1دانشجو دکتری فناوری اطلاع رسانی در اموزش عالی-دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران
2عضو هیئت علمی - دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران
3عضوهیئت علمی دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
4عضو هیئت‌علمی دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران
چکیده
چکیده جدایی یادگیرنده و مدرس در یادگیری الکترونیکی باعث شده است که بازخورد به‌عنوان پاشنه آشیل و مهم‌ترین چالش در این نوع یادگیری محسوب شود. بااین‌وجود، هنوز دستورالعمل جامعی بر اساس علم آموزش وجود ندارد تا به چگونگی ایجاد بازخورد بر مبنای اهداف یادگیری بپردازد. هدف پژوهش حاضر تدوین استانداردهای آموزشی و شاخص‌های بازخورد در یادگیری الکترونیکی برای اطمینان از دست‌یابی به اهداف سطوح عالی یادگیری در طبقه‌بندی بلوم –اندرسون است. رویکرد پژوهش کیفی و از استراتژی طرح پدیدارشناسی بهره گرفته‌شده است. جامعه پژوهش کلیه متخصصین و مدرسین مراکز یادگیری الکترونیکی دانشکده‌های علوم تربیتی دانشگاه‌های دولتی شهر تهران و سه مرکز یادگیری الکترونیکی ایلینویز، خان و هاروارد در آمریکا هستند که تعداد 12 نفر از آن‌ها به روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند تا رسیدن به اشباع داده انتخاب‌شده‌اند. برای جمع‌آوری اطلاعات از شیوه مصاحبه‌های نیمه ساختاریافته استفاده گردید. تحلیل داده‌ها و تعیین مقوله‌ها و استانداردها با تکنیک کدگذاری کوربین و اشتراوس و با نرم‌افزار ماکس کیودا انجام گردید. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش به تدوین 4 استاندارد آموزشی و 25 شاخص ضروری برای طراحی یک بازخورد مؤثر و به‌موقع در حوزه یادگیری الکترونیکی انجامید. نتایج پژوهش می‌تواند به‌عنوان راهنمای عمل در طراحی محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیک مورداستفاده طراحان و فناوران آموزشی قرار گیرد و یا بر اساس نتایج بدست آمده می‌توان به ارزیابی دوره‌های یادگیری الکترونیک در بعد بازخورد پرداخت.
Achievement high level goals in E-learning with comprehensive feedback; (Standards and Criteria)
نویسندگان [English]
nori barari1؛ morteza rezaeizadeh2؛ abasalt khorasani3؛ farnoosh alami4
1phd student in e- learning at shahid beheshty university
2Faculty Member of Psychology and educational Science, Faculty of psychology and educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University
3Faculty Member of Psychology and educational Science, Faculty of psychology and educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University
4Faculty Member of Psychology and educational Science, Faculty of psychology and educational Science, Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]
ABSTRACT The separation of learner and teacher from each other in e-learning, has made feedback as the most important challenge in this type of learning. Despite, there is no comprehensive framework based on the science of education, so that how to create educational feedback based on learning objectives. The purpose of this study was to compilation the educational standards and their indicators based on the Bloom-Anderson’s taxonomy for design effective and on time feedback for any educational goal. Qualitative research approach is used and based this approach, the phenomenological design strategy has been used. The population included 12 person of subject matter and faculty member in academic e-learning centers which were selected through purposeful sampling. Qualitative data generated from interviews were coded and analysis by Corbin and Strauss method and Maxquda software. The results of the study led to the development of 4 educational standards and 25 indicators based on the Bloom-Anderson’s taxonomy to design a comprehensive feedback in the field of e-learning. According to the results of this study, educational technologists can evaluate or design more effective E- learning environments.
[1] Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. AACE Journal, 1(13), 19-33.
[2] Anson, C. M. (1999). Distant voices: Teaching and writing in a culture of technology. College English, 61(3), 261-280.
[3] Cooper, P. A. (2003). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviourism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33(5), 12-19.
[4] Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M. E., Nölting, K., Röser, M., & Voigt, D. (2007). Is e-learning the solution for individual learning? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(2), 273-280.
[5] Knight, S. (2007(. Effective practice with e-learning: A good practice guide in designing for learning. Joint Information Systems Committee.
[6] Van De Ridder, JMM., Stokking, KM., & McGaghie WC. (2008). Ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med edu, 42(2), 189-97.
[7] Haghani F., Rahimi M, & Ehsanpour S. (2014). An Investigation of "Perceived Feedback" in Clinical Education of Midwifery Students in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Edu, 14(7), 571-80. [In Persian].
[8] Clynes, MP. & Raftery SEC. (2008) Feedback: An essential element of student learning in clinical practice. Nurs Edu Practice. 8(6), 405-11.
[9] Evans, C., & Palacios, L. A. (2011). Interactive self-assessment questions within a virtual Environment. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), 3(2), 1-10. doi:10.4018/jea.2011040101
[10] Palacios, L., & Evans, C. (2014). The effect of interactivity in e-Learning systems. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[11] Sweet, Linda, P., Pauline G., & Tracey McPhee. (2013). the midwifery mini CEX e A valuable clinical assessment tool for midwifery education. Nurse Edu Practice, 13(2), 147-53.
[12] Baker, W., & Hansen Bricker, R. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. Information System, 38(1), 75-84.
[13] Carr, S. (2006). The foundation programmed assessment tools: An opportunity to enhance feedback to trainees? Postgraduate med J, 82(971), 576-9.
[14] Thurlings, M., Vermeulen, M., Bastiaens, T., & Stijnen, S. (2013). Understanding feedback: A learning theory perspective. Edu Res Rev, 9(0), 1-15.
[15] Schartel, SA. (2012). Giving feedback – An integral part of education. Best Practice Res Clinic Anaesthesiol, 26(1), 77-87.
[16]Barari, N,. Moeini, A., RezaeiZadeh, H & Abbas Kasani, H. (2017). Future teacher; change in roles and tasks in the digital environments based on the Connectivism theory. Educational technology journal. 11(3), 249-258.
[17] Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.
[18] Naidu, S. (2003). E-learning: A guidebook of principles, procedures and practices. Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia (CEMCA), New Delhi.
[19] Ferreira, A., Moore, JD. & Mellish C. (2007). A study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. Int J Artificial Intelligence Edu, 17(4), 389-422.
[20] Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
[21] Stillman, PL., Sabers, DL. & Redfield, DL. (1976). the use of paraprofessionals to teach interviewing skills. Pediatrics, 57(5), 769-74.
[22] Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153 189. Doi: 10.3102/0034654307313795.
[23] Wigton, RS., Patil, KD, & Hoellerich, VL. (2006). The effect of feedback in learning clinical diagnosis. Academic Med, 61(10), 816-22.
[24] Hill, C. (2008). The world turned upside down: Radical ideas during the English revolution Penguin Group.
[25] Akcan, S, & Tatar, S. (2010). An investigation of the nature of feedback given to pre‐service English teachers during their Practice teaching experience. Teacher Dev, 14(2), 153-72.
[26] Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(4), 211-222. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.06.00
[27] Wang, S., & Wu, P. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1589-1598. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004
[28] Prystowsky, J. B., & DaRosa, D. A. (2003). A learning prescription permits feedback on feedback. Am J surgery, 185(3), 264-67.
[29] McIlwrick, J., Nair, B., & Montgomery, G. (2006). How Am I Doing?” Many problems but few solutions related to Feedback delivery in undergraduate psychiatry education. Academic Psychiatry, 30(2), 130-5.
[30] Tayebi, V., Tavakoli, H., & Armat, M. R. (2011). Providing status feedback to the learner in clinical education and related factors from the viewpoints of teachers and students Khorasan University of Medical Sciences. North Khorasan Uni Med Sci J, 1(3), 69-74 [in Persian].
[31] Bronack, S. C., & Riedl, R. E. (1998). Distributed learning environments: Pedagogy, implementation, and the early adopter. Paper presented at The World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Frieburg, Germany.
[32] Fardanesh, E. (2012). Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology. 3rd Ed. Tehran: Institute of Social Sciences and Text Books (Samt), Research and Development Center for the Humanities.
[33] Cohen, M. D. (1981). The power of parallel thinking. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2(4), 285-306.
ابتدای صفحه