Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of distance education in higher Education learning-teaching activities

Mosavi, A.; Kaviani, H.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3054.1776

Document Type : Review Paper

Authors

A. Mosavi ¹
H. Kaviani ²

¹ D1Department of Knowledge and Information Sciences, Payame Noor University, Isfahan. Iran

² Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Isfahan. Isfahan.Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3054.1776

Abstract

Background and Objective:Higher education has faced many challenges and issues during the last two decades, among which we can mention the following: inability to produce theoretical knowledge and use of basic and theoretical knowledge produced in other countries. Of the world, the inapplicability of university education, the lack of an inappropriate relationship between the university and other social sectors, neglecting research functions and services in universities, the problem of multiple decision centers and the existence of multiple trustees on the one hand, and the excalating growth of students and applicants to universities and institutions of higher education, the slight expansion of the higher education system regardless of the existing capacity and economic, social and cultural capacity of the community to accept university graduates, reduced financial resources and pressure from society For responsibility and accountability on the other hand; the higher education system needs to maintain and improve the quality of higher education to meet these challenges. To succeed in this, all the functions of higher education in general must be considered comprehensively. In this regard, one of the measures that higher education deliberates to answer its problems was technology-based education, including distance education and distance learning. Considering the contradiction in the findings of the studies conducted on the effectiveness of distance education methods, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of distance education in higher education.
Methods: The research method is based on secondary analysis and meta-analysis. The statistical population consists of all quasi-experimental studies which have already been conducted on the effectiveness of various types of distance education in higher education in Iran. The whole census was used for sampling. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 79 studies were identified as the sample size.To collect the data, a researcher-made worksheet was employed in three sections: bibliographicaldata, methodological data, and findings. To analyze the data, the effect size index and the homogeneity test were performed using CMA-Version 2.0 statistical software.
Findings:The research findings indicated that all of distance education methods in higher education of Iran were effective, but this effectiveness was moderate (ES =0.526, P <0.01); the area under the normal curve, the average implementation of distance education is 69% more effective than traditional methods. In addition, the meta-regression of the effect of year on the results of research showed that with an increase in the implementation of distance education methods, .07%was added to the effectiveness of these methods. In other words, the implementation of distance education methods in higher education will become more effective over time.
Conclusion: Considering that the study of moderating variables was not one of the objectives of this study, it is recommended that in future research, the impact of these components on the results of the study be examined to determine the impact of these components to explain and control the results.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1397.13.1.6.3

Main Subjects

Distance Learning

COPYRIGHTS
©2019 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] Hung HT, Yuen SCY. Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in higher education. 2010; 15(6): 703-714.

[2] Nabi G, Liñán F, Fayolle A, Krueger N, Walmsley A. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2017; 16(2): 277-299.

[3] Zamani BE, Babri H, Mosavi S. The factors affecting students’ attitudes toward llearning via cellular phone: A study on students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences using Technology Acceptance Model. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2013; 9(2): 110-117. Persian.

[4] Altbach P. Higher education and the WTO: Globalization run amok. International Higher Education. 2015; 23: 2-4.

[5].Javadi Bora MA, Ebrahimzadeh I, Farajollahi M, Sarmadi MR. Designing a model for assessing the effectiveness of the distance education system at Payame Noor University. Journal of Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2011; 2(1): 79-98. Persian.

[6] Nichols M. Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education. 2010; 31(1): 93-113.

[7] Anderson T, DronJ. Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2011; 12(3): 80-97.

[8] Baran E, Correia AP, Thompson A. Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education. 2011; 32(3): 421-439.

[9] Rovai AP, Downey JR. Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 13(3): 141-147.

[10] Piña AA. Online diploma mills: Implications for legitimate distance education. Distance Education. 2010; 31(1): 121-126.

[11] Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Bures EM, Borokhovski, E, Tamim RM. Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2011; 23(2-3): 82-103.

[12] Bethel EC, Bernard RM. Developments and trends in synthesizing diverse forms of evidence: Beyond comparisons between distance education and classroom instruction. Distance Education. 2010; 31(3): 231-256.

[13] Boling EC, Hough M, Krinsky H, Saleem H, Stevens M. Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education. 2010; 15(2): 118-126.

[14] Moore MG, Resta P, Rumble G, Tait A, Zaparovanny Y. Open and distance learning: Trends, policy and strategy considerations;2002.

[15] Hall D, Knox J. Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education. Distance Education. 2009; 30(1): 63-85.

[16] Clarà M, Barberà E. Learning online: massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education. 2013; 34(1): 129-136.

[17] Borokhovski E, Tamim R, Bernard RM, Abrami PC, Sokolovskaya A. Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education. 2012; 33(3): 311-329.