اعتبارسنجی برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک در آموزش عالی
محورهای موضوعی : آموزش از راه دور
اسماعیل جعفری
1
(استادیار گروه یادگیری فناورانه، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
کوروش فتحی واجارگاه
2
(استاد گروه آموزش عالی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
محبوبه عارفی
3
(دانشیار گروه آموزش عالی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
مرتضی رضایی زاده
4
(استادیار گروه آموزش عالی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران)
کلید واژه: آموزش عالی, اعتبارسنجی, برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک, رویکرد داده‌بنیاد,
چکیده مقاله :
موک‌ها سرآغاز تحولات شگرفی در عرصه یاددهی- یادگیری در حوزه آموزش عالی هستند و برنامه‌های درسی مبتنی بر موک‌ها، فرصت‌های نوینی را برای تسهیل یادگیری مستقل و اشتیاق تحصیلی فراهم کرده است. از این رو، پژوهش حاضر با هدف اعتبارسنجی برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک در آموزش عالی انجام گرفته است. این پژوهش ترکیبی و از نوع اکتشافی است. در بخش کیفی از روش نظریه مبنایی استفاده شده است و در بخش کمی به آزمون اعتبار الگو در بین اعضای هیأت علمی و دانشجویان دکتری دانشگاه‌های شهر تهران پرداخته شده است. جامعه آماری بخش کیفی شامل 14 نفر از افراد متخصص و صاحب‌نظر در حوزه فناوری آموزشی می‌باشد و بخش کمی شامل 476 نفر از اعضای هیأت علمی و دانشجویان دکتری دانشگاه‌های تهران است که از میان آنها از طریق نمونه‌گیری تصادفی طبقه‌ای 214 نفر به عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. برای گردآوری داده‌ها، در بخش کیفی از مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته و در بخش کمی از پرسش‌نامه محقق‌ساخته استفاده شده است. اعتبار و روایی در بخش کیفی از طریق روش مرور توسط خبرگان غیرشرکت کننده در پژوهش بود و در بخش کمی ضریب آلفای کرونباخ محاسبه شد که میزان آن 0/93 تعیین شد. برای تحلیل داده‌های بخش کیفی از روش تحلیل محتوا و برای تأیید و آزمون مدل مفهومی از تحلیل عاملی تأییدی و از روش معادلات ساختاری استفاده شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان دهنده 28 مقوله کلی هست که در قالب مدل پارادایمی شامل شرایط علّی، پدیدهمحوری، شرایط زمینه‌ای، شرایط مداخله‌گر راهبردها و پیامدها بهدست آمده است که عوامل مؤثر در برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک در آموزش عالی و روابط آنها را نمایان می‌کنند.
MOOCs are the beginnings of remarkable revolutions in the field of teaching-learning in higher education. Mooc-based curricula have provided new opportunities for facilitating independent learning and education motivation. So the purpose of the study is validating MOOC-based curriculum in higher education system. This is a combined and exploratory study. The grounded theory is used in the qualitative part and test pattern validation among the faculty members and PhD students of Tehran University are participated for quantitative studies. The statistical population included 14 professionals and experts in the field of educational technology and the quantitative part included all the faculty members and PhD students of Tehran Universities; so 214 of them were selected through stratified random sampling. A semi-structured interview was used for collecting data of qualitative part and the researcher questionnaire was used for quantitative part. The reliability and validity in qualitative part of the research was through reviewing by experts who did not participate in the study and it was calculated using Cronbach's alpha as 0.93 for the quantitative part. The content analysis was used for qualitative data analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to verify and test the conceptual model. The results are indicating 28 general categories of paradigm included causal conditions, the central phenomenon, underlying conditions, intervening conditions, strategies and outcomes that show the effective factors of MOOC-based curriculum and their relationship.
Abeer, W., & Barak, M. (2014). Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318-323.
Belanger, Y., & Jessica, Th. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach. Duke University’s first MOOC.
Beranek, L., & Remes, R. (2012). The course of e-commerce based on active learning. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education (ERIE 2012).
Billington, P. J., & Fronmueller, M. P. (2013). MOOCs and the future of higher education. Higher Education Theory and Practice: 13(3/4).
Billsberry, J. (2013). MOOCS: Fad or revolution. Management Education, 37(6), 739-746.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). The open course: Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Interactive Media in Education, 3.
Eisenberg, A. (2013). Keeping an eye on online test-takers. New York Times 2.
Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5), 11-23.
Goh, W. W., Kaur, S., & Chion, Z. H. A. ( 2014). The perceptions of MOOC among learners based on activity theory, Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-399-6_30.
Johnson, R. B. (2014). Creative destruction of higher education institutions. Research Initiatives, 1(2) , Article 12.
Jordan, K. (2013). Synthesising MOOC Completion Rates. MoocMooch-er. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2013 from http://moocmoocher.wordpress.com/ 2013/02/13/synthesising-mooccompletion-rates/>
Kalbaugh, L. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality full report. Eric-U.S. Department of Education.
Khan, B. H. (2004). The people-process-product continuum in e-learning: The
e-learning P3 model. Educational Technology- Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 44(5), 33-40.
Kirschner, A. (2012). A pioneer in online education tries a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Koller, D. (2012). What we’re learning from online education. TED. Web.
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19-38.
Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: Learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 14(2).
Mackness, J., Sui, M., & Roy, W. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. 266-275. Retrieved from https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/1089 52/The_Ideals_and_Realilty_of_Participating_in_a_MOOC.pdf
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowled gecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf
Parry, M. (2013). Competency-based education advances with US approval of program. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Peercy, D. (2014). Hands-on online? An investigation of experiential design education with online resources. Conference on Design Education; 7th Frontiers in Biomedical Devices. Buffalo, New York, USA, August 17-20.
Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge
Siemens, G., & Kathleen, M. (2012). Systemic changes in higher education. In Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/downloa d/42/504
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. (Translated by Mohammadi, Biok). Tehran: Human Science & Cultural Studies Center Publication. (in Persian).
Ulrich, C., & Nedelcu, A. (2015). MOOCs in our university: Hopes and worries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1541-1547.
Wong, B. T. M., Li, K. C., Pang, S., & Lam, H. (2014). MOOCsification: Motivations and determents. Proceedings of Advancing Open and Distance Learning: Research and Practices, 28-31 October, Hong Kong, 440-450.
_||_Abeer, W., & Barak, M. (2014). Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318-323.
Belanger, Y., & Jessica, Th. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach. Duke University’s first MOOC.
Beranek, L., & Remes, R. (2012). The course of e-commerce based on active learning. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education (ERIE 2012).
Billington, P. J., & Fronmueller, M. P. (2013). MOOCs and the future of higher education. Higher Education Theory and Practice: 13(3/4).
Billsberry, J. (2013). MOOCS: Fad or revolution. Management Education, 37(6), 739-746.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). The open course: Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Interactive Media in Education, 3.
Eisenberg, A. (2013). Keeping an eye on online test-takers. New York Times 2.
Fini, A. (2009). The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5), 11-23.
Goh, W. W., Kaur, S., & Chion, Z. H. A. ( 2014). The perceptions of MOOC among learners based on activity theory, Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-399-6_30.
Johnson, R. B. (2014). Creative destruction of higher education institutions. Research Initiatives, 1(2) , Article 12.
Jordan, K. (2013). Synthesising MOOC Completion Rates. MoocMooch-er. N.p., 13 Feb. 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2013 from http://moocmoocher.wordpress.com/ 2013/02/13/synthesising-mooccompletion-rates/>
Kalbaugh, L. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality full report. Eric-U.S. Department of Education.
Khan, B. H. (2004). The people-process-product continuum in e-learning: The
e-learning P3 model. Educational Technology- Saddle Brook Then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 44(5), 33-40.
Kirschner, A. (2012). A pioneer in online education tries a MOOC. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Koller, D. (2012). What we’re learning from online education. TED. Web.
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19-38.
Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: Learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 14(2).
Mackness, J., Sui, M., & Roy, W. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. 266-275. Retrieved from https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/1089 52/The_Ideals_and_Realilty_of_Participating_in_a_MOOC.pdf
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowled gecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf
Parry, M. (2013). Competency-based education advances with US approval of program. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Peercy, D. (2014). Hands-on online? An investigation of experiential design education with online resources. Conference on Design Education; 7th Frontiers in Biomedical Devices. Buffalo, New York, USA, August 17-20.
Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge
Siemens, G., & Kathleen, M. (2012). Systemic changes in higher education. In Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/downloa d/42/504
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. (Translated by Mohammadi, Biok). Tehran: Human Science & Cultural Studies Center Publication. (in Persian).
Ulrich, C., & Nedelcu, A. (2015). MOOCs in our university: Hopes and worries. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 1541-1547.
Wong, B. T. M., Li, K. C., Pang, S., & Lam, H. (2014). MOOCsification: Motivations and determents. Proceedings of Advancing Open and Distance Learning: Research and Practices, 28-31 October, Hong Kong, 440-450.
