@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
ABSTRACT
Aims
Tendency and attention of universities to use social networks features and select them
as a communicational mechanism for the educational and investigational advancement make
them an undeniable necessity to develop training and knowledge. This study aimed to design
a model for utilization of social networks in training and improvement of university teachers.
Materials & Methods The present study was carried out using the “Ground theory” with qualitative approach. Data analysis was done using open, axial, and selective coding. Data collected by searching the documents and interview. 3 books and 11 articles were selected by purposive sampling and 18 subjects were interviewed semi-structurally. Each interview lasted 60 minutes. Studying the documents and interviews was done according to the researcher data saturation.
Findings 24 concepts in documents and 71 concepts in interviews were noted and then, based on similarities to the initial and concentrated coding; some codes were assigned to the similar cases and converted to 10 considered issues.
Conclusion The social network-based curriculum model includes teaching strategies of logical thinking, teaching complicated interaction methods and teaching technical skills to the university teachers to achieve effective learning.
Materials & Methods The present study was carried out using the “Ground theory” with qualitative approach. Data analysis was done using open, axial, and selective coding. Data collected by searching the documents and interview. 3 books and 11 articles were selected by purposive sampling and 18 subjects were interviewed semi-structurally. Each interview lasted 60 minutes. Studying the documents and interviews was done according to the researcher data saturation.
Findings 24 concepts in documents and 71 concepts in interviews were noted and then, based on similarities to the initial and concentrated coding; some codes were assigned to the similar cases and converted to 10 considered issues.
Conclusion The social network-based curriculum model includes teaching strategies of logical thinking, teaching complicated interaction methods and teaching technical skills to the university teachers to achieve effective learning.
CITATION 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.