ARTICLE INFO

Article Type

Descriptive & Survey Study

Authors

Ali Abadi   Kh. (1)
Moradi Doliskani   M. (*)
Moradi   R. (1)
Mohammadi Galedar   A. (2)






(*) Educational Technology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
(1) Educational Technology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
(1) Educational Technology Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
(2) Educational Sciences Department, Human Sciences Faculty, Khorram Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorram Abad, Iran

Correspondence

Address: Shahid Moradi Alley, Front of Taavon Office, Taleqani 24 meter Street, Delfan, Lorestan, Iran. Postal Code: 6831759798
Phone: +986637226676
Fax: +986632723132
moradi_master2011@yahoo.com

Article History

Received:  May  23, 2015
Accepted:  August 3, 2015
ePublished:  August 10, 2015

BRIEF TEXT


… [1-26] In the issue of e-learning, besides the educational content production and management, learners` cognitive characteristics [27] in respect to the content innovation in higher education should be considered [10]. … [28-32]

In Iran, many studies have been conducted in different domains of E-learning in University of Medical Sciences, but in the domain of students` perception of their curriculum, there has not been much attention to the content element in e learning.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the students` cognitive and perceptual characteristics of the curriculum e-learning content.

This research is descriptive.

Male and female students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (Iran) who had participated in e-learning course were studied in the academic year of 2013-2014.

Based on Stratified Sampling, 250 participants (164 female and 86 male) were selected.

The instrument used in this study was a Persian version of the Vanderline and Van Braak perceptual features questionnaire [33]. Perceptual feature questionnaire has the components of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, testability and visibility that each component is measured by four questions. Each question measures perceptual characteristics and it is based on Five-point Likert Scale. The reliability of the questionnaire was estimated 0.85 using Cronbach`s Alpha. To determine the content validity of the questionnaire, the questionnaire was evaluated by six content and assessment experts. The results indicated the high degree of agreement among the experts about the appropriateness of the questionnaire. Chi-square degrees of freedom was equal to 2.72 and the RMSEA was 0.11 and the amount of fitting indices (GFI=0.83, AGFI=0.76, NFI=0.79, CFI=0.81, NNFI=0.86) were close to one which indicated that these indices have achieved the required standard. Therefore, it can be said that the model is fitted and approved. Data analysis was conducted in two inferential and descriptive levels. In the descriptive level, mean, standard deviation, and number were used for each sample variable; and in the inferential level, One- sample T-test was used. … [34]

Descriptive and demographic information related to the sample is shown in table 1. The mean score of students` perceptual features was 68.28 ± 6.14 which was significantly less than the hypothetical mean (75) considering the cut-off point of 80%. The mean for the subscale of relative advantage (17.23 ±2.44) was significantly higher than the hypothetical mean (16) considering the cut-off point of 80%. However, the mean of other subscales i.e. compatibility (mean score11.63 ± 2.48), complexity (mean score13.53 ± 1.72), testability (mean score 11.37 ±1.33) and visibility (mean score15.09 ± 2.36) were less than the hypothetical mean (16).

Perceptual characteristics of students in terms of e-learning content components in the curriculum of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences were not desirable. Relative positive attitude of students toward e-learning shows a significant relationship between the attitude and gender, level of education and field of study. Also, there is a significant relationship between the knowledge and level of education and duration of using computers and internet [35]. Participating students in the virtual courses evaluate the quality of e-learning intermediate and higher. The university instructors` quality of presenting e-learning materials is different based on their curriculum orientation. Significant relationship is observed between the experience of presenting e-learning and the quality of its presentation in the components of individual differences, facilitation of collaboration among students, providing feedback and evaluation [36]. These findings are inconsistent with the results of this study in terms of students` perception of e-learning quality. The highest mean of staff satisfaction is in the domain of satisfaction with the program and the lowest mean is related to the satisfaction with the content of training courses [37] which are in line with the findings of current research with respect to the students` perception of e-learning content and its subscales (compatibility, testability, visibility and complexity). Also, the results of this research are in line with some studies [33, 35, 37-40] since in the study of students` perceptual features of e-learning content and its components, some components are desirable while some of them are not desirable.

Compatibility, testability and visibility of e-learning content should be increased, and its complexity should be reduced.

One of the limitations of this study was the lack of collaboration of some students.

The perceptual characteristics of students of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences about the content of e-learning are undesirable. Perceptual characteristics in general and the subscales including compatibility, testability, visibility and complexity in e-learning curriculum content of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences are not desirable and only relative advantage has favorable condition.

Students and university instructors are appreciated.

The results of this study are not in conflict with the interests of any organization.

Non-declared

This study has not been funded by any organization.

TABLES and CHARTS

Show attach file


CITIATION LINKS

[1]Nam CW, Zellner RD. The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and attitude on line cooperative learning. Comput Educ. 2011;56(3):680-8.
[2]Chen C, Liu M, Chang M. Personalized curriculum sequencing utilizing modified item response theory for web-based instruction. Exp S with App. 2006;30(2):378-96.
[3]George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. J Glob Health. 2014;4(1):010406.
[4]Link TM, Marz R. Computer literacy and attitudes towards e-learning among first year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:34.
[5]Rovai AP, Wighting MJ, Baker JD, Grooms LD. Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. Inter High Educ. 2009;12(1):7-13.
[6]Pundak D, Herscovitz O, Shacham M, Wiser-Biton R. Attitudes of face-to face and e-learning instructors to ward active learning. J E-Learn Learn Obj. 2009; 5:215-32.
[7]Pragnell MV, Roselli T, Rossano V. Can a hypermedia cooperative e-learning environment stimulate constructive collaboration? J E tech. 2006;9(2):119-32.
[8]Huang LK. Planning and implementation framework for a hybrid e-learning model The context of a part-time LIS postgraduate programe. J Lib Inf Sci. 2010;42(1):45-69.
[9]Karahoca D, Dulda KA, Yucel A, Gulluoglu B, Arifoglu E. Interactive e-content development for vocational and technical education. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2010;2(2):5842-9.
[10]Sakiroglu U, Cebi A, Bezir C, Akkan Y. Views of the instructors through dynamic education content design in web environment. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2009;1(1):1012-6.
[11]Majidi A, Zandian F, Hasanzadeh M. The Evaluation of Digital Library academic expectations of the user interface screen. J Inf Sci Technocal. 2010;2(4):695-720. [Persian]
[12]El-Deghaidy H, Nouby, A. Effectiveness of a blended e-learning cooperative approach in an Egyptian teacher education programme. Comput Educ. 2008;51(3):988-1006.
[13]Orvis KA, Brusso RC, Wasserman ME, Fisher SL. E-nabled for e-learning? the moderating role of personality in determining the optimal degree of learner control in an e-learning environment. Hum Perform. 2010;24(1):60-78.
[14]Cross J. The future of eLearning. On the Horizon. 2004;12(4):150-6.
[15]Malekian F, Narimani M, Sahebjami S. The role of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to motivate learners to advance the education system based on information and communications technology. Cur-know res Educ Sci. 2009;7(25):21-38. [Persian]
[16]Riahi GH, Abedi M. Design and software development e-learning (e-learning) to learn how wind turbines renewable energy system. J Eng Educ. 2008;10(38):119-35. [Persian]
[17]Safavi GH, Abedi M. The Education from idea to action. Tehran: Res academic pub; 2009. [Persian]
[18]Ninoriya S, Chawan PM, Meshram BB. CMS, LMS and LCMS For eLearning. IJCSI. 2011;8(2):644-7.
[19]Mirzabeygi M, Kharazi SK, Mousavi SA. Design an approach based on cognitive development of electronic content for academic courses with an emphasis on the humanities in higher education. J Curr Stud. 2009;3(12):12-71. [Persian]
[20]Fathivajargah K, Kashtiaray N, Foroghi A, Zimitat K. Supervisor selection and student-supervisor relation: PhD graduates perspective. J Curric Stud. 2009;4(3):281-308. [Persian]
[21]Mehrmoohamadi M. Curriculum Theories, Approaches and Perspectives. 2nd edition. Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi Publication; 2010. [Persian]
[22]Khosravi M, Fathi Vajargah K, Maleki H, Nourozi D. An analysis of Acceptance of Curriculum Innovations in the Higher Education System: A Case Study of the Iranian Universities Curriculum Revision Bylaw. J Educ Psycol. 2013;9(27):135-66. [Persian]
[23]Dooley KE. Towards a holistic model for the diffusion of educational technologies: An integrative review of educational innovation studies. Educ Technol Soc. 1999;2(4):35-45.
[24]Ellsworth JB. Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. New York: Clearing House on Info & Tech; 2000.
[25]Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free Press; 2003.
[26]Amipour F. The e-learning in universities and institutions of higher education. J mag. 2007;2(69):217-28. [Persian]
[27]Taghiyareh F, Seyadati M. Key selection criteria of e-learning authoring tools. Q J Res Plann High Educ. 2007;13(1):75-89. [Persian]
[28]Cook DA. Where are we with Web-based learning in medical education?. Med Teach. 2006;28(7):594-8.
[29]Dadgostarnia M, Changiz T, Vafamehr V. Constructing a clinical curriculum evaluation tool based on community orientation strategy (a guide for application). Iran J of Med Educ. 2011;10(5):755-66. [Persian]
[30]Choules AP. The use of elearning in medical education: A review of the current situation. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83(978):212-6.
[31]Zandi S, Abedi D, Yousefi A, Changiz T, Yamani N, Kabiri P. The electronic learning as a new educational technology and its integration in medical education. Iran J Med Educ. 2004;61(11):58-65. [Persian]
[32]Moradidoliskani M. Identify the components and standards of professional ethics for teachers to teach Islamic Studies [Dissertation]. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad; 2014. [Persian]
[33]Vanderlinde R, van Braak J. A new ICT curriculum for primary education in Flanders: Defining and predicting teachers' perceptions of innovation attributes. Educ Tech Soc. 2011;14(2);124-35.
[34]Kazemigharechi M, Aminkhandaghi M. Evaluate the quality of electronic content from the perspective of Mashhad university of Medical Sciences. J ICT Educ. 2014;4(4):75-93. [Persian]
[35]Latifnejad Roudsari R, Jafari H, Hosseini BL, Esfalani A. Measuring students' knowledge and attitude towards e-learning in Mashhad university of medical sciences (MUMS). Iran J Med Educ. 2011;10(4):364-73. [Persian]
[36]Akbaryborng M, Jafarisuny H, Ahanchian MR, Kareshki H. Curriculum orientations among faculty: The role of gender, academic level and learning approach (face-to-face and virtual) in Mashhad university of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2012;12(3):210-9. [Persian]
[37]Alavi Sh, Shariati M. Investigating Employees Satisfaction with E-learning Courses in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2010;10(3):200-10. [Persian]
[38]Mohammadi A, Mohammadi J. Survey of lecturers' opinions about the learning environment at Zanjan university of medical sciences J Med Educ Dev. 2014;7(15):117-26. [Persian]
[39]Mousavi F, Saeydipour B, Rostami M. The factors affecting the adoption and use of ICT among rural youth based on innovation diffusion theory of Rogers. J Soc Sci. 2012;6(17):165-84. [Persian]
[40]Seyednaghavi MA. Study of teachers and students attitude toward e-learning: Surveying in Iran’s e-learning universities. Q Res Plan High Educ. 2007;13(1):157-76. [Persian]