انتقال‌پذیری استانداردهای کتاب درسی دانشگاهی به محتواهای یادگیری الکترونیکی: دیدگاه مدرسان دانشگاه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه علوم رفتاری پژوهشکدة تحقیق و توسعة علوم انسانی (سمت)

2 دانشیار گروه علوم رفتاری پژوهشکدة تحقیق و توسعة علوم انسانی (سمت)

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر بررسی دیدگاه استادان دانشگاهی دربارة میزان انتقال‌پذیری استانداردهای کتاب درسی به محتواهای یادگیری الکترونیکی در فضای دانشگاهی ایران بود. در این پژوهش آمیخته 132 عضو هیئت علمی، پرسشنامه‌ای برخط متشکل از هفت گروه و شامل 90 گویة مربوط به استانداردهای کتاب درسی کاغذی و 8 پرسش تشریحی را تکمیل و در آن میزان انتقال‌پذیری هریک از استانداردها به محتوای یادگیری الکترونیکی را ارزیابی کردند. برای مقایسة میانگین گروه‌های مختلف استانداردها با یکدیگر، از آزمون تحلیل واریانس درون‌آزمودنی، مجذور اِتای نسبی و آزمون بونفرونی استفاده شد. تحلیل داده‌های کیفی نیز با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون انجام شد. نتایج کمّیِ پژوهش نشان داد انتقال‌پذیرترین موارد، به‌ترتیب گروه استانداردهای آموزشی، زبان‌‌شناختی و محتوایی بودند. گروه استانداردهای فرهنگی­ اجتماعی نیز تا حد قابل قبولی انتقال‌‌پذیر گزارش شدند. در نهایت، پایین‌‌ترین میزان انتقال‌‌پذیری ادراک‌‌شده در ارتباط با گروه استانداردهای ساختاری و ظاهری و فنی بود. یافته‌‌های کیفی پژوهش نیز به استخراج چهار درون‌‌مایه از جمله اصول مبنایی در همۀ محیط‌ها، امکانات افزودۀ محتوای یادگیری الکترونیکی، انعطاف و انطباق‌پذیری استانداردها و چالش‌ها و اشکالات استانداردها منجر شد. بینش‌های به‌دست‌آمده از پژوهش حاضر می‌‌توانند دلالت‌های نظری و عملی درخور ‌‌توجهی را برای تدوین استانداردهای بومی برای تهیة محتواهای الکترونیکی دانشگاهی در ایران داشته باشند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The transferability of university textbook standards to e-learning environments: the perceptions of university professors

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Ali Mazandarani 1
  • Mohammad Shahin Taghaddomi 1
  • mohammad armand 2
1 The Institute for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT)
2 samt
چکیده [English]

The aim of the current research was to investigate the perceptions of university professors as to the degree of transferability of textbook standards to electronic learning environments in the Iranian academic environment. In this mixed-method study, 132 faculty members completed an online questionnaire consisting of seven categories and 90 items related to textbook standards and 8 descriptive questions and evaluated the transferability of each of the standards to the electronic learning environment. To compare the mean differences of the standard groups with one another, within-subject analysis of variance, partial eta square and Bonferroni test were used. Qualitative data analysis was also carried out using the thematic analysis method. The quantitative results of the research showed that the most transferable items were the educational, linguistic, and content standards, respectively. The group of social-cultural standards was also reported to be transferable to an acceptable extent. Finally, the lowest perceived transferability was related to the group of structural, appearance and technical standards. The qualitative findings of the research also led to the extraction of four themes, including fundamental principles in all environments, enhanced possibilities of e-learning, flexibility and adaptability of the standards, and challenges and problems of adopting the standards. The insights obtained from the present research can have significant theoretical and practical implications for the establishment of local standards of developing electronic contents in the Iranian academic context.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • educational standards
  • textbooks
  • electronic learning
  • transferability
آرمند، م.، ابوالحسنی چیمه، ز.، و خادمی، ح. ر. (1402)، استانداردهای کتاب درسی دانشگاهی، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب دانشگاهی در علوم اسلامی و انسانی (پروژۀ پژوهشی منتشرنشده).
 
Adnan, A. S., Ali, M., & Ahmad, R. (2015), The utilisation of visual elements on interface design of e-learning, International Conference on Information Technology & Society, 273-279.
Afify, M. K. (2018), E-learning content design standards based on interactive digital concepts maps in the light of meaningful and constructivist learning theory, Journal of Technology and Science Education, 8(1), 5-16.
Afify, M. K. (2020), Effect of interactive video length within e-learning environments on cognitive load, cognitive achievement and retention of learning, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 68-89.
Alzaghoul, A. F. (2012), The implication of the learning theories on implementing e-learning courses, The Research Bulletin of Jordan ACM, 11(11), 27-30.
Baldwin, S. J., & Ching, Y. H. (2019), Online course design: A review of the Canvas course evaluation checklist, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 269-282.
Barari, N., RezaeiZadeh, M., Khorasani, A., & Alami, F. (2022), Designing and validating educational standards for E-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs), based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy, Interactive learning environments, 30(9), 1640-1652.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021), Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide, London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
Castro, M. D. B., & Tumibay, G. M. (2021), A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis, Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1367-1385.
Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, K., & Chatterjee, B. (2020), A study on content selection and cost-effectiveness of cognitive e-learning in distance education of rural areas, In Emerging Technology in Modelling and Graphics: Proceedings of IEM Graph 2018 (pp. 783-786), Springer Singapore.
Cizek, G. J. (2001), Setting performance standards: concepts, methods and perspectives, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Clark, R. (2002), Six principles of effective e-Learning: What works and why, The e-learning developer's Journal, 6(2), 1-10.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016), E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, John Wiley & sons.
Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2012), Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching, Springer Science & Business Media.
Edmundson, A. (Ed.), (2006), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges, IGI Global.
Edmundson, A. (2007), The cultural adaptation process (CAP) model: Designing e-learning for another culture, In Globalized e-learning cultural challenges (pp. 267-290), IGI Global.
Díaz Redondo, R. P., Caeiro Rodríguez, M., López Escobar, J. J., & Fernández Vilas, A. (2021), Integrating micro-learning content in traditional e-learning platforms, Multimedia Tools and Applications, 80, 3121-3151.
Downes, S. (2005), E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine: Education and Technology in perspective, 10: 1-5
El Mhouti, A., Nasseh, A., Erradi, M., & Vasquèz, J. M. (2017), Enhancing collaborative learning in Web 2.0-based e-learning systems: A design framework for building collaborative e-learning contents, Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2351-2364.
Falloon, G. (2020), From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework, Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2449-2472.
Frisk E., & Larson K. L. (2011), Educating for sustainability: Competencies and practices for transformative action, Journal of Sustainability Education, 2(1), 1–20.
Greenleaf, C.,& Valencia,S. (2017), Missing in action: Learning from texts in subject matter classrooms. In K. A. Hinchman, & D. A. Appleman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: A handbook of practice-based research (pp. 135–155). NY: Guilford Press.
Hénard, F., & Roseveare, D. (2012), Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices, An IMHE guide for higher education institutions, 1(1), 7-11.
Holzinger, A., Smolle, J., & Reibnegger, G. (2006), Learning objects (LO): An object oriented approach to manage e-learning content. Encyclopedia of informatics in healthcare and biomedicine, Hershey (PA): Idea Group Reference, 89-98.
Huang, S. L., & Shiu, J. H. (2012), A user-centric adaptive learning system for e-learning 2.0, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 214-225.
Hubalovsky, S., Hubalovska, M., & Musilek, M. (2019), Assessment of the influence of adaptive E-learning on learning effectiveness of primary school pupils, Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 691-705.
Islam, N., Beer, M., & Slack, F. (2015), E-learning challenges faced by academics in higher education, Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 102-112.
Issitt, J. (2004), Reflections on the study of textbooks, History of education, 33(6), 683-696.
Ivić, I., Antic, S., & Pešikan, A. (Eds.), (2013), Textbook quality: A guide to textbook standards (Vol. 2), V&R unipress GmbH.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2014), Promoting effective e-learning practices through the constructivist pedagogy, Education and Information Technologies, 19, 887-898.
Khamparia, A., & Pandey, B. (2018), Impact of interactive multimedia in E-learning technologies: Role of multimedia in E-learning, In Digital multimedia: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1087-1110), IGI Global.
Kao, G. Y. M., Chen, K. C., & Sun, C. T. (2010), Using an e-learning system with integrated concept maps to improve conceptual understanding, International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(2), 151-162.
Kumar, V., & Sharma, D. (2021), E-learning theories, components, and cloud computing-based learning platforms, International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 16(3), 1-16.
Lähnemann, J. (2013), Interreligious textbook research and development: A proposal for standards, European Judaism, 46(1), 15-25.
Lau, R. W., Yen, N. Y., Li, F., & Wah, B. (2014), Recent development in multimedia e-learning technologies, World Wide Web, 17, 189-198.
Lee, C. H., Lee, G. G., & Leu, Y. (2009), Application of automatically constructed concept map of learning to conceptual diagnosis of e-learning, Expert Systems with applications, 36(2), 1675-1684.
Liang, Y., & Cobern, W. W. (2013), Analysis of a typical Chinese high school biology textbook using the AAAS textbook standards, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 329-336.
Lucas, B. & Smith, C. (2018), The Capable Country: Cultivating capabilities in Australian education. Mitchell Institute policy report No. 03/2018. Mitchell Institute, Melbourne. Available from: www.mitchellinstitute.org.au
Mahmood, K. (2011), Conformity to quality characteristics of textbooks: The illusion of textbook evaluation in Pakistan, Journal of research and Reflections in Education, 5(2), 170-190.
Mayer, R. E. (2017), Using multimedia for e‐learning, Journal of computer assisted learning, 33(5), 403-423.
Mayer, R. E. (2020), Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.) Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2021), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning ( 3rd ed.), Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, Cambridge University Press.
Mukundan, J., Hajimohammadi, R., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2011), Developing an English language textbook evaluation checklist, Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 4(6), 21-28.
North American Council for Online Learning. (2007), National standards of quality for online courses (1st ed.), Vienna, VA: Author
Olaniran, B. A. (2009), Discerning culture in e-learning and in the global workplaces, Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL), 1(3), 180-195.
Pange, A., & Pange, J. (2011), Is e-learning based on learning theories? A literature review, International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 5(8), 932-936.
Reyna, J. (2013), The importance of visual design and aesthetics in e-learning, Training and Development, 40(5), 28-31.
Riazi, A. M. (2003), What textbook evaluation schemes tell us? A study of the textbook evaluation schemes of three decades, In W. A. Renandya. (Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching (pp. 52-68), Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Center.
Sandars, J. (2021), Cost-effective e-learning in medical education, In Cost effectiveness in medical education (pp. 40-47), CRC Press.
Schilirò, D. (2020), Towards digital globalization and the covid-19 challenge, International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 2(11), 1710–1716.
Seok, S. (2008), Teaching aspects of e-learning, International journal on e-learning, 7(4), 725-741.
Shafiei Sarvestani, M., Mohammadi, M., Afshin, J., & Raeisy, L. (2019), Students’ experiences of e-learning challenges; a phenomenological study, Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 10(3), 1-10.
Steiner, C. M., Albert, D., & Heller, J. (2007), Concept mapping as a means to build e-learning, Advanced principles of effective e-learning, 59-111.
Suskie, L. (2018), Assessing student learning: A common sense guide, John Wiley & Sons.
West, M., & Vosloo, S. (2013), UNESCO policy guidelines for mobile learning, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Wuttisrisiriporn, N., & Usaha, S. (2019), The Development of a Localized ELT Textbook Evaluation Checklist: A Case Study from Thailand, Thaitesol Journal, 32(2), 46-64.
Zhao, Y., Wang, N., Li, Y., Zhou, R., & Li, S. (2021), Do cultural differences affect users’ e‐learning adoption? A meta‐analysis, British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 20-41.