سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

عبداللهی, اسماعیل, رضائی‌زاده, مرتضی, جعفری, اسماعیل. (1401). مکانیسم تعامل بین پیشران‌های یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس: کاوشی بر اهمیت ویژه محیط و بافت یادگیری. , 15(2), 9-36. doi: 10.48308/mpes.2022.102406
اسماعیل عبداللهی; مرتضی رضائی‌زاده; اسماعیل جعفری. "مکانیسم تعامل بین پیشران‌های یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس: کاوشی بر اهمیت ویژه محیط و بافت یادگیری". , 15, 2, 1401, 9-36. doi: 10.48308/mpes.2022.102406
عبداللهی, اسماعیل, رضائی‌زاده, مرتضی, جعفری, اسماعیل. (1401). 'مکانیسم تعامل بین پیشران‌های یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس: کاوشی بر اهمیت ویژه محیط و بافت یادگیری', , 15(2), pp. 9-36. doi: 10.48308/mpes.2022.102406
عبداللهی, اسماعیل, رضائی‌زاده, مرتضی, جعفری, اسماعیل. مکانیسم تعامل بین پیشران‌های یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس: کاوشی بر اهمیت ویژه محیط و بافت یادگیری. , 1401; 15(2): 9-36. doi: 10.48308/mpes.2022.102406

مکانیسم تعامل بین پیشران‌های یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس: کاوشی بر اهمیت ویژه محیط و بافت یادگیری

مدیریت و برنامه ریزی در نظام های آموزشی
مقاله 1، دوره 15، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 29، 1401، صفحه 9-36    اصل مقاله (1.43 M)
نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/mpes.2022.102406
نویسندگان
اسماعیل عبداللهی* 1؛ مرتضی رضائی‌زاده2؛ اسماعیل جعفری3
1دانشجوی دکتری رشته فناوری اطلاعات در آموزش عالی، گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایرا
3استادیار گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
هدف: تدریس و یادگیری به‌عنوان فعالیت‌های اصلی دانشگاه‌ها و مؤسسه‌های آموزش عالی محسوب می‌شوند که یا در محیط‌های رسمی و یا با آموزش‌های غیررسمی صورت می‌گیرد. به‌منظور ارائه یک رویکرد نوآورانه برای تدریس و یادگیری دانشگاهی، پژوهش حاضر به دنبال معرفی یک مدل طراحی تدریس تلفیقی بود؛ مدل پداگوژیکی که «یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس» یا Fibtel نامیده می‌شود.
مواد و روش‌ها: به لحاظ هدف، این پژوهش از نوع کاربردی بود و از لحاظ چگونگی گردآوری داده‌های مورد نیاز برای پاسخ به دو سؤال‌ پژوهش، در گروه طرح‌های پژوهشی ترکیبی-اکتشافی طبقه‌بندی می‌شود. برای شناسایی پیشران‌های ‌Fibtel و عناصر زیرمجموعه آن‌ها، از مرور نظام‌مند و تحلیل محتوای استقرایی 59 مقاله با اعتبار علمی Q1 و Q2، پیمایش هدف‌مند دیدگاه 30 نفر از متخصصان آموزش عالی و جلسه مدیریت تعاملی با حضور هدف‌مند 13 نفر از خبرگان استفاده شد. به‌منظور مدل‌سازی ساختاری-تفسیری پیشران‌های مذکور، از طریق پرسشنامه «ماتریس خودتعاملی ساختاری» داده‌های مرتبط با دیدگاه 22 نفر از متخصصانی که به‌صورت هدف‌مند انتخاب شده بودند، جمع‌آوری گردید و از طریق تکنیک میک‌مک مورد واکاوی قرار گرفتند. نمونه‌های آماری پژوهش از طریق روش نمونه‌گیری آگاهی‌دهندگان مطلوب در دسترس انتخاب شدند. ضمن اینکه، به‌منظور بالا بردن دقت و توافق بین یافته‌ها، از اعتبارپذیری تفسیری استفاده شده است.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان داد مدل ساختاری-تفسیری Fibtel با سه سطح رابطه، دارای 9 پیشران علّی و 76 عنصر زیرمجموعه است که عموماً از جنس سازنده‌گرا می‌باشند؛ شامل: بافت یادگیری، طراحی برنامه آموزشی، الزامات و نیازمندی‌های فناورانه، شایستگی‌های یادگیرندگان، محتوا و منابع یادگیری، تسهیل‌گری، فعالیت‌های یادگیری، فرصت‌های تعامل و سنجش یادگیری و بازخورد. به استثنای رابطه یک‌طرفه پیشران بافت یادگیری، مکانیسم تعامل سایر پیشران‌ها دوطرفه و پیوندی است. این نوع مکانیسم روابط نشان می‌دهد: 1. بافت و فرهنگ سازمانی در محیط‌های دانشگاهی ایران از اهمیت و تأثیرگذاری زیادی بر روی سایر عوامل مؤثر در یادگیری برخوردار است. از این‌رو، بدون اصلاح و تغییر این بافت و فرهنگ سازمانی، عملاً تغییر در سایر عوامل مؤثر در ارتقای یادگیری نیز نتیجه چندانی نخواهند داشت. 2. برای انجام تغییرهای بزرگ در سیستم کلاس درس دانشگاهی، نیاز به طراحی برنامه‌های گسترده یا فناوری‌های متنوع نیست؛ بلکه باید نقاط حیاتی، حساس و تعیین‌کننده یادگیری دانشجویان یا همان پیشران‌ها و عناصر یادگیری را پیدا کرد و آنگاه با اِعمال تغییری کوچک و هوشمندانه در رابطه بین هر کدام از آن‌ها، یادگیری و پژوهش دانشگاهی را به سوی تغییرهای بزرگ‌تر هدایت کرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
پیشران‌ یادگیری؛ مدل‌سازی ساختاری-تفسیری؛ یادگیری پرسشگری؛ یادگیری فناورانه مبتنی بر پرسشگری معکوس؛ یادگیری معکوس
عنوان مقاله [English]
The Mechanism of Interaction between the Driving Forces of Flipped Inquiry-Based Technological Learning (Fibtel): Exploring the Special Importance of Learning Environment and Context
نویسندگان [English]
Esmaeil Abdollahi1؛ Morteza Rezaei-Zadeh2؛ Esmaeil Jafari3
1Ph.D. Student of Information Technology in Higher Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Objectives: Teaching and learning are one of the main activities of universities and institutes of higher education that take place either in formal environments or with non-formal education. To present an innovative approach to academic teaching and learning, the present study sought to introduce a design model for mixed teaching methods; the pedagogical model is called "Flipped Inquiry-Based Technological Learning" or Fibtel.
Materials and Methods: In terms of purpose, this study was an applied one and in terms of how to collect the data needed to answer the two research questions, it is classified as an exploratory mixed method design. A systematic review and inductive content analysis of 59 articles with Q1 and Q2 scientific validity, a purposeful survey of the views of 30 higher education specialists, and an interactive management (IM) session with the purposeful presence of 13 experts were used to identify the Fibtel driving forces and their sub-elements. To interpretive-structural modeling (ISM) of the mentioned drives, data related to the views of 22 purposefully selected specialists were collected through a structural self-interaction matrix questionnaire and analyzed through cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC) technique. The statistical samples of the study were selected through the favorable informants’ method. In addition, interpretive validity has been used to increase the accuracy and agreement through the findings. 
Discussion & Conclusions: The results showed that the Fibtel interpretive-structural model with three levels of interaction has 9 causal driving forces and 76 sub-elements which are generally constructivism type: learning context, instructional plan designing, technological requirements, learners' competencies, learning content and resources, facilitation, learning activities, interaction opportunities, and learning assessment and feedback. Except for the one-way interaction of the learning context driver, the interaction mechanism of other driving forces is a two-way linkage. This type of interaction mechanism suggests 1. The organizational context and culture in Iranian university settings are very important and their influence on other factors affects learning. Therefore, without modifying and changing the organizational context and culture, changes in other factors that affect learning promotion will not have much effect practically. 2. To make major changes to the academic classroom system, there is no need to design extensive programs or a variety of technologies; rather, it is necessary to identify and find the critical, sensitive, and determined points of students' learning (drivers and their elements). Then, by applying a small and intelligent change in the interaction between them, steer academic learning and research toward greater change.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Learning Driving Force, Interpretive-structural Modeling, Inquiry Learning, Flipped Inquiry Based Technological Learning, Flipped Learning
مراجع

Ababaf, Z. (2017). Curriculum knowledge of faculty members: Neglected professional competency in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies, 7(14), 103-130.

Ahmad, M., Tang, X. W., Qiu, J. N., & Ahmad, F. (2019). Interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis for identifying and benchmarking significant factors of seismic soil liquefaction. Applied Sciences, 9(2), 1-21.

Akçayır, G., & Akçayır, M. (2018). The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges. Computers & Education, 126, 334-345.

Alikahni, P., RezaeiZadeh, M., & Vahidi-Asl, M. (2018). The analysis of “Fetch! Lunch Rush” as an Augmented Reality multi-player game in cooperative learning. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 13(4), 39-62.

Al‐Zahrani, A. M. (2015). From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students’ creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1133-1148.

Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227-236.

Bakhshaliizade, S., Fathi Vajargah, K., Arefi, M., Kiamanesh, A. (2020). Required faculty competencies for teaching in higher education institutes in technology era. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 15(1), 83-100.

Betihavas, V., Bridgman, H., Kornhaber, R., & Cross, M. (2016). The evidence for ‘flipping out’: A systematic review of the flipped classroom in nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 38, 15-21.

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and quantity, 36(4), 391-409.

Bokosmaty, R., Bridgeman, A., & Muir, M. (2019). Using a partially flipped learning model to teach first year undergraduate chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(4), 629-639.

Bouwmeester, R. A., de Kleijn, R. A., van den Berg, I. E., ten Cate, O. T. J., van Rijen, H. V., & Westerveld, H. E. (2019). Flipping the medical classroom: Effect on workload, interactivity, motivation and retention of knowledge. Computers & Education, 139, 118-128.

Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2015). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Routledge.

Burla, L., Knierim, B., Barth, J., Liewald, K., Duetz, M., & Abel, T. (2008). From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing research, 57(2), 113-117.

Canelas, D. A., Hill, J. L., & Novicki, A. (2017). Cooperative learning in organic chemistry increases student assessment of learning gains in key transferable skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(3), 441-456.

Chang, C. Y., Kao, C. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Facilitating students’ critical thinking and decision making performances: A flipped classroom for neonatal health care training. Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 32-46.

Chang, S. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guiding approach on students’ scientific project performance and perceptions. Computers & Education, 125, 226-239.

Chenari, Z., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Bandali, B. (2023). Designing a prototype of coaching software and measuring its usability. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ). 17(1), 1-22.

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP nough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27.

Chen, M. (2010). Education Nation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

DeLozier, S. J., & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas and recommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151.

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic books.

Ghazanfari Hashemi, N., Musapour, N., & Hosseini khah, A. (2020). The nature and foundation of synergistic curriculum. Journal of Theory & Practice in Curriculum, 14(7), 97-148.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-607.

Grover, R., Achleitner, H., Thomas, N., Wyatt, R., & Vowell, F. N. (1997). The wind beneath our wings: Chaos theory and the butterfly effect in curriculum design. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 38(4), 268–282.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 233-252.

Hunt, I., Ryan, A., hAodha, M. Ó., & Rezaei-Zadeh, M. (2022). Industry requirements, thesis-writing and the emergence of flexible educational programmes: Reflections on the university learner experience. Industry and Higher Education, 36(3), 319-333.

Kantanen, H., Koponen, J., Sointu, E., & Valtonen, T. (2019). Including the student voice: Experiences and learning outcomes of a flipped communication course. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 82(3), 337-356.

Karabulut‐Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398-411.

Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.

Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126-140.

Lambropoulos, N., & Pitsou, C. (2020). Blended collaborative learning supporting pedagogy students’ reflective practice. Creative Education, 11(10), 1930-1946.

Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427-453.

Maarefvand, Z., Shams, G., Sabaghyan, Z. (2018). Investigating the learning culture of architecture students of Shahid Beheshti University (strengths and weaknesses). Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies, 8(21), 159-190.

Macfarlane, B. (2004). Teaching with integrity: The ethics of higher education practice. Routledge.

Mahdi, M., Yamani Duozi Sorkhabi, M., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Monadi, M. (2021). Phenomenology of educational and research inequity experiences of students based on capability approach (case study: a public university in Tehran). Iranian Journal of Educational Society, 14(2), 39-51.

Mohammadi, M., Naseri Jahromi, R., & Moeini Shahraki, H. (2013). Investigating the relationship between the effectiveness (coherence, balance and appropriateness) of the curriculum with the technical, contextual and behavioral competencies of undergraduate students in management (commercial, industrial and educational) at Shiraz University. Curriculum Research, 3 (2), 53-72.

Mojtaba_zadeh, M., abbaspour, A., makeki, H., farasatkhah, M. (2018). Accreditation and quality assurance model of Iran’s higher education system from the perspective of the experts. Journal of Research in Educational Science, 12(42), 7-24.

Munson, A., & Pierce, R. (2015). Flipping content to improve student examination performance in a pharmacogenomics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(7), 1_7.

Nasrollahinia, F., Yamani Douzi Sorkhabi, M., Farasatkhah, M., & Rezaeizadeh, M. (2022). Identifying the factors and challenges of science production in the academic field. Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, 14(4), 1-31.

Notash, H., Rezaei-Zadeh, M., Elyasi, G. M., & Talebi, K. (2019). Identifying and modelling trustworthiness competencies of cluster development agents (CDAs). Journal of Enterprising Culture, 27(01), 61-91.

O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85-95.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 17(56), 1-28.

Rahman, A. A., Aris, B., Mohamed, H., & Zaid, N. M. (2014). The influences of Flipped Classroom: A meta analysis. In Engineering Education (ICEED), 2014 IEEE 6th Conference on (pp. 24-28). IEEE.

RezaeiZadeh, M., Hogan, M., O’Reilly, J., Cunningham, J., & Murphy, E. (2017). Core entrepreneurial competencies and their interdependencies: insights from a study of Irish and Iranian entrepreneurs, university students and academics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 35-73.

Rezaei-zadeh, M., Ansari, M., & Murphy, E. (2014a). Interactive management (IM) as a qualitative research methodology: An introduction. Iranian Students Booking Agency.

Rezaei-Zadeh, M., Hogan, M., O’Reilly, J., Cleary, B., & Murphy, E. (2014b). Using interactive management to identify, rank and model entrepreneurial competencies as universities’ entrepreneurship curricula. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 57-94.

Rezaei-Zadeh, M., O’Reilly, J., Hogan, M., Cleary, B., & Murphy, E. (2013). Designing a specific tool for measuring students’ and tutors’ mutual expectations from each other in an e-learning platform. In ICELW 2013 conference proceeding (pp. 1-6).

Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge.

Seery, M. K. (2015). Flipped learning in higher education chemistry: Emerging trends and potential directions. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 758-768.

Sherrow, T., Lang, B., & Corbett, R. (2016). The flipped class: Experience in a university business communication course. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 79(2), 207-216.

Son, J. Y. (2016). Comparing physical, virtual, and hybrid flipped labs for general education biology. Online Learning, 20(3), 228-243.

Song, Y., & Kapur, M. (2017). How to flip the classroom- productive failure or traditional flipped classroom pedagogical design?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 292-305.

Sushil, S. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87-106.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70.

Tsai, C. W., Shen, P. D., & Lu, Y. J. (2015). The effects of problem-based learning with flipped classroom on elementary students’ computing skills: A case study of the production of Ebooks. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 11(2), 32-40.

Tse, W. S., Choi, L. Y., & Tang, W. S. (2019). Effects of video‐based flipped class instruction on subject reading motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 385-398.

Wang, F. H. (2019). On the relationships between behaviors and achievement in technology-mediated flipped classrooms: A two-phase online behavioral PLS-SEM model. Computers & Education, 142, 1-13. 

Wang, J., Jou, M., Lv, Y., & Huang, C. C. (2018). An investigation on teaching performances of model-based flipping classroom for physics supported by modern teaching technologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 36-48.

Watson, R. H. (1978). Interpretive structural modeling: A useful tool for technology assessment?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 11(2), 165-185.

Woolfolk, A. (2017). Educational psychology. Pearson Education.

Yusefzadeh_Chowdary, M, & Shahmoradi, M. (2016). Evaluation of teaching quality based on Hénard & Roseveare model from the PhD students perspective. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences (ESMS), 9(4), 295-305.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 17,546
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 5,055