مطالعه اثربخشی دوره‌های مجازی بالندگی هیأت علمی دانشگاه‌ها بر اساس اصول علم تعلیم و تربیت
الموضوعات :
بهار بندعلی
1
,
راضیه شاهوردی
2
,
سمیه رحیمی
3
,
مرتضی رضائی‌زاده
4
,
اباصلت خراسانی
5
1 - استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
3 - دکتری آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
4 - استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
5 - دانشیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
الکلمات المفتاحية: بالندگی هیئت علمی, طراحی آموزشی, دوره الکترونیکی غیرهمزمان, ارزشیابی دوره, مدل کرک‌پاتریک,
ملخص المقالة :
اینکه بسیاری از اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه‌های کشور، آموزش معلمی ندیده‌اند ولی معلمی می‌کنند، همواره یکی از دغدغه‌های مهم اهالی تعلیم و تربیت کشور بوده است. از سوی دیگر، بسیاری از دوره‌هایی که به صورت حضوری و یا مجازی برای آموزش معلمی به اساتید کشور برگزار می‌شوند، فاقد اثربخشی موردانتظار می‌باشند. از این رو، پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزشیابی اثربخشی یک دوره الکترونیکی غیرهمزمان بالندگی هیئت علمی یکی از دانشگاه‌های جامع و تراز اول کشور انجام شده است. این دوره با عنوان «صلاحیت‌های مدرسی در کلاس مجازی»، به منظور ارتقای شایستگی‌های اساتید در سه زمینه تدریس، ارزیابی و تولید محتوای الکترونیکی در کلاس مجازی طراحی و اجرا شد. طرح پژوهش حاضر کمی و راهبرد پژوهش، شبه‌آزمایشی از نوع پیش‌آزمون-پس‌آزمون تک‌گروهی است. شرکت‌کنندگان این دوره 33 نفر از اعضای هیئت علمی دانشگاه بودند که این دوره را طی 5 هفته به پایان رساندند. به منظور گردآوری داده‌ها از چندین پرسشنامه خوداظهاری استفاده شد که بر اساس مؤلفه‌های سطح یک و دوی مدل کرک‌پاتریک طراحی شده بودند. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن بود که واکنش شرکت‌کنندگان (رضایت، درگیری و ارتباط با شغل) نسبت به دوره «صلاحیت‌های مدرسی در کلاس مجازی» مثبت بود و این دوره بر دانش و مهارت ادراک‌شده شرکت‌کنندگان، تأثیر معناداری داشت. با این‌حال در بُعد نگرش تنها بر نگرش شرکت‌کنندگان نسبت به تدریس تاثیر منفی داشت. ضمن اینکه اعتمادبهنفس و تعهد شرکت‌کنندگان تغییر معناداری نداشتند. این نتایج در ارتباط با هشت ویژگی پداگوژیکی و آندراگوژیکی دوره مورد بحث قرار گرفته‌اند و درباره اینکه چرا این دوره نتوانسته است بر روی نگرش، اعتمادبهنفس و تعهد اساتید تأثیر مورد انتظار را بگذارد نیز بحث شده است. همچنین اثرات و کاربرد این یافته‌ها در دو زمینه نظری و عملی در مقاله مورد بحث قرار گرفته‌اند.
1. Sorinola OO, Thistlethwaite J. A systematic review of faculty development activities in family medicine. Med Teach. 2013;35(7):E1309–18.
2. Nworie J, Charles C, Charles KJ. Engaging Higher Education Faculty in Innovative Professional Development in Teaching and Learning. In: Villar-Angulo LM, Rosa OMA-D La, editors. university teaching and faculty development Research Compendium. Nova Science Publishers; 2013.
3. Piryani R, Dhungana GP, Piryani S, Sharma Neupane M. Evaluation of teachers training workshop at Kirkpatrick level 1 using retro–pre questionnaire. Adv Med Educ Pract [Internet]. 2018 Jun;Volume 9:453–7. Available from: https://www.dovepress.com/evaluation-of-teachers-training-workshop-at-kirkpatrick-level-1-using--peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-AMEP
4. To Cite Ranieri H, Raffaghelli M, Pezzati JE. Digital resources for faculty development in e-learning: a self-paced approach for professional learning Risorse digitali per lo sviluppo professionale sull’e-learning: un approccio self-paced all’apprendimento professionale Digital resources for faculty . Vol. 26, Italian Journal of Educational Technology. 2017. p. 104–18.
5. Steinert Y, McLeod PJ, Boillat M, Meterissian S, Elizov M, Macdonald ME. Faculty development: a `Field of Dreams’? Med Educ. 2009 Jan;43(1):42–9.
6. Rahimi S, Khorasani A, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Waterworth J. The virtual human resource development (VHRD) approach: an integrative literature review. Eur J Train Dev [Internet]. 2022 May 26;46(5/6):484–503. Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJTD-08-2020-0131/full/html
7. Duffy MM. Faculty Perceptions of Basic Skills Faculty Development. California State University; 2012.
8. Lian X. Factors that Motivate Faculty to Participate in Professional Development Activities. California State University, Fullerton; 2014.
9. Pelletier K, Brown M, Brooks DC, McCormack M, Reeves J, Arbino N, et al. Horizon Report 2021: Teaching and Learning [Internet]. 2021. p. 50. Available from: https://www.educause.edu/horizon-report-teaching-and-learning-2021
10. Zheng M, Bender D, Nadershahi N. Faculty professional development in emergent pedagogies for instructional innovation in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ [Internet]. 2017 May;21(2):67–78. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eje.12180
11. Koehler MJ, Mishra P. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ. 2009;9(1):60–70.
12. Vaill AL, Testori PA. Orientation, mentoring and ongoing support: A three-tiered approach to onli..: Articles, books, movies and more [Internet]. Vol. 16, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2012. p. 111–20. Available from: http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.leopac.ulv.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=63362dc8-8382-4d96-b32c-2c2abaf0a7d4@sessionmgr110&vid=16&hid=102
13. Abisado MB. A Flexible Learning Framework Implementing Asynchronous Course Delivery for Philippine Local Colleges and Universities. Vol. 9, International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering. 2020. p. 413–21.
14. Abdulghani H, Shaik S, Khamis N, Al-Drees A, Irshad M, Khalil N, et al. Research methodology workshops evaluation using the Kirkpatrick’s model: translating theory into practice. [Internet]. Vol. 36, Medical teacher. 2014. p. S24-9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24617780/
15. Bandali B, Abolghasemi M, Pardakhtchi M, Rezaei-Zadeh M. Studying the Challenges of Faculty Development Programs at Shahid Beheshti University. Q J Train Dev Hum Resour. 2018;5(18):25–53.
16. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach [Internet]. 2006 Jan 3;28(6):497–526. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01421590600902976
17. Wyse SA, Long TM, Ebert-May D. Teaching Assistant Professional Development in Biology: Designed for and Driven by Multidimensional Data. CBE-LIFE Sci Educ. 2014 Jun;13(2):212–23.
18. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. Am J Eval. 1998;19(2):259–61.
19. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Transferring Learning to Behavior: Using the Four Levels to Improve Performance. Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2005. 220 p.
20. Moreau KA. Has the new Kirkpatrick generation built a better hammer for our evaluation toolbox? Vol. 39, Medical Teacher. 2017. p. 999–1001.
21. Phuong TT, Duong HB, McLean GN. Faculty development in Southeast Asian higher education: a review of literature. Asia Pacific Educ Rev [Internet]. 2015 Mar 7;16(1):107–17. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12564-015-9353-1
22. Kirkpatrick J, Kirkpatrick W. An introduction to the new world Kirkpatrick model. Krikpatrick Partners [Internet]. 2021;1–12. Available from: https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com
23. Baseer N, Degnan J, Moffat M, Mahboob U. Micro-feedback skills workshop impacts perceptions and practices of doctoral faculty. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Jan;20(1).
24. O’Loughlin VD, Husmann PR, Brokaw JJ. Development and Implementation of the Inaugural Anatomy Education Research Institute (AERI 2017). Vol. 12, Anatomical Sciences Education. 2019. p. 181–90.
25. Love JN, Yarris LM, Santen SA, Kuhn GJ, Gruppen LD, Coates WC, et al. A Novel Specialty-Specific, Collaborative Faculty Development Opportunity in Education Research: Program Evaluation at Five Years. Acad Med. 2016 Apr;91(4):548–55.
26. Chandran L, Gusic ME, Lane JL, Baldwin CD. Designing a National Longitudinal Faculty Development Curriculum Focused on Educational Scholarship: Process, Outcomes, and Lessons Learned. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(3):337–50.
27. Roos M, Kadmon M, Kirschfink M, Koch E, Jünger J, Strittmatter-Haubold V, et al. Developing medical educators - A mixed method evaluation of a teaching education program. Vol. 19, Medical Education Online. 2014.
28. Al-Eraky MM, Donkers J, Wajid G, Van Merrienboer JJG. Faculty development for learning and teaching of medical professionalism. Med Teach. 2015;37(S1):S40–6.
29. Frantz JMJM, Bezuidenhout J, Burch VC, Mthembu S, Rowe M, Tan C, et al. The impact of a faculty development programme for health professions educators in sub-Saharan Africa: An archival study. BMC Med Educ. 2015 Mar;15(1).
30. Gordon-Ross PN, Kovacs SJ, Halsey RL, West AB, Smith MH. Veterinary Educator Teaching and Scholarship (VETS): A Case Study of a Multi-Institutional Faculty Development Program to Advance Teaching and Learning. J Vet Med Educ [Internet]. 2020 Nov;47(5):632–46. Available from: https://jvme.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jvme-2019-0089
31. Yekta TS, Ramezani T, Gharlipour Z, Dashti Z, Kabiri P, Heydari S. Survey the Effectiveness of ‘Scientometrics’ Workshop for the Faculty Members and Staff in Qom University of Medical Sciences Basded on Kirkpatrick’s Model in 2016. Zanko J Med Sci. 2017;18(58):68–79.
32. Eslami N, Hoseini M, Makarem A, Gholami H. A Survey on the Effect of In-Service Training Courses on The Satisfaction, Educational, and Assessment Skills of the Academic Staff of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. J Mashhad Dent Sch. 2020;44(1):3–13.
33. Steinert Y, Mann K, Anderson B, Barnett BM, Centeno A, Naismith L, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to enhance teaching effectiveness: A 10-year update: BEME Guide No. 40. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):769–86.
34. Barari N, Moeini A, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Kasani HA. Future teacher; change in roles and tasks in the digital environments based on the Connectivism theory. Technol Educ J. 2017;11(2):161–70.
35. JafariFar Z, Khorasani A, Rezaei-Zadeh M. Identifying and ranking the challenges of learners in virtual education and improvement of human resources (case study: Shahid Beheshti University). Technol Educ J. 2017;11(1):1–20.
36. Knopik T, Błaszczak A, Maksymiuk R, Oszwa U. Parental involvement in remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic—Dominant approaches and their diverse implications. Eur J Educ [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85115845771&doi=10.1111%2Fejed.12474&partnerID=40&md5=bf7f0ebb385a8c7be34334e1866b7262
37. Jomah O, Masoud AK, Kishore XP, Aurelia S. Micro Learning: A Modernized Education System [Internet]. Vol. 7, BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2016. p. 103–10. Available from: https://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/view/582/627
38. Abbasi-Kasani H, Shams G, Seraji F, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Aghazadeh S, Abedi H. A software prototype of formative assessment: designing and usability measurement. Educ Technol Res Dev [Internet]. 2023 Jan 20; Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11423-023-10190-8
39. Rezaei-Zadeh M, Abbasali Z, Cleary B, O’Reilly J, Hogan M, Murphy E. Encouraging students’ experience-based learning through their studies in an e-learning environment: Two Schematic Storyboards. In: 4th International Conference on e-Learning and e-Teaching (ICELET 2013) [Internet]. IEEE; 2013. p. 101–7. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6681654/
40. Barari N, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Khorasani A, Alami F. Designing and validating educational standards for E-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs), based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Interact Learn Environ [Internet]. 2022;30(9):1640–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1739078
41. Kartali A, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Alamolhoda G. Identifying barriers to using flipped class in Iranian higher education. Res Teach. 2021;8(4):212–30.
42. Kartali A, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Alamolhoda J. Flipped Classes in Iranian Higher Education: With an Emphasis on the Benefits for Learners. J High Educ Curric. 2023;13(26):105–34.
43. Nilson LB, Zimmerman BJ. Creating Self-Regulated Learners: Strategies to Strengthen Students’ Self-Awareness and Learning Skills. Stylus Publishing; 2013.
44. Steiner P. The Impact of the Self-Awareness Process on Learning and Leading. New Engl J High Educ [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2023 Jul 1];4–5. Available from: https://nebhe.org/journal/the-impact-of-the-self-awareness-process-on-learning-and-leading/
45. Alikhani P, Rezaei-Zadeh M, Vahidi-Asl M. The Analysis of “Fetch! Lunch Rush” as an Augmented Reality Multi-Player Game in Cooperative Learning. New Thoughts Educ [Internet]. 2018;13(4):39–61. Available from: https://www.magiran.com/paper/1801556 LK - https://www.magiran.com/paper/1801556
46. Murawski L. Gamification in human resource management—Status quo and quo vadis. Ger J Hum Resour Manag Zeitschrift für Pers [Internet]. 2021 Aug 6;35(3):337–55. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2397002220961796
47. Hosseini-Zarrabi H, Khorasani A, Rezaei-Zadeh M, MohammadAli M-T. Investigating the methods of creating interaction and improving students’ engagement in the learning process in higher education: A systematic review. New Educ Approaches. 2022;16(1):77–96.
48. Gannon-Leary PM, Fontainha E. Communities of Practice and virtual learning communities: Benefits, barriers and success factors. eLearning Papers, 5. Retrieved December 26, 2008. eLearning Pap. 2007;1–14.
49. Joint N. Information literacy evaluation: Moving towards virtual learning environments. Vol. 21, Electronic Library. 2003. p. 322–34.
50. Isidori E, Cacchiarelli M. The Ethics of Education and Its Function Within Virtual Learning Environments. In: INTED2017 Proceedings. 2017. p. 8267–74.
51. Bohner G, Dickel N. Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annu Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2011 Jan 10;62(1):391–417. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609
