الگوی توسعه حرفه‌ای اعضای هیات علمی آموزش الکترونیکی کشور: پژوهشی کیفی
محورهای موضوعی : شایستگی های مورد نیاز رهبران منابع انسانی
جواد پورکریمی
1
(دانشگاه تهران)
انسیه رمضان پور
2
(دانشگاه تهران)
کلید واژه: توسعه حرفه¬, ایمدرسانآموزش الکترونیک,
چکیده مقاله :
توسعه حرفه ای اعضای هیات علمی به عنوان یک مؤلفه کلیدی و مهم در کیفیت آموزش و بهبود فرایند یاددهی-یادگیری تلقّی می شود. با توجه به خلاء موجود در زمینه الگوی مناسب توسعه حرفه ای اعضای هیات علمی آموزش الکترونیکی در داخل کشور، پژوهش حاضر با هدف طراحی الگوی توسعه حرفه ای اعضای هیات علمی آموزش الکترونیکی انجام شده است. روش پژوهش به جهت هدف، کاربردی و از نظر نحوه گردآوری داده ها، از نوع کیفی بوده که با استفاده از روش داده بنیاد با رویکرد نوخاسته (رویکرد گلیزری) انجام شد. ابزار مورد استفاده مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته بود و جامعه آماری اعضای هیات علمی مجرب در زمینه آموزش الکترونیک بود که با شیوه نمونه گیری هدفمند تعداد 22 نفر از آ ن ها به عنوان نمونه مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت و داده ها با این تعداد مصاحبه به اشباع رسید. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها از طریق تحلیل مضمون (تم) صورت گرفت. یافته ها پژوهش در نهایت، 659 کد باز، 57 مقوله اولیه و 15 مقوله ثانویه را تشکیل داد. نتایج نشان داد برای توسعه اعضای هیات علمی آموزش الکترونیک باید به 5 بعد اصلی: بعد توسعه دانش (با 4 بعد)، توسعه مهارت (با 3 بعد)، توسعه توانایی (با 2 بعد)، توسعه نگرش (با 3 بعد) و توسعه ویژگی ها (با 3 بعد) توجه نمود.
Professional development of faculty members is considered as a key component of the quality of teaching and learning process improvement. The present study was aimed at designing a model for professional development of e-learning instructors. The methodology of the research was applied to the purpose and the method of data collection was of a qualitative type which was performed using the data approach of the foundation with a Emergence approach (Glaser approach). The tool used was semi-structured interview and the statistical population of the faculty members was in the field of e-learning. Using a targeted sampling method, 22 of them were sampled and the data were saturated. Findings The study eventually comprised 659 open codes, 57 primary and 15 secondary categories. The results showed that for the development of faculty members, e-learning should focus on five main dimensions: the dimension of knowledge development (with 4 dimensions), skill development (with 3 dimensions), ability development (with 2 dimensions), development of attitude (with 3 dimensions) and development Features (with 3 dimensions).
1- Battou A, Baz O, Mammass D. Learning design approaches for designing virtual learning environments. Communications on Applied Electronics. 2016 Sep;5(9):31-7.
2- Spector JM. Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart learning environments. 2014 Dec 1;1(1):2.
3- Posey G, Burgess T, Eason M, Jones Y. The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Virtual Classroom and the Role of the Teacher. InSouthwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference, March 2010 (pp. 2-6).
4- Merchant Z, Goetz ET, Cifuentes L, Keeney-Kennicutt W, Davis TJ. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education. 2014 Jan 1;70:29-40.
5- Martha LA. Teaching and Learning Online. Massachusetts :University of Massachusetts Amherst. 2015.
6- Arkorful V, Abaidoo N. The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2015 Jan;12(1):29-42.
7- 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 Nov 1;32(3):421-39.
8- Palloff RM, Pratt K. The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. John Wiley & Sons; 2011 Jan 11.
9- Georgina DA, Hosford CC. Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2009 Jul 1;25(5):690-6.
10- Roby T, Ashe S, Singh N, Clark C. Shaping the online experience: How administrators can influence student and instructor perceptions through policy and practice. The Internet and Higher Education. 2013 Apr 1;17:29-37.
11- Dyment J, Downing J, Budd Y. Framing teacher educator engagement in an online environment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2013;38(1):9.
12- Pearcy M. Student, teacher, professor: Three perspectives on online education. The History Teacher. 2014 Feb 1;47(2):169-85.
13- Ostashewski NM, Reid D, Moisey S. Applying constructionist principles to online teacher professional development. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2011 Oct 7;12(6):143-56.
14- Kokoc M, Ozlu A, Cimer A, Karal H. Teachers' Views on the Potential Use of Online In-Service Education and Training Activities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2011 Oct;12(4):68-87.
15- Eliason SK, Holmes CL. Reflective practice and inquiry in professional development for online teaching. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching. 2010 Jun;6(2).
16- Gosper M, McNeill M, Phillips R, Preston G, Woo K, Green D. Web-based lecture technologies and learning and teaching: a study of change in four Australian universities. ALT-J. 2010 Nov 1;18(3):251-63.
17- Bawane J, Spector JM. Prioritization of online instructor roles: implications for competency‐based teacher education programs. Distance Education. 2009 Nov 1;30(3):383-97.
18- Adnan M, Kalelioglu F, Gulbahar Y. Assessment of a Multinational Online Faculty Development Program on Online Teaching: Reflections of Candidate E-Tutors. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2017 Jan;18(1):22-38.
19- Gulbahar Y, Kalelioglu F. Competencies for e-Instructors: How to Qualify and Guarantee Sustainability. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2015;6(2):140-54.
20- Richey RC, Fields DC, Foxon M. Instructional design competencies: The standards. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 160, Syracuse, NY 13244-5290; 2001 Mar.
21- Goodyear P, Salmon G, Spector JM, Steeples C, Tickner S. Competences for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2001 Mar 1;49(1):65-72.
22- Levinsen KT. Collaborative On-Line Teaching: The Inevitable Path to Deep Learning and Knowledge Sharing?. Electronic Journal of E-learning. 2006;4(1):41-8.
23- Varvel VE. Master online teacher competencies. Online journal of distance learning administration. 2007 Mar 15;10(1):1-41.
24- Guasch T, Alvarez I, Espasa A. University teacher competencies in a virtual teaching/learning environment: Analysis of a teacher training experience. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2010 Feb 1;26(2):199-206.
25- Unesco IC. Competency framework for teachers. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2011.
26- Bigatel PM, Ragan LC, Kennan S, May J, Redmond BF. The identification of competencies for online teaching success. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2012 Jan;16(1):59-77.
27- Narenji thani F, Ebadi R, Mostafavi Z, Youzbashi A. Identification of Learning Needs Among Faculty at E-Higher Education. Educational Study. 2016; 3(10).
28- Aslami M, Esmaeili Z, Saeedipour B, Sarmadi MR. Designing a Model of Teachers Professional Competency in an E- Learning Environment Using the Meta-synthesis Method. The 11th Iranian Electronic Learning Conference. 2017.
29- Farhangi M, Ferosatkhah M. Examination of the faculty member's competency model in the virtual environment in terms of faculty members and students (based on the Armanor model). Journal of Iran Information and Communication Technology. 2014; 7(21), 14-1.
30- Al-Hunaiyyan A, Al-Sharhan S, Al-Sharrah H. A new instructional competency model: towards an effective e-learning system and environment. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science. 2012;5:94-103.
31- Salmon G. E-moderating. Routledge; 2004 Jan 22.
32- Association for Talent Development (ATD). The ATD competency model. 2014. Retrieved on 16 Nov. 2018 from https://www.td.org/certification/atd-competency-model
33- Salmon G. E-moderating: the key to online teaching and learning. Routledge; 2012 Jan 4.
34- Richter D, Kunter M, Klusmann U, Lüdtke O, Baumert J. Professional development across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportunities. Teaching and teacher education. 2011 Jan 1;27(1):116-26.
35- Serumola PA. Improving performance in higher education: An investigation of perspective transformation in teacher professional development programs. Syracuse University; 2009.
36- Cain LM. The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: A case study. University of Southern California; 2007.
37- Weiss HB. From the director's desk. The Evaluation Exchange. 2005, 10, 1.
38- Porter AC, Garet MS, Desimone LM, Birman BF. Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Science Educator. 2003 Apr 1;12(1):23.
39- Bouffard S, Little P. Promoting Quality through Professional Development: A Framework for Evaluation. Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation. Number 8. Harvard University Harvard Family Research Project. 2004 Aug.
40- Rahimi G, Vahedi M. A study of the relationship between senior line and staff managers’ development in Ministry of Education and organizational effectiveness in the Educational System of Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011 Jan 1;29:927-31.