Evaluating “resource support” dimension of courseware of Shahid Beheshti University based on Khan’s framework: a reflection on students' experiences

Alikhani, P.; Rezaeizadeh, M.; Shahverdi, R.

doi:10.22061/tej.2021.3660.1915

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Department of Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2021.3660.1915

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess Shahid Beheshti University’s courseware in terms of technical, instructional, and counseling based on Khan’s e-learning framework through reflection on students’ experiences.
Methods: The study used a grounded theory research design. The statistical population of the study was undergraduate students from Faculty of Education and Psychology who had taken Shahid Beheshti University's courseware. Participants were 32 students that were selected by purposeful criterion-based sampling method. Using semi-structured interviews, information was obtained to achieve the researcher's theoretical saturation. The findings were analyzed using Strauss and Corbin coding methods at open and axial coding levels.
Findings: The findings from the analysis of one-to-one interviews indicated that: 1. Loss of information from group discussions; 2. Lack of access to useful resources and links in the courseware; 3. Little information about user/support team participation status; 4. Lack of attention to instructional support to student’s success in courseware; and 5. Inadequate information about the activities of service desk have influenced the motivation and continuous activity in the courseware. Most importantly, these issues affect the users’ attitudes towards e-learning.
Conclusion: The study of students' experiences showed that the resource support of the courseware needs more review and attention. Ignoring this dimension of e-learning will create a gap between the potential of technology on learning and its use in practice. In other words, the lack of instructional, counseling and technical support affected users' attitudes towards e-learning. According technology acceptance model, perceived ease-of-use will be affected by usefulness of e-learning system. So that, students will not be inclined to continue their activities using it. Therefore, the present study recommends continuous evaluation of the courseware to identify the behavior pattern of users during the activity in the course and apply the necessary support mechanisms. For example, this goal can be achieved

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1400.16.1.6.4

Main Subjects

e-learning

COPYRIGHTS
©2022 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Abu-Shawar B. Evaluating AOU e-learning platform based on Khan’s framework. In Proceedings of COGNITIVE: The sixth international conference on advanced cognitive technologies and applications; 2014: 99-103.

[2] Anderson T. Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. 2004; 2: 109-19.

[3] Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative & mixed method approaches (third edition). London: Sage publications London; 2009.

[4] Creswell JW. Action research designs. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson. 2012:576-601.

[5] Clark VL, Creswell JW. Understanding research: A consumer's guide. Pearson Higher Ed; 2014 Mar 21: USA.

[6] D'Antoni S. The virtual university: Models and messages, lessons from case studies. UNESCO-IIEP; 2006: France.

[7] Glushkova T. Adaptive model for e-Learning in secondary school. Edited by Elvis Pontes, Anderson Silva. 2012 Mar 14:1: Croatia.

[8] Horton W, Horton K. E-learning Tools and Technologies: A consumer's guide for trainers, teachers, educators, and instructional designers. John Wiley & Sons; 2003 Feb 3: Indianapolis.

[9] Hawkins BL, Rudy JA. EDUCAUSE Core Data Service: Fiscal Year 2005 Summary Report. Educause. 2006 Nov.

[10] Hanson P, Robson R. Evaluating course management technology: A pilot study. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin. 2004; 2004(24): 1-13

[11] Herrington A, Bunker A. Quality teaching online: Putting pedagogy first. In Research and Development in Higher Education. Annual International HERDSA Conference 2002 Jul 7 (Vol. 25).

[12] Khan BH, editor. Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. IGI Global; 2005 a: USA.

[13] Khan B. Learning features in an open, flexible and distributed environment. AACE journal. 2005;13(2):137-53.

[14] Khan BH. Comprehensive approach to program evaluation in open and distributed learning (CAPEODL) model. Introduced in the Program Evaluation course. George Washington University. 2004.

[15] Khan BH. Discussions of e-learning dimensions. Educational Technology. 2002: 42 (1). 59-60.

[16] Khan BH. A framework for web-based learning. Web-based training. 2001; 13:75-98.

[17] Lam SF. Project-Based Learning, In: Seel N.M. (eds), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning 2012; (pp. 2707-2709). Springer: Boston, MA.

[18] McLoughlin C. Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education. 2002;23(2):149-62.

[19] Merza H, Ally M. Evaluation of Learning Management System of contents of selected courses at the Arab Open University. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education. 2016; 5(4).

[20] Mishra S. STRIDE Handbook 8, E-Learning, IANS Publishing, 2009.

[21] Mishra S. A design framework for online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2002; 33(4):493-6.

[22] Mascolo MF. Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: Teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the human sciences. 2009;1(1):3-27.