@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(4):275-264
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(4):275-264
Qualification of E-Learning; Medical Education Courses of Tehran University of Medical Sciences
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Hakimzadeh R. (* )Afandideh N. (1 )
(* ) Curriculum & Instruction Methods Department, Psychology & Educational Sciences Faculty, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Education Department, Medicine School, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Address: Dr. Kardan Street, Across From the Kooye Nasr, Jalal-e-Al Ahmad Highway, Tehran, Iran. Post Box: 6456-14155Phone: +982161117522
Fax: +982188254735
hakimzadeh@ut.ac.ir
Article History
Received: April 12, 2014Accepted: September 15, 2014
ePublished: October 7, 2014
ABSTRACT
Aims
Evaluating the viewpoints of students and teachers is the way to improve quality of
E-learning of the course. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of E-learning course at the
Masters level of medical education in Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Materials & Methods This cross-sectional study was done on 118 master students of Medical Education and 11 university teacher of Medical Education Department of Medicine School, (Hemmat Pardis) of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2011-12 that all subjects were selected by census sampling method. Data collected by a researcher-made questionnaire with 32 questions. Data collected in five domains including instructional design, interactivity, courses content, individual learning opportunities and evaluation of the period. To analyze data, SPSS 16 software using independent T-test was used.
Findings The quality of course content and individual learning opportunities domains were at an optimum level, instructional design and evaluation of the period domains were at the relatively ideal level, and interactivity domain was at the unsatisfactory level. There was no significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ views on the quality of five domains.
Conclusion Quality of e-learning course at the master level of Medical Education of Medicine School of Tehran University of Medical Sciences assessed at a relatively favorable level according to the average of assessed five domains.
Materials & Methods This cross-sectional study was done on 118 master students of Medical Education and 11 university teacher of Medical Education Department of Medicine School, (Hemmat Pardis) of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2011-12 that all subjects were selected by census sampling method. Data collected by a researcher-made questionnaire with 32 questions. Data collected in five domains including instructional design, interactivity, courses content, individual learning opportunities and evaluation of the period. To analyze data, SPSS 16 software using independent T-test was used.
Findings The quality of course content and individual learning opportunities domains were at an optimum level, instructional design and evaluation of the period domains were at the relatively ideal level, and interactivity domain was at the unsatisfactory level. There was no significant difference between the teachers’ and students’ views on the quality of five domains.
Conclusion Quality of e-learning course at the master level of Medical Education of Medicine School of Tehran University of Medical Sciences assessed at a relatively favorable level according to the average of assessed five domains.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Reime MH, Harris A, Aksnes J, Mikkelsen J. The most successful method in teaching nursing students infection control - E-learning or lecture?. Nurse Educ Today. 2008;28(7):798-806.
[2]LaBay DG, Comm CL. A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning versus traditional course delivery. Int J Educ Manag. 2003;17(7):312-7.
[3]Yazdani F, Ebrahimzadeh I, Zandi B, Alipour A, Zare H. Recognizing of fundamental factors in effectiveness of e-learning systems. J Inform Process Manag. 2012;27(2):385-411. [Persian]
[4]MacBeath J, Mcglynn A. Self-Evaluation: What's In It For Schools?. London: Routledge; 2002.
[5]McGorry SY. Measuring quality in online programs. Internet High Educ. 2003;6(2):159-177.
[6]Salmon G. Pedagogic requirements of virtual learning environments (VLEs): PETS and PLANETS, The 24 hour university: Stretching the limits UCISA TLIG-SDG User Support Conference; 2002.
[7]Seth N, Deshmukh SG, Vrat P. A framework for measurement of quality of service in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 2006;11(1):82-90.
[8]Rahimi H, Shahin A, Agha Babayi R. Analysis of virtual and face to face training quality. Bimonthly Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2014;7(2):75-81 [Persian]
[9]Khalifeh G, Razavi SA. Quality assurance and evaluation in electronic learning using the importance-performance analysis model. Media. 2012;3(1):41-50. [Persian]
[10]Weber H. Justification and methods of university education. A European perspective; 2003. Available from: http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/events/03022201/pdf/paper/weber.pdf.
[11]Lim PC, Tang NK. A study of patients' expectations and satisfaction in Singapore hospitals. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2000;13(6-7):290-9.
[12]Bennet DC. Assessing quality in higher education. J Liberal Educ. 2001;87(2):40-5.
[13]Anarinejad A, Saketi P, Safavi AA. The conceptual framework of evaluating e-learning programs in higher education institutions. J Technol Educ. 2010;4(3):1941-201. [Persian]
[14]Fathi Vajarghah K, Shafii N. Assess the quality of the academic curriculum. J Curriculum Stud. 2007;5(1735-4986):1-26. [Persian]
[15]Seraji F, Attaran M. E-learning: Foundation, design, implementation & evaluation. Hamedan: Buali Sina University Press; 2011. [Persian]
[16]Momeni Rad A, Aliabadi KH. Quality assurance of e-learning by using electronic learning standards. Iran J Educ Strateg. 2010;2(3):87-92 . [Persian]
[17]Almasude A. Book review: E-education applications: Human factors and innovatative approaches. Educ Technol Soc. 2004;7(3):141-3.
[18]Norollahee S, Hakimzadeh R, Seraji F, Nazarzadeh Zare M. The evaluation of e-learning courses in hadith science virtual faculty according to the criteria of quality in e-learning from the views of students and instructors. Media. 2013;4(2):1-12.
[19]Moussiades L, Lliopolou A. Guidelines for evaluating e-learning environments. Interact Technol Smart Educ. 2006;3(3):173-84.
[20]TSU Online course Evaluation Criteria. Adapted in 2006 from Missouri Baptist university center for Distance learning and the Rubric for online Instruction published by California State University at Chico; 2008.
[21]Seok S, Meyen E, Aust R, Fitzpatrick M, Newberry B. Three dimensions of the online course evaluation instrument in postsecondary education. Peru: Proceedings of the Ninth LASTED International Conference Computers and Advanced Technology in Education; 2006.
[22]Zarif Sanaee N. Assessing the criteria for the quality and effectiveness of e-learning in hgher education. Media. 2011;1(3):24-32.
[23]Paechter M, Maier B, Macher D. Students' expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput Educ. 2010;54(1):222-9.
[24]Momenirad A, Aliabadi Kh. An investigation of the quality of e-learning courses based on e-learning standards in the field of information technology engineering in Khajehnasir Al-din Toosi University of Tecnology. Train Measur. 2012;3(7):113-29.
[25]Pomales-García C, Liu Y. Web-based distance learning technology: Interface design variables and their effects. Int J Instruct Technol Distance Learn. 2006;3(5):1-97.
[26]Hussin H, Bunyarit F, Hussein R. Instructional design and e-learning: Examining learners’ perspective in Malaysian institutions of higher learning. Campus Wide Inf Sys. 2009;26(1):4-19.
[27]Ghaedi B. Evaluation the curriculum of virtual education from the views of students and professors of IT of Elm and Sanat University in 2004-2005 [Dissertation]. Tehran: Kharazmi University; 2006.
[28]Rahmani B. A survey of analysis the educational program the trial course of virtual education of the Hadith Sciences Faculty [Dissertation]. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University; 2005.
[29]Aghakaseri Z. Evaluation the programs of virtual education of Universities of the Tehran from the views of students and professors this trograms [Dissertation]. Tehran: Kharazmi University; 2006.
[30]Zidat S, Djoudi M. Online evaluation of Ibn Sina e-learning environment. Inf Technol J. 2006;5(3):409-15.
[31]Hewitt-Taylor J. Facilitating distance learning in nurse education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2003;3(1):23-9.
[32]Chen SY. Evalnating the learning effectiveness of using web-based introduction: An individual differene Approach. Int J Inf Commun Technol Educ. 2005;1(1):69-82.
[2]LaBay DG, Comm CL. A case study using gap analysis to assess distance learning versus traditional course delivery. Int J Educ Manag. 2003;17(7):312-7.
[3]Yazdani F, Ebrahimzadeh I, Zandi B, Alipour A, Zare H. Recognizing of fundamental factors in effectiveness of e-learning systems. J Inform Process Manag. 2012;27(2):385-411. [Persian]
[4]MacBeath J, Mcglynn A. Self-Evaluation: What's In It For Schools?. London: Routledge; 2002.
[5]McGorry SY. Measuring quality in online programs. Internet High Educ. 2003;6(2):159-177.
[6]Salmon G. Pedagogic requirements of virtual learning environments (VLEs): PETS and PLANETS, The 24 hour university: Stretching the limits UCISA TLIG-SDG User Support Conference; 2002.
[7]Seth N, Deshmukh SG, Vrat P. A framework for measurement of quality of service in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag Int J. 2006;11(1):82-90.
[8]Rahimi H, Shahin A, Agha Babayi R. Analysis of virtual and face to face training quality. Bimonthly Educ Strateg Med Sci. 2014;7(2):75-81 [Persian]
[9]Khalifeh G, Razavi SA. Quality assurance and evaluation in electronic learning using the importance-performance analysis model. Media. 2012;3(1):41-50. [Persian]
[10]Weber H. Justification and methods of university education. A European perspective; 2003. Available from: http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/events/03022201/pdf/paper/weber.pdf.
[11]Lim PC, Tang NK. A study of patients' expectations and satisfaction in Singapore hospitals. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2000;13(6-7):290-9.
[12]Bennet DC. Assessing quality in higher education. J Liberal Educ. 2001;87(2):40-5.
[13]Anarinejad A, Saketi P, Safavi AA. The conceptual framework of evaluating e-learning programs in higher education institutions. J Technol Educ. 2010;4(3):1941-201. [Persian]
[14]Fathi Vajarghah K, Shafii N. Assess the quality of the academic curriculum. J Curriculum Stud. 2007;5(1735-4986):1-26. [Persian]
[15]Seraji F, Attaran M. E-learning: Foundation, design, implementation & evaluation. Hamedan: Buali Sina University Press; 2011. [Persian]
[16]Momeni Rad A, Aliabadi KH. Quality assurance of e-learning by using electronic learning standards. Iran J Educ Strateg. 2010;2(3):87-92 . [Persian]
[17]Almasude A. Book review: E-education applications: Human factors and innovatative approaches. Educ Technol Soc. 2004;7(3):141-3.
[18]Norollahee S, Hakimzadeh R, Seraji F, Nazarzadeh Zare M. The evaluation of e-learning courses in hadith science virtual faculty according to the criteria of quality in e-learning from the views of students and instructors. Media. 2013;4(2):1-12.
[19]Moussiades L, Lliopolou A. Guidelines for evaluating e-learning environments. Interact Technol Smart Educ. 2006;3(3):173-84.
[20]TSU Online course Evaluation Criteria. Adapted in 2006 from Missouri Baptist university center for Distance learning and the Rubric for online Instruction published by California State University at Chico; 2008.
[21]Seok S, Meyen E, Aust R, Fitzpatrick M, Newberry B. Three dimensions of the online course evaluation instrument in postsecondary education. Peru: Proceedings of the Ninth LASTED International Conference Computers and Advanced Technology in Education; 2006.
[22]Zarif Sanaee N. Assessing the criteria for the quality and effectiveness of e-learning in hgher education. Media. 2011;1(3):24-32.
[23]Paechter M, Maier B, Macher D. Students' expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Comput Educ. 2010;54(1):222-9.
[24]Momenirad A, Aliabadi Kh. An investigation of the quality of e-learning courses based on e-learning standards in the field of information technology engineering in Khajehnasir Al-din Toosi University of Tecnology. Train Measur. 2012;3(7):113-29.
[25]Pomales-García C, Liu Y. Web-based distance learning technology: Interface design variables and their effects. Int J Instruct Technol Distance Learn. 2006;3(5):1-97.
[26]Hussin H, Bunyarit F, Hussein R. Instructional design and e-learning: Examining learners’ perspective in Malaysian institutions of higher learning. Campus Wide Inf Sys. 2009;26(1):4-19.
[27]Ghaedi B. Evaluation the curriculum of virtual education from the views of students and professors of IT of Elm and Sanat University in 2004-2005 [Dissertation]. Tehran: Kharazmi University; 2006.
[28]Rahmani B. A survey of analysis the educational program the trial course of virtual education of the Hadith Sciences Faculty [Dissertation]. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University; 2005.
[29]Aghakaseri Z. Evaluation the programs of virtual education of Universities of the Tehran from the views of students and professors this trograms [Dissertation]. Tehran: Kharazmi University; 2006.
[30]Zidat S, Djoudi M. Online evaluation of Ibn Sina e-learning environment. Inf Technol J. 2006;5(3):409-15.
[31]Hewitt-Taylor J. Facilitating distance learning in nurse education. Nurse Educ Pract. 2003;3(1):23-9.
[32]Chen SY. Evalnating the learning effectiveness of using web-based introduction: An individual differene Approach. Int J Inf Commun Technol Educ. 2005;1(1):69-82.