: 73-96 [Persian]. [39]Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research Springer Publishing Company. New York.[Google Scholar]. [40]Sorgenfrei, C., Borschbach, A., & Smolnik, S. (2013). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: Towards a conceptual model. [41]Tsang, E. Y. H. (2010). Vanguards of consumption, laggards in politics? The emergence of a new middle class in South China (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham). [42]Wisloski, J. (2011). Online education study: As enrollment rises, institutions see online education as a ‘critical part’of growth, Online Education Information. [43]Yengin, I., Karahoca, A., & Karahoca, D. (2011). E-learning success model for instructors’ satisfactions in perspective of interaction and usability outcomes. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1396-1403. [44]Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251-260. [45]Zarif Sanaee, N. (2011). Assessing the criteria for the quality and effectiveness of e-Learning in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 1(3), 24-32. (In Persian).