شناسایی و تبیین قوت‌ها، ضعف‌ها، فرصت‌ها و تهدیدهای برنامه های درسی مبتنی بر MOOC در آموزش عالی ایران

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی معاون منابع انسانی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

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

چکیده

هدف این مطالعه، شناسایی قوت­ها، ضعفها، فرصت‌ها و تهدیدهای برنامه های درسی مبتنی بر موک‌ها  می‌باشد. این پژوهش، کاربردی بوده و در انجام آن از روش کیفی استفاده شده است. بر این اساس با استفاده از روش نمونهگیری هدفمند از نوع کرانه­ای و با مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته با 14 نفر، اشباع نظری در مقولهها حاصل گردید. یافته ها نشان داده است که مهم­ترین قوتها عبارتند از: ارتقای دسترسی به برنامه درسی و فراگیرنده محوری، امکان تحقق جامعه یادگیری، بهره مندی از سطح بالای کیفیت تدریس، کمک به افزایش پویایی در برنامه درسی. مهمترین ضعفها عبارتند از امکان دور شدن از موقعیت‌های حقیقی در آموزش، امکان سازمان نیافتگی مناسب آموزش، امکان افزایش بار مالی برنامه درسی، امکان انحصاری شدن تولید برنامه درسی، امکان عدم ارزیابی مهارتهای سطح بالای تفکر، امکان سلب آزادی مدرسان، امکان ساختارمند نبودن ارزشیابی، امکان بروز مشکلات مربوط به شناسایی دقیق فرد ارزشیابی شونده. مهمترین فرصت­ها عبارتند از کمک به گسترده تر نمودن عدالت آموزشی، امکان سرمایه­گذاری، کمک به روزآمد­بودن دانش، گسترش ارتباطات بین‌المللی در برنامه درسی­آموزش­عالی، بازنگری برنامه درسی دانشگاهی، تسهیل ارتقای کارایی روش های ارزشیابی، کاربردی تر نمودن آموزش‌ها. مهمترین تهدیدها عبارتنداز: اختلال در کارکرد دانشگاهی، زیر سوال رفتن رسالت مدرسان، هدفمندی کمتر­آموزش، کارآمدی­کمتر­اهداف برنامه درسی، تضاد ارزشی و سطحی شدن اهداف برنامه درسی، استفاده ابزاری از موک‌ها ، تطابق کمتر محتوا با نیازهای مخاطبان، کمی شدن وکم توجهی به نیازهای بازار کار داخلی در فرایند ارزشیابی، احساس بدبینی و تردید نسبت به موک‌ها.

چکیده تصویری

شناسایی و تبیین قوت‌ها، ضعف‌ها، فرصت‌ها و تهدیدهای برنامه های درسی مبتنی بر MOOC در آموزش عالی ایران

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification and Explanation of Strengths, Defects, Opportunities and Threats in MOOC-based Curricula in Iran’s Higher Education System

نویسندگان [English]

  • esmaeil jafari 1
  • Koruosh Fathi vajargah 2
  • Mahboobeh Arefi 2
  • Morteza RezaeiZadeh 2
1 Department of Higher Education , Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran
چکیده [English]

The purpose of this study is to delineate the strengths, defects, opportunities and threats in MOOC-based curricula. This research is applied and used a qualitative method. The statistical population of the qualitative section includes experts who have been engaged in the process of providing educational services during MOOC-based educational courses. From among this population, 14 individuals have been chosen as the statistical sample through purposive sampling. The data have been gathered through semi-structured interviews. The findings show that the most significant strengths include: promotion of access to curricula, learner-orientation, the possibility of realization in learning society, enjoying high quality teaching and promotion of dynamism. Among the most important defects are the possibility of neglecting real situations in education, the possibility of lack of proper educational organization, the possibility of an increase in the financial burden of the curriculum, the possibility of exclusivity in curriculum development, the possibility of not being able to evaluate high order thinking skills, the possibility of taking teacher freedom away, the possibility of lack of organization in evaluation, the possibility of arising problems in precise verification of the evaluated person. The most significant opportunities are supporting the extension of educational justice, the possibility of investment, supporting up-to-date knowledge, extending international communication in higher education curriculum development, the possibility of revising university curricula, facilitating the promotion of evaluation methods efficiency and making the education more applicatory. The most prominent threats are disruption in university functions, making instructors’ professions questionable, lack of educational purposiveness, incompetency of curriculum objectives, opposition of values and superficiality of curriculum objectives, instrumental exploitation of MOOCs, incompatibility between content and the audience’s needs, evaluations becoming quantitative, disregarding the market requirements in the process of evaluation and doubtfulness and pessimism towards MOOCs.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • MOOCs
  • Opportunities
  • Threats
  • Strengths
  • Defects

[1] Jerry, B. (2000). The E- potential, Retrieved from www.kdgonline.com/ webpages / whitepapercontent 2.

[2] Ong, P. (2004). A descriptive study to identify deterrents to participation in employer-provided e-learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Capella, Minnesota, USA.

[3] Khan, B. H. (2004). People, process and product continuum in e-learning: The elearning P3 model. Educational Technology, 44(5), 33-40.

[4] Siemens, G. (2013). What is the theory that underpins our MOOCs? Retreived from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/06/03/what-is-the-theory-that-underpins-our-MOOCs/

[5] Kop, R., & Carroll, F. (2011). Cloud computing and creativity: learning on a massive open online course. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, Special Issue on Creativity and OER. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/?p=special&sp=articles&article=457

[6] McAuley, A, Stewart, B., Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/wp-content/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf

[7] Stuchlikova L. (2016). Challenges of education in the 21st century. Proc. of International Conference on Emerging e-learning Technologies and Applications (ICETA) (pp. 335-340). IEEE, Seville, Spain.

[8] 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 (p. 36). Barcelona, Spain.

[9] Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2014). Students' preferences and views about learning in a MOOC. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 318-323.

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

[11] Mackness, J. (2013). cMOOCs and xMOOCs e Key differences. Retrieved from http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/cMOOCs-and-xMOOCs-keydifferences/

[12] 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/

[13] Duneier, M. (2012). Teaching to the world from central New Jersey. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(2), 24.

[14] Sarrafzadeh, M. ( 2016). Libraries and Librarians in the MOOC age. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, 2(1), 11-32. [In Persian]

[15] Omati, E., & Tavassoli-Farahi, M. ( 2015). The emergence of Massive Open Online Courses in Medical Education. Journal of Modern Medical Information Sciences, 1(3), 40-53. [In Persian].

[16] Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach. Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle

[17] Jacobs, A. J. (2013). Two cheers for Web U! New York Times, 162(56113), 1–7. Retrieved from http: //www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/Sunday/grading-the-mooc-university.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1&.

[18] Agarwala, M. (2013). A research summary of MOOC completion rates. Retrieved from http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu/index.php?q=node/8990

[19] Allon, G. (2012). ‘Operations Management’, Udemy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(6), 10-11.

[20] Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19-38.

[21] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). California: Sage publications.

[22] Young, J.R. (2013). Virtual universities abroad say they already deliver ‘massive’ courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://shar.es/kUYpn

[23] 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

[24] Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for higher education. Retrived from
http://publications.cetis.co.u/2013/667

[25] Head, K. (2013). Massive open online adventure. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(34), B24–25.

[26] Psycharis, S (2011). Presumptions and actions affecting an e-learning adoption by the educational system Implementation using virtual private networks. Retrived from http://www،eurodl،org/?p=&sp=full article =204).

[27] Yu, S., Chen I. J., Yang, K. F., Wang, T. F., & Yen, L. L (2007). A feasibility study on the adoption of e-learning for public. Nurse Education Today, 23(7), 1-7.