شناسایی و بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت دسترسی سامانه درس افزار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 عضو هیئت علمی - دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

3 عضو هیئت علمی/دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

4 گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران، ایران

چکیده

در دسترس بودن یکی از شاخص‌های مهم برای اقبال و علاقه‌مندی دانشجویان و استادان نسبت به یک درس افزار می‌باشد. از این رو، هدف پژوهش حاضر شناسایی عوامل اثرگذار بر قابلیت دسترسی درس افزار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی می‌باشد. متناسب با این هدف، طرح پژوهش کیفی و از نوع پدیدارشناسی اتخاذ شد. جامعه آماری این پژوهش، دانشجویان مقطع کارشناسی دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران هستند که تجربه فعالیت در درس‌افزار را داشته‌اند. مشارکت‌کنندگان با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند ملاک محور انتخاب شدند و از طریق مصاحبه نیمه‌ساختاریافته نسبت به جمع‌آوری اطلاعات تا دستیابی محقق به اشباع نظری اقدام شد. یافته‌ها با استفاده از روش کدگذاری اشتراس و کوربین، در دو سطح کدگذاری باز و محوری مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. بر طبق یافته‌های حاصل از پانزده مورد مصاحبه، شش مقوله «ضعف درس افزار در دسترسی سریع به محتوای بحث‌ها»، «فراهم نبودن امکان دسترسی برون خط به بحث‌های ثبت شده»، «فراهم نبودن بسترهای چندگانه برای فعالیت در درس افزار»، «فاقد قابلیت نمایش کاربران برخط و فعالیت‌های در لحظه آنها»، «ضعف درس افزار در دسترسی به بحث‌های گروه قبلی» و «فاقد امکانی برای دسترسی دانشجویان به نتیجه ارزیابی عملکردشان» بدست آمدند. بنابراین، یافته‌های بدست آمده نشان می-دهند که از دیدگاه دانشجویان، این عوامل در قابلیت دسترسی درس افزار دانشگاه اثر منفی دارند. لذا پیشنهاد می‌شود که زیر ساخت سخت افزاری و نرم افزاری مناسب برای درس افزار فراهم شود تا سرور بطور کامل پاسخگوی نیاز کاربران باشد.

چکیده تصویری

شناسایی و بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت دسترسی سامانه درس افزار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Reviewing and examining the effective factors impacting on the accessibility of Shahid Beheshti University’s courseware

نویسندگان [English]

  • fatemeh vardasbi 1
  • morteza RezaeiZadeh 2
  • abasalt khorasani 3
  • Parastoo Alikhani 4
1 department of higher education, , Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Faculty Member of Psychology and educational Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
3 Faculty Member of Psychology and educational Science, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
4 Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

Accessibility is one of the important indicators in obtaining students' and teachers' interest in a courseware. Therefore, the present study was aiming to identify the effective factors impacting on the accessibility of Shahid Beheshti University’s courseware. Accordingly, a qualitative phenomenology research has been implemented. The population of this study is undergraduate students of the faculty of education and psychology of Shahid Beheshti University of Tehran who had an experience of working in the courseware. Participants were selected using purposeful sampling method. Semi-structured interviews were conducted for data gathering until the theoretical saturation was achieved. The findings were analyzed using Strauss and Corbin coding method at two open and axial coding levels. According to the findings from 15 interviews, six categories including: the weakness of quick access to the content of discussions, the lack of off-line access to the discussions, not suitable access to the content on multiple platforms, lack of ability to display online users, the weakness in access to discussions of the previous groups; and lack of student access to their performance results, were identified. These factors could help e-learning administrators and designers to provide a better and more qualified experience for their students and faculties.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Accessibility
  • Course ware
  • e-Learning
  • Learning management system

[1]    Ellis, R.., & Goodyear, P. (2013). Students' experiences of e-learning in higher education: the ecology of sustainable innovation. US: Routledge.

 

[2]    Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2009). Learner and instructional factors influencing learning outcomes within a blended learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society12(4), 282.

 

[3]    Gonen, S., & Basaran, B. (2012). Learning objects and their applications. In P. Ghislandi, (Ed.), eLearning-theories, design, xoftware and applications (pp. 109-129).  New York: InTech.

 

[4]    Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008).  The theory and practice of online learning. Canada: Athabasca University Press. 

 

[5]    Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education53(3), 686-694.

 

[6]    Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and practice of online learning2, 15-44.

 

[7]    Aydin, C. C., & Tirkes, G. (2010, April). Open source learning management systems in e-learning and Moodle. In Proceedings of IEEE
EDUCON 2010 - IEEE Engineering Education 2010 (pp.593–600), Madrid.

 

[8]    Khan, B. H. (2001). A framework for web-based learning, In B. H. Khan, (Eds.), web-based training (pp. 75-98).  New Jersey: Educational technology publication.

 

[9]    Islam, A. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: A critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behavior30, 249-261.

 

[10]  Zamzuri, Z. F., Manaf, M., Yunus, Y., & Ahmad, A. (2013). Student perception on security requirement of e-learning services. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences90, 923-930.

 

[11]  Dobre, I. (2015). Learning Management Systems for higher education-an overview of available options for higher education organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences180, 313-320.

 

[12]  Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2011). Choosing a learning management system. Choosing a Learning Management System, Advanced Distributed Learning
(ADL) Co-Laboratories
(pp. 40–62). Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

 

[13] Minović, M., Štavljanin, V., Milovanović, M., & Starčević, D. (2008). Usability issues of e-learning systems: Case-study for Moodle learning management system.Paper presented at the On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2008 Workshops, Monterrey, Mexico.

 

[14] Downes, S. (2000). Nine rules for good technology, In A. B. Shostak, (Ed.), The cyber union handbook: Transforming labor through computer technology (pp. 57-61).  New York: Routledge.

 

[15] Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching11(2), 210-232.

 

[16] McIntosh, D. (2014). Vendors of learning management and e-learning products. Trimeritus eLearningSolutions Inc.Retrieved August, 2014, from http://www.trimeritus.com/vendors.pdf.

 

[17]  Nikolić, N., Savić, G., Segedinac, M., & Konjović, Z. (2014). Migration from Sakai to Canvas. The Proceedings of the 4thInternational Conference on Information Society and Technology(ICIST) (366 – 370). Kopaonik, Serbia.

 

[18] Almarashdeh, I. (2016). Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 249-255.

 

[19] Asoodar, M., Vaezi, S., & Izanloo, B. (2016). Framework to improve e-learner satisfaction and further strengthen e-learning implementation. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 704-716.

 

[20] Jafari, S. M., Salem, S. F., Moaddab, M. S., & Salem, S. O. (201). Learning Management System (LMS) success: An investigation among the university students. The Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e) (pp. 64-69). US: IEEE.

 

[21] Islam, A. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Computers & Education, 69, 387-399.

 

[22] Basioudis, I. G., De Lange, P., Suwardy, T., & Wells, P. (2012). Accounting students' perceptions of a Learning Management System: An international comparison. Accounting Research Journal, 25(2), 72-86.

  

[23] Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology, 24(1), 30-41.

 

[24] Rahmanpoor, M., Nasr esfahani, A. (2016). Study requirements for the use of learning management system in higher education from the viewpoint of professors. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences, 6(4), 39-58. [In Persian]

 

[25] Jamshidikia, S., fazelian, P., khoshneshin, Z. (2015). Evaluating the Learning Management System at the University of Tehran Electronic Learning Center. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences, 6(1), 19-35. [In Persian[

 

[26] Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five approaches (H. Danaeefard & H. Kazemi, Trans.). Tehran: Saffar. [In Persian[

 

[27] Noori, A., Mehrmohammadi, M. (2012). A model for applying Grounded Theory in educational studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies), 6(23), 8-35.[In Persian[

 

[28] Cho, W., Jung, Y., & Im, J. H. (2014). Students' evaluation of learning management systems in the personal computer and smartphone computing environments. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 12(2), 142-159.

 

[29]   Gibbs, D., & Gosper, M. (2012). The upside-down-world of e-learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 46-54.