تدوین الگویی برای برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک در آموزش عالی با استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد( مطالعه موردی؛ آموزش عالی ایران)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 هیات علمی دانشگاه معاون منابع انسانی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 گروه آموزش عالی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

3 دانشگاه شهید بهشتی مدیر آموزشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

4 عضو هیئت علمی - دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران

چکیده

موک‌ها دوره‌های مبتنی بر وب هستند که از تأثیر فراوانی بر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی برخوردارند. هدف این پژوهش، تدوین الگوی مفهومی برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک‌هادر آموزش عالی بود. پژوهش حاضر کیفی بوده و با استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد انجام گرفت .جامعه آماری شامل متخصصان حوزه فنّاوری آموزشی و فناوری‌های آموزش عالی بودند که با استفاده از رویکرد نمونه‌گیری هدفمند و با مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته با 14 نفر، اشباع نظری در داده‌ها حاصل گردید. برای به دست آوردن اعتبار و روایی داده‌ها از روش مرور خبرگان غیر شرکت کننده در پژوهش استفاده گردید. نتایج نشان داد مقوله محوری مطالعه حاضر الگوی برنامه درسی آموزش عالی است که در چهار بعد هدف، محتوا، روش‌های یاددهی-یادگیری و ارزشیابی تحلیل شد. این عناصر برنامه درسی بر مبنای شرایط علی قرار دارد و به راهبردهایی منجر می‌گردد. این شرایط و فرایند منجر به پیامدهایی در برنامه درسی آموزش عالی می‌شود. مجموعه این کنش و واکنش‌ها در بستر و زمینه‌ای صورت می‌پذیرد که قوت‌ها، ضعف‌ها، فرصت‌ها و تهدیدات، زمینه‌های لازم را برای این امر فراهم می‌آورند.

چکیده تصویری

تدوین الگویی برای برنامه درسی مبتنی بر موک در آموزش عالی با استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد( مطالعه موردی؛ آموزش عالی ایران)

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Journal of technology of education (JTE): Developing a Mooc-based curriculum model for higher education based on grounded theory: Case Study; Iranian Higher Education

نویسندگان [English]

  • esmaeil jafari 1
  • kourosh fathi vajargah 2
  • mahboobeh arefi 3
  • morteza rezaeizadeh 4
1 Assistant Professor
2 shahid beheshti university
3 teacher
4 Assistant Professor
چکیده [English]

Moocs are web-based courses that have great impact on higher education through their impact on higher education curriculum. The purpose of this study was developing a conceptual model for Mooc-based curriculum in higher education. This was a qualitative study and conducted based on grounded theory approach. The statistical population includes educational technology and higher education technology experts. Using the purposeful sampling approach and interviewing 14 people, theoretical saturation was achieved in the categories. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews. The reliability and validity in qualitative part of the research was through reviewing by experts who did not participate in the study. The important issue of current study is the higher education curriculum which is developed in four aspects of goal, content, teaching-learning methods and evaluation analysis and according to causal conditions, the underlying conditions and mediation terms of terms of developing strategies and based on that the final model is presented.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • jafari

[1] Kikkas, K., Mart L., and Hans P. (2011). Open courses: The next big thing in eLearning. Proc. of the 10th European Conference on e-Learning (pp 370-376). Brighton, United Kingdom.

[2] Billsberry, J. (2013). MOOCs: Fad or revolution. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 739-746.

[3] Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). Through the open door: Open courses as research, learning, and engagement. Educause Review, 45(4), 30-39.

[4] Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: Learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning.

[5] Levy, D. (2011). Lessons learned from participating in a connectivist massive online open course (MOOC). Proc. of the Chais conference on Instructional Technologies Tesearch 2011: Learning in the Technological Era (pp 31-36).

[6] Abeer, W., & Barak, M. (2014). Students’ preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318-323.

[7] Mackness, J. (2013). cMOOCs and xMOOCs e Key differences. Retrieved from http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/cMOOCs-and-xMOOCs-keydifferences/
[8] McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrived from https://oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud.org/files/MOOC_Final.pdf

[9] Libby V. Morris, (2013). MOOCs, emerging technologies, and quality. Innov High Education, 38(4), 251-252.

[10] Potter, C. (2013). F is for failure; Or, don’t invest your Pension in MOOCs yet. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/tenuredradical/2013/07/f-is-for-failure-ordontinvestyourpensionin-moocs-yet/

[11] Bell, F., (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98-118.

[12] Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCs: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review (tm). Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(1), 40-48.

[13] Yuan, L., Powel, S., and Olivier, B. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable online learning in institutions. Retrieved from http://publications.cetis.org.uk/2014/898

[14] Parry, M. (2013). Competency-based education advances with US approval of program. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1.

[15] 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 and Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.

[16] Cusumano, M. A. (2013). Are the costs of 'free' too high in online education? Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 26-28.

[17] Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2), 32-48.

[18] Mackness, J., Sui M., & Roy W. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 266-275). Lancaster, UK: University of Lancaster.

[19] Allen, E., & Seaman J. (2014). Grade change, tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf

[20] Kirschner, R., Murphy, T. D., Weidenbach, K. N., Van Houten, C., Gerona, R. R., Moran, J. H., & Buser, G. L., (2012). Acute kidney injury associated with synthetic cannabinoid use - Multiple States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 62(6), 93-98.

[21] Beránek, L., Remeš, R. (2012). The course of e-commerce based on active learning. Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education (pp. 36), Prague.

[22] Yuan, L, & Stephen P. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Retrieved from https://publications.cetis.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf

[23] Chafkin, M. (2013). Udacity’s Sebastian Thrun, godfather of free online education, changes course. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3021473/udacitysebastian-thrun-uphill-climb.

[24] Evans, D. (2012). Introduction to computer science. Udacity. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), B11.

[25] Kolowich, S. (2013). The Professors Behind the MOOC Hype. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18.

[26] 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 (pp. 331-340). Malaysia.

[27] Doherty, I., Harbutt, D., and Sharma, N. (2015). Designing and Developing a MOOC, Medical Science Educato, 25, 177-181.

[28] Fathi Vajargah, K., and Azadmanesh, N. (2007). The Feasibility of ICT Application in Curriculum Development in Higher Education. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 42, 49-70. [in Persian].

[29] Weller, M., (2013). The Battle for Open - a perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3, 15.

[30] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (M. Biok, Trans). Tehran: Human Science & Cultural Studies Center Publication [in Persian].

[31] Farasatkhah, M. (2017). Qualitative research method in social sciences with emphasis on theory based (Grounded Theory, GTM). Tehran: Agah.

[32] Downes, Stephen. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism and connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1), 6.

[33] Xiao, F., & Pardamean, B. (2016). MOOC Model: Dimensions and model design to develop learning. The New Educational Review, 43(1), 28-40.