@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):181-189
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):181-189
Determining Teaching-Learning Process in Curriculum of General Medical Course with Life- Long Learning Approach
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Qualitative StudyAuthors
Saemi H. (* )Fathi Vajargah K. (1 )
Attaran M. (2 )
Foroughi Abari A.A. (3 )
(* ) Educational Sciences Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran
(1 ) Educational Sciences Department , Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
(2 ) Educational Sciences Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
(3 ) Educational Sciences Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence
Article History
Received: May 11, 2013Accepted: October 23, 2013
ePublished: July 7, 2014
BRIEF TEXT
… [1] Web 2 and social networks are the new generation of internet services, which are treated as opportunities for innovation in teaching and learning [2]. Many opportunities for training dependency and social skills are formed by the social networks. … [3-8] the networks are evaluated as valuable learning tools, since they enable their users to produce and publish their activities and facilitate cooperative learning and interaction [9]. The social networks have produced many communication tools (public, private, synchronous, and asynchronous) and they facilitate teamwork and horizontal relationships between the teacher and the student. … [10-17] Some university teachers believe that the students’ learning methods change through new technologies [18]. … [19-20] If there are possibilities to control the social networks in terms of suitability for scientific needs, they can make fundamental changes in education [21].
Non-declared
The aim of this study was to design a model for utilization of social networks in training and enhancing the university teachers.
This is a qualitative study, using “Ground Theory” research method introduced by Glaser and Strauss [22].
University teachers and experts aware of using of the social networks in education were studied.
… [23-25] Snowball method sampling was done for sampling [26]. To collect data, semi-structured interviews were done with 18 persons (10 persons from curriculum-planning study field, 3 persons from IT-management study field, 3 persons from communication sciences study field, and 2 persons from the librarian discipline).
Data were collected by searching the documents and interviews. Mean length of each interview was 60min. Searching the documents and interviews were done based on the researchers’ data saturation. 3 books and 11 articles, related to the utilization of social networks in education (published between 2003 and 2013) were selected, purposely. To confirm the validity of the study, the questions were designed and were corrected by 4 experts. After the interviews were done, the recorded information was rewritten word for word by the researcher. After the interviews were rewritten, method of control by participants was used to confirm validity of the interviews.
24 concepts in the document searching part and 71 concepts in the interview part were noted. Then, based on the similarities with primary and concentrated coding, some codes were assigned to the similar cases and converted into 10 categories, which were the main aim of the study (Table 1). Then, axial relation was formed between the categories and they were correlated as a network. The axial categories in the stage were the fundamental structures of social network-based curriculum, aims of social network-based curriculum, social network-based curriculum principles, and strategies of the social network-based curriculum (Table 2). Final model was compiled, using the obtained abstract categories. At this stage, the major categories were correlated in a paradigmatic model around the core category (Fig. 1). The first core was communication strategies (training methods for complex interaction in cyberspace), which included (a) gradual support, (b) training educational guided communication in a network environment, and (c) training the methods for adaptation and compatibility in a network environment. The second core was cognitive strategies (web-based logical thinking), which included (a) forming positive attitude in the university teachers and (b) forming web-based critical thinking. The third core was technical strategies (technical skills in the social networks), which included (a) training the methods for making, distributing, and publishing the content in a network environment and (b) training teaching with different technics and methods in a network environment.
The model based on the “Ground Theory” included 2 main factors, i. e. the learners and the educators and their interactions are with each other and with the content. The learners were able to interact directly with any content they had found on the web in different forms. Possibilities for learning the social skills, learning the content as participatory, developing the interpersonal relationship, and enhancing the motivation for learning were provided by the environments. Using social technologies leads to develop individual and group skills [27]. These technologies, also, lead to enhance the motivations of the university teachers and the students, encourage them to details, and improve the quality of their works [28]. … [29] Web-based group classes in which different viewpoints could be discussed, completed teachers and students’ mutual experiences. Teachers and students gain a high level of positive learning experiences, sharing, and interactive functions via social networks [30]. The instructors and designing team should form leaning environment based on the cyberspace in order to enhance active learning, which leads to critical thinking skills. Thinking plays an important role in science production, self-assessment, and meta-cognition (to think on thinking) procedures and there are active participation in correction and reconstruction of learning networks by peoples [31]. Interaction made educational tasks performance possible. Learning should be placed on relations and outside persons and it should be based on different opinions [32]. … [33, 34]
The university teachers ought to enhance their skills, in order to produce a collection of learning activities via social networks consistent with students and their needs. The needs and application conditions of the strategies ought to be evaluated, in order to prevent the incorrect use of the technology in the educational environment.
Non-declared
The social network-based curriculum-planning model includes strategies of teaching the logical thinking, teaching the complex interaction methods, and teaching the technical skills to the university teachers to achieve effective learning.
The researchers feel grateful to all the university teachers and experts, who participated in the study.
Non-declared
Non-declared
Non-declared
TABLES and CHARTS
Show attach fileCITIATION LINKS
[1]Crook C, Harrison C. Web 2.0 technologies for learning at key stages 3 and 4: Summary report; 2008. Available from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1480/1/becta_2008_web2_summary.pdf
[2]Alexander S. E-learning developments and experiences. Educ Train. 2001;43(4-5):240-8.
[3]Bersin J. Social networking and corporate learning [Internet]. Chief Learning Officer [Published: Oct 3,2008]. Available From: http://www.clomedia.com/articles/social_networking_and_corporate_learning.
[4]Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL. College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2009;30(3):227-38.
[5]Gunawardena CN, Hermans MB, Sanchez D, Richmond C, Bohley M, Tuttle R. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educ Media Int. 2009;46(1):3-16.
[6]Sylvester D, McGlynn A. The digital divide, political participation, and place. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2010;28(1):64-74.
[7]Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. JALN. 2001;5(2):1-17.
[8]Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML. Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Acad Manag J. 2001;44(2):316-25.
[9]Selwyn N. Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review. Alternative learning environments in practice: Using ICT to change impact and outcomes; 2008. Available from: https://www1.oecd.org/edu/ceri/39458556.pdf.
[10]Panckhurst R, Marsh D. Using social networks for pedagogical practice in French higher education: Educator and learner perspectives. Univ Knowledge Soc J. 2011;8(1):233-52. [Espanol]
[11]Njenga JK, Fourie LCH. The myths about e-learning in higher education. Br J Educ Technol. 2010; 41(2):199-212.
[12]Solomon G, Schrum L. Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. 1st ed. Arlington: International Society for Technology in Education; 2007.
[13]Murray C. Schools and social networking: Fear or education? Syn Pers. 2008;6(1);8-12.
[14]Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;12(4)1143-68.
[15]Lenhart A, Madden M. Teens, privacy and online social networks [Internet]. Washington: Pew Research center. [Cited: 18 April 2007]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2007/04/18/teens-privacy-and-online-social-networks/.
[16]Holcom LB, Brady KP, Smith BV. The emergence of education networking: can non-commercial, education-based social networking sites really address the privacy and safety concerns of educators?. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach. 2010;6(2):475-81.
[17]Ajjan H, Hartshorne R. Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet High Educ. 2008;11(2):71-80.
[18]Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991;15(1):125-36.
[19]The New Media Consortium. The horizon report; 2007. Available from: nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report. Pdf.
[20]Sharepor M. Role of social networks in reproducing educational inequality. Educ Q. 2007;23(3):165-80. [Persian]
[21]Zaidieh AJY. The use of social networking in education: Challenges and opportunities. World Comput Sci Inf Technol J. 2012;2(1):18-21.
[22]Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction; 1999.
[23]Evans GL. A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: Rationalization for classical grounded theory. Ground Theory Rev. 2013;12(1):137-55.
[24]Backman K, Kyngas HA. Challenges of the grand theory a naive researcher. Nurs Health Sci. 1999;1(3):147-53.
[25]Speziale HS, Streubert HJ, Carpenter DR. Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
[26]Adib Hajbagheri M, Parvizi S, Salsali M. Quality research methods. Tehran: Boshra Publication; 2006. [Persian]
[27]Dale C, Pymm JM. Podagogy: The iPod as a learning technology. Active Learn High Educ. 2009;10(1):84-96.
[28]Crook C, Fisher T, Graber R, Harrison C, Lewin C, Cummings J, et al. Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools: Impacts, barriers and issues; 2008. Available from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1478/1/becta_2008_web2_useinschools_report.pdf.
[29]Rifkin W, Longnecker N, Leach J, Davis L, Orthia L. Motivate students by having them publish in new media: An invitation to science lecturers to share and test. Motivating Science Undergraduates: Ideas and Interventions; 2009. Available from: http://www.academia.edu/2563912/Motivate_students_by_having_them_publish_in_new_media_An_invitation_to_science_lecturers_to_share_and_test.
[30]Hung HT, Yuen SCY. Educational use of social networking technology in Higher education. Teach High Educ. 2010;15(6):703-14.
[31]Pettenati MC, Cigognini ME. Social networking theories and tools to support connectivist learning activities. Int J Web Base Learn Teach Technol. 2007;2(3):15-30.
[32]Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Int J Instruc Technol Dist Learn. 2005;2(1):3-9.
[33]Holmberg B. A discipline of distance education. J Distance Educ. 1986:1(1):25-40.
[34]Mazman SG, Usluel YK. The usage of social networks in educational context. World Acad Sci Engin Technol. 2009;3(1):340-4.
[2]Alexander S. E-learning developments and experiences. Educ Train. 2001;43(4-5):240-8.
[3]Bersin J. Social networking and corporate learning [Internet]. Chief Learning Officer [Published: Oct 3,2008]. Available From: http://www.clomedia.com/articles/social_networking_and_corporate_learning.
[4]Pempek TA, Yermolayeva YA, Calvert SL. College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2009;30(3):227-38.
[5]Gunawardena CN, Hermans MB, Sanchez D, Richmond C, Bohley M, Tuttle R. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educ Media Int. 2009;46(1):3-16.
[6]Sylvester D, McGlynn A. The digital divide, political participation, and place. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2010;28(1):64-74.
[7]Anderson T, Rourke L, Garrison DR, Archer W. Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. JALN. 2001;5(2):1-17.
[8]Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML. Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Acad Manag J. 2001;44(2):316-25.
[9]Selwyn N. Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review. Alternative learning environments in practice: Using ICT to change impact and outcomes; 2008. Available from: https://www1.oecd.org/edu/ceri/39458556.pdf.
[10]Panckhurst R, Marsh D. Using social networks for pedagogical practice in French higher education: Educator and learner perspectives. Univ Knowledge Soc J. 2011;8(1):233-52. [Espanol]
[11]Njenga JK, Fourie LCH. The myths about e-learning in higher education. Br J Educ Technol. 2010; 41(2):199-212.
[12]Solomon G, Schrum L. Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. 1st ed. Arlington: International Society for Technology in Education; 2007.
[13]Murray C. Schools and social networking: Fear or education? Syn Pers. 2008;6(1);8-12.
[14]Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;12(4)1143-68.
[15]Lenhart A, Madden M. Teens, privacy and online social networks [Internet]. Washington: Pew Research center. [Cited: 18 April 2007]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2007/04/18/teens-privacy-and-online-social-networks/.
[16]Holcom LB, Brady KP, Smith BV. The emergence of education networking: can non-commercial, education-based social networking sites really address the privacy and safety concerns of educators?. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach. 2010;6(2):475-81.
[17]Ajjan H, Hartshorne R. Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet High Educ. 2008;11(2):71-80.
[18]Thompson RL, Higgins CA, Howell JM. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991;15(1):125-36.
[19]The New Media Consortium. The horizon report; 2007. Available from: nmc.org/pdf/2007_Horizon_Report. Pdf.
[20]Sharepor M. Role of social networks in reproducing educational inequality. Educ Q. 2007;23(3):165-80. [Persian]
[21]Zaidieh AJY. The use of social networking in education: Challenges and opportunities. World Comput Sci Inf Technol J. 2012;2(1):18-21.
[22]Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction; 1999.
[23]Evans GL. A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: Rationalization for classical grounded theory. Ground Theory Rev. 2013;12(1):137-55.
[24]Backman K, Kyngas HA. Challenges of the grand theory a naive researcher. Nurs Health Sci. 1999;1(3):147-53.
[25]Speziale HS, Streubert HJ, Carpenter DR. Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.
[26]Adib Hajbagheri M, Parvizi S, Salsali M. Quality research methods. Tehran: Boshra Publication; 2006. [Persian]
[27]Dale C, Pymm JM. Podagogy: The iPod as a learning technology. Active Learn High Educ. 2009;10(1):84-96.
[28]Crook C, Fisher T, Graber R, Harrison C, Lewin C, Cummings J, et al. Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools: Impacts, barriers and issues; 2008. Available from: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1478/1/becta_2008_web2_useinschools_report.pdf.
[29]Rifkin W, Longnecker N, Leach J, Davis L, Orthia L. Motivate students by having them publish in new media: An invitation to science lecturers to share and test. Motivating Science Undergraduates: Ideas and Interventions; 2009. Available from: http://www.academia.edu/2563912/Motivate_students_by_having_them_publish_in_new_media_An_invitation_to_science_lecturers_to_share_and_test.
[30]Hung HT, Yuen SCY. Educational use of social networking technology in Higher education. Teach High Educ. 2010;15(6):703-14.
[31]Pettenati MC, Cigognini ME. Social networking theories and tools to support connectivist learning activities. Int J Web Base Learn Teach Technol. 2007;2(3):15-30.
[32]Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Int J Instruc Technol Dist Learn. 2005;2(1):3-9.
[33]Holmberg B. A discipline of distance education. J Distance Educ. 1986:1(1):25-40.
[34]Mazman SG, Usluel YK. The usage of social networks in educational context. World Acad Sci Engin Technol. 2009;3(1):340-4.