فصلنامه علمی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه پژوهش‌های فناوری و نوآوری، موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های بازرگانی، تهران، ایران

2 گروه مهندسی فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

پیشینه و اهداف: نسل‌کنونی یادگیرندگان دانشگاهی به دلیل سهولت ظاهری کاربری و آشنایی با فنّاوری‌های شبکه‌ای، به عنوان «بومیان دیجیتال» قلمداد می‌شوند؛ با این حال ابهاماتی در خصوص میزان آمادگی دانشجویان برای تحصیل در محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی وجود دارد. به ویژه بی‌انگیزگی دانشجویان ایرانی نسبت به آموزش‌های الکترونیکی به رغم سرمایه‌گذاری‌های زیرساختی بسیار طی دو دهة گذشته، چالش بزرگی است که اخیراً توجه برنامه‌ریزان آموزش عالی کشور را نسبت به سطح آمادگی دانشجویان برای یادگیری الکترونیکی به خصوص از منظر ادراکی، جلب نموده است. هدف اصلی از این پژوهش بررسی سطح آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های کشور برای یادگیری الکترونیکی است. بنابراین در مطالعة حاضر بررسی وضعیت فعلی آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان دانشگاه‌های ایران برای حضور در محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی فراتر از پیش‌فرض «وجود» یا «فقدان» این آمادگی، به‌گونه‌ای است که میزان آمادگی واقعی آنها در تعدادی از دانشگاه‌های مهم کشور تعیین شود.
روش‌ها‌: این پژوهش از منظر فلسفی در پارادایم اثبات‌گرایی قرار می‌گیرد و از منطق استدلال قیاسی استفاده می‌شود. هدف‌گذاری کلان آن کاربردی است و از استراتژی پژوهش پیمایش برای گردآوری داده‌های دست اول با به‌کارگیری ابزار پرسشنامه استفاده شده است. داده‌های پژوهش در بازه زمانی آوریل 2018 تا فوریه 2019 گردآوری شده است. علاوه بر این، از دو رویکرد مکمل در تدوین و وزن‌دهی شاخص‌ها و سنجه‌های ارزیابی آمادگی یادگیری الکترونیکی دانشجویان استفاده شده است: نخست استفاده از شاخص‌ها و سنجه‌هایی که در تحقیقات پیشین ساخته شده است و دیگر استفاده از نظر خبرگان موضوع در کشور. استفاده از داده‌های سایر پژوهش‌ها سبب می‌شود امکان مقایسة نتایج با یافته‌های محققان دیگر پدیدار گردد و استفاده از نظر خبرگان سبب بومی‌سازی شاخص‌ها و سنجه‌ها با مقتضیات و بافت آموزش عالی کشور می‌شود. سنجه‌های ارزیابی آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان ذیل چهار شاخص: «نگرشی»، «درک سودمندی»، «گرایشی» و «درک خودکارآمدی» تعیین و وزن هر یک از سنجه‌ها محاسبه شده است. سپس بر اساس مدل حاصل، میزان آمادگی دانشجویان در تعدادی از دانشگاه‌های جامع و دانشگاه‌های تخصصی برآورد شده است.
یافته‌ها:میانگین آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان برای یادگیری الکترونیکی در 15 دانشگاه منتخب کشور مقدار 9/4 از 10 به‌دست آمده است که نشان دهندۀ وضعیت در سطح «متوسط» آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان است. نتایج حاصل نشان می‌دهد که در حدود 35 درصد سنجه‌های ارزیابی، آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان کمتر از حد «متوسط» و میانگین آمادگی در همة معیارها در حد «متوسط» است. همچنین یافته‌های پژوهش بیانگر آن است که با توجه به آمادگی ادراکی نسبی دانشجویان برای یادگیری الکترونیکی به ویژه در شاخص‌های درک خودکارآمدی و نگرشی، دانشگاه‌ها می‌باید دو فعالیت اصلی «تقویت بیش از پیش زمینه‌های خودکارآمدی دانشجویان از طریق یادگیری الکترونیکی» و «فراهم آوردن محیط مناسب برای یادگیری الکترونیکی دانشجویان» را در دستور کار خود قرار دهند.
نتیجه‌گیری: با توجه به کاهش تعداد دانشجویان دوره‌های آموزش الکترونیکی در ایران، نتایج این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که یکی از دلایل مهم عدم موفقیت نظام‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی در دانشگاه‌های کشور می‌تواند عدم آمادگی ادراکی دانشجویان به ویژه از منظر شاخص‌های «درک سودمندی یادگیری الکترونیکی» و «آمادگی گرایشی» دانشجویان باشد. سطح پایین‌تر از حد «متوسط» دانشجویان در شاخص‌های آمادگی «گرایشی» و «درک سودمندی»، لزوم تمرکز بر موضوع آگاهی‌بخشی و آموزش دانشجویان در این حوزه را می‌طلبد. علاوه بر این با تکیه بر آمادگی نسبی دانشجویان در شاخص‌های درک خودکارآمدی و نگرشی، دانشگاه‌ها می‌باید دو فعالیت اصلی را در دستور کار خود قرار دهند: 1) تقویت بیش از پیش زمینه‌های خودکارآمدی دانشجویان از طریق یادگیری الکترونیکی، و 2) فراهم آوردن محیط مناسب برای یادگیری الکترونیکی دانشجویان.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of students' perceptual readiness for e-learning in Iranian Universities

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Farazkish 1
  • Gh. Montazer 2

1 Department of Technology and Innovation Research, Institute For Trade Studies and Research, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Information Technology Engineering, School of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Background and Objectives: The current generation of academic learners is considered "digital natives" because of their ease of use and familiarity with networking technologies; However, there are ambiguities about the readiness of students to study in an e-learning environment. In particular, Iranian students' lack of motivation for e-learning, despite much infrastructure investment over the past two decades, has been a major challenge that has recently attracted the attention of higher education planners to e-learning readiness, especially from a perceptual perspective. This study investigated the perceptual readiness level of Iranian students for e-learning. Therefore, the current state of perceptual readiness of Iranian students to participate in the e-learning environment beyond the presumption of "existence" or "lack" of this preparation is such that their actual readiness is determined in a number of important universities.
Materials and Methods: This research is philosophically placed in the positivism paradigm and the logic of deductive reasoning is used. Its macro-targeting is applied, and the survey research strategy is used to collect first-hand data using a questionnaire tool. The survey data were collected between April 2018 and February 2019. In addition, two complementary approaches have been used to formulate and weigh the indicators and criteria for assessing students' e-learning readiness: first, the use of indicators and criteria developed in previous research, and second, and the use of subject matter experts in the country. The use of data from other researches makes it possible to compare the results with the findings of other researchers, and the use of expert opinion causes the localization of indicators and criteria with the requirements and context of higher education in the country. The students' perceptual readiness was measured by the following four scales: Attitude, Perceived usefulness, Willingness and Perceived self-efficacy; Then, the weight of each scale and measure will be calculated. Finally, based on the rating results, the students' perceptual readiness at the number of comprehensive universities and specialized universities will be estimated.
Findings: The average perceptual readiness of students for e-learning in 15 selected Iranian universities is 4.9 out of 10, which indicates the situation at the "average" level. Also, the findings show that about 35% of the students' readiness measures are below the "good" level, and the average of all readiness measures is at the "medium" level. Also, considering students' relative perceptual readiness for e-learning, especially in "perceived self-efficacy" and "attitudes" scales, the deans of universities should focus on the two main activities of "enhancing students' self-efficacy through e-learning" and "providing an appropriate e-learning environment”.
Conclusion: Considering the decrease in the number of e-learning Iranian students, the results of this study show that one of the important reasons for the failure of e-learning systems in Iranian universities can be students' lack of perceptual readiness. At the same time, considering the lower than average level of students' readiness in the "willingness" and "perceived usefulness" scales, there is a need to focus on awareness and education of students in this regard. Besides, relying on students 'relative readiness to understand self-efficacy and attitude indicators, universities should put two main activities on their agenda: 1) further strengthening students' self-efficacy through e-learning, and 2) providing a suitable environment. For e-learning for students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • e-Learning
  • E-learning Readiness
  • Student Perceptual Readiness
  • Higher Education
  • Iranian Universities

[1] Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon. 2001; 9(5).

 [2] Parkes M, Stein S, Reading C. Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015; 25: 1-10.

 [3] Margaryan A, Littlejohn A, Vojt G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & education. 2011; 56(2):429-40.

 [4] Waugh MI, Su-Searle J. Student persistence and attrition in an online MS program: Implications for program design. International Journal on E-Learning. 2014; 13(1):101-21.

 [5] Arif A. Learning from the web: Are students ready or not. Educational Technology & Society. 2001; 4(4):32-8.

 [6] Prensky M. H. Sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: journal of online education. 2009; 5(3).

 [7] Packham G, Jones P, Miller C, Thomas B. E‐learning and retention: Key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education+ Training. 2004.

 [8] Sahin I, Shelley M. Considering students' perceptions: The distance education student satisfaction model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2008; 11(3):216-23.

 [9] Chen Y, Wang Y, Chen NS. Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers & Education. 2014; 79:16-27.

 [10] Yemma DM. Impacting learning for 21st century students: A phenomenological study of higher education faculty utilizing a flipped learning approach (Doctoral dissertation, Robert Morris University). 2015.

 [11] Hao Y, Lee KS. Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers' concerns. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 57:250-60.

 [12] Al-Samarraie H, Selim H, Teo T, Zaqout F. Isolation and distinctiveness in the design of e-learning systems influence user preferences. Interactive Learning Environments. 2017; 25(4):452-66.

 [13] Dray B J, Lowenthal P R, Miszkiewicz M J, Ruiz‐Primo M A, Marczynski K. Developing an instrument to assess student readiness for online learning: A validation study. Distance Education. 2011; 32(1): 29-47.

 [14] Blankenship R, Atkinson JK. Undergraduate student online learning readiness. International Journal of Education Research. 2010; 5(2):44-54.

 [15] Hung ML, Chou C, Chen CH, Own ZY. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education. 2010; 55(3):1080-90.

[16] Atkinson JK, Blankenship R. Online learning readiness of undergraduate college students: A comparison between male and female learners. Learning in Higher Education. 2009; 49.

 [17] Smith PJ. Learning preferences and readiness for online learning. Educational psychology. 2005; 25(1):3-12.

 [18] Bernard* RM, Brauer A, Abrami PC, Surkes M. The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance education. 2004; 25(1):31-47.

 [19] Watkins R, Leigh D, Triner D. Assessing readiness for e‐learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2004; 17(4):66-79.

 [20] Smith PJ, Murphy KL, Mahoney SE. Towards identifying factors underlying readiness for online learning: An exploratory study. Distance education. 2003; 24(1):57-67.

 [21] Watkins R. Readiness for online learning self-assessment. Annual-san diego-pfeiffer and company. 2003; 1:139-50.

 [22] McVay M. Developing a web-based distance student orientation to enhance student success in an online bachelor’s degree completion program. Unpublished practicum report presented to the Ed. D. Program, Nova Southeastern University, Florida. 2000.

 [23] Gay GH. An assessment of online instructor e-learning readiness before, during, and after course delivery. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2016; 28(2):199-220.

 [24] Kashorda M, Waema T. E-Readiness survey of Kenyan Universities (2013) report. Nairobi: Kenya Education Network. 2014.

 [25] Moftakhari MM. Evaluating e-learning readiness of faculty of letters of Hacettepe (Master's thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü). 2013.

 [26] Assareh A, Bidokht MH. Barriers to e-teaching and e-learning. Procedia Computer Science. 2011; 3:791-5.

 [27] Grabau CR. Undergraduate student motivation and academic performance in a flipped classroom learning environment. Saint Louis University, Missouri. 2015.

 [28] Yilmaz R. Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 70:251-60.

 [29] Saeedi, A. Iran's higher education statistics in the academic year 2016-2017. Tehran. Institute for Research and Planning of Higher Education. 2017. Persian.

 [30] Engholm P, McLean J. What determines an organisation's readiness for e-learning? Bachelor Thesis, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia. 2001:4-6.

 [31] Anderson T. Is e-learning right for your organization? Learning Circuits: ASTD’s Online Magazine All. 2002.

[32] Haney BD. Assessing organizational readiness for E‐learning: 70 questions to ask. Performance improvement. 2002; 41(4):10-5.

 [33] Worknowledge. E-learning Assessment Readiness. 2004.

 [34] Borotis S, Poulymenakou A. E-learning readiness components: Key issues to consider before adopting e-learning interventions. InE-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. 2004; 1622-1629. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

 [35] Kaur K, Zoraini Wati A. An assessment of e-learning readiness at Open University Malaysia. 2004:1017-22.

 [36] Kapp KM. Winning E-learning proposals: The Art of development and delivery. J. Ross publishing; 2003.

 [37] Chapnick S. Are you ready for E-Learning? Learning Circuits Update. Electronic Publication. 2000.

 [38] Aydın CH, Tasci D. Measuring readiness for e-learning: Reflections from an emerging country. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2005; 8(4):244-57.

 [39] Psycharis S. Presumptions and actions affecting an e-learning adoption by the educational system-Implementation using virtual private networks. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. 2005; 8(2).

 [40] Machado C. Developing an e‐readiness model for higher education institutions: Results of a focus group study. British journal of educational technology. 2007; 38(1):72-82.

 [41] Lopez C. Evaluating E-Learning Readiness In A Health Sciences Higher Education. 2007.

 [42] Akaslan D, Law EL. Measuring teachers' readiness for e-learning in higher education institutions associated with the subject of electricity in Turkey. In2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 2011; 481-490. IEEE.

 [43] Keramati A, Afshari-Mofrad M, Kamrani A. The role of readiness factors in E-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers & Education. 2011; 57(3):1919-29.

 [44] Doculan JA. E-Learning readiness assessment tool for Philippine higher education institutions. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE). 2016; 5(2):33-43.

 [45] Mercado C. Readiness assessment tool for an e-learning environment implementation. Special Issue of the International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management. 2008; 16:18-1.

 [46] Shraim K, Zuheir K. Students' Readiness Towards E-learning. A case study of Virtual Classrooms for secondary education in Palestine. The 3rd Annual Forum on e-learning Excellence in the Middle East. Dubai. 2010.

 [47] Onwuegbuzie AJ, Teddlie C. A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2003; 2:397-430.

 [48] University of Isfahan. Academics disiplines.

 [49] Tarbiat Modares University. History of University.

 [50] University of Tehran. Facts and figures.

 [51] Hakim Sabzevari University. About university.

 [52] Semnan University. About university.

 [53] University of Sistan and Baluchestan. About USB.

 [54] Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. History.

 [55] Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University. History.

 [56] Khajeh Nassir-Al-Deen Toosi (K. N. Toosi) University of Technology. About Us.

 [57] Sharif University of Technology. Introduction.

 [58] Gorgan University of Agricaltural Sciences and Natural Resources. History.

 [59] University of Kashan. About.

 [60] University of Mohaghegh Ardabili. About.

 [61] University of Art. About us.

 [62] Yazd University. About Yazd University.

 [63] Cochran, W. G. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons. 2007.

 [64] Qamar MK. Global trends in agricultural extension: Challenges facing Asia and the Pacific region. A keynote paper presented at the FAO regional expert consultation on agricultural extension, research-extension-farmer interface and technology transfer in Bangkok, July 2002. Sustainable Development Department, FAO Rome. 2002.

 [65] Farazkish M, Montazer Gh. Measuring readiness of digital content in selected universities of Iran. 12th E-Learning Conference, Tehran. 2016. Persian.

 [66] Farazkish M, Montazer Gh. A comparative analysis of pro and students' readiness of universities in Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan for the realization of e-learning system. 13th Conference on Quality Assessment in Academic Systems, Shiraz, 2019. Persian.

 [67] Ojo RA, Ayanda DO. Handling internet connectivity challenges in a typical university academic library in Nigeria: A case study of Kenneth Dike Library. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve. 2012; 22(5):223-34.

 [68] Lou EC, Goulding JS. The pervasiveness of e‐readiness in the global built environment arena. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. 2010.

 [69] Babakhani M, Allah Karami A, Amirteimori MH, Aslani E, Ahmadpour Kasgari Z, Abedini Baltork M, Mansoori S. Evaluation of the Readiness for E-Learning from the Viewpoints of the Students and Professors of Allameh Tabataba’i University. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2016; 7(1).