Investigating the Current and Desired Status of Factors Influencing the Medical Universities’ Participation in the Development of Moocs from the Virtual Education Experts’ Viewpoints

Barzekar, A; Karimian, Z; Mehrabi, M

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Articles archive

For Authors

For Reviewers

Registration

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Registered in

Open Access Policy

Spring

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page

Investigating the Current and Desired Status of Factors Influencing the Medical Universities’ Participation in the Development of Moocs from the Virtual Education Experts’ Viewpoints

A Barzekar

, Z Karimian ^*

, M Mehrabi

Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , z_karimian_z@yahoo.com

Abstract: (166 Views)

Introduction: Various factors influence the level of university participation in the development of MOOCs. This research aims to determine and compare the importance and status of dimensions affecting the development of MOOCs from the virtual education experts’ views in Iranian medical universities.
Method: This descriptive survey was conducted in 2021-2022 from the perspective of 206 experts of virtual education in Iranian medical universities. The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions on a 5-point Likert scale with a cut-off point of 3. The validity of the tool was confirmed using CVR and CVI content analysis, and reliability was confirmed using internal consistency and Cronbach's alpha with a value of 0.949. The data were analyzed using and paired t-test, independent t-test, and ANOVA through SPSS.
Results: The comparison between the current and desired states of the components revealed significant differences in the cultural components (P<0.001, t=32.54), structural components (P< 0.001, t= 31.47), political components (P< 0.001, t= 32.05), and human resources (P< 0.001, t= 34.66). The current situation was found to be below the expected level (desired states). In evaluating the items, the lowest scores were related to holding national festivals(1.67±0.92), encouraging prominent activities(1.67±0.82), the sense of belonging and membership of the national MOOC (1.77±0.95), the existence of motivational mechanisms for teachers (1.82±1.01) and educational experts (1.82±1.13) (P<0.001). In addition, attention to fair power distribution(1.94±1.02) and appropriate profitability for both contracting parties(1.89±1.06) had the lowest average scores. Investigating the desired status, support services of virtual development centers(4.66±0.66), faculty development (4.65±0.74), motivational mechanisms (4.55±0.79), and compilation of educational indicators and guidelines (4.54±0.79) had the highest averages.
Conclusion: Based on results, The development of MOOCs encompasses multiple dimensions. it seems that determining |motivational mechanisms, the interactive relationship between e-learning policy-makers and universities of medical sciences, fair distribution of power and resources, and the creation of common goals and roadmap to promote integration and synergy in effective and efficient activities is necessary.

Keywords: MOOC, Participation, Faculty Member, E-Learning, Medical university

Full-Text [PDF 661 kb] (65 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Educational technology, e-Learning,Virtual Education

References

1. Bettiol S, Psereckis R, MacIntyre K. A perspective of massive open online courses (MOOCs) and public health. Front Public Health 2022; 10:1058383. [DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1058383]

2. Moeinikia M, Aryani E, Zahed Bablan A, Mousavi T, Kazemi S.[Perusal the factors affecting on the implementation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) in higher education (Mixed Method)]. Educ Strategy Med Sci 2017; 9 (6):458-470. [Persian]

3. Zhu M, Sari A, Lee MM. A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014-2016). Internet High Educ 2018; 37:31-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002]

4. Mahajan R, Gupta P, Singh T. Massive Open Online Courses: Concept and Implications. Indian Pediatr 2019; 56(6): 489-495. [DOI:10.1007/s13312-019-1575-6]

5. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Higher education and the digital revolution: about MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the cookie monster. Bus Horiz 2016; 59:441-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008]

6. Sarrafzadeh M. Libraries and Librarians in the MOOC age. Sciences and Techniques of Information Management 2016; 2 (1): 11-32.

7. Karnouskos S, Holmlund M. Impact of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on Employee Competencies and Innovation. Blekinge Institute of Technology. School of Management 2014.

8. Cirulli F, Elia G, Lorenzo G, Margherita A, Solazzo G. The use of MOOCs to support personalized learning: An application in the technology entrepreneurship field. Knowledge Management & E-Learning 2016;8(1):109. [DOI:10.34105/j.kmel.2016.08.008]

9. Fidalgo Blanco Á, Sein-Echaluce Lacleta ML, García-Peñalvo FJ. Methodological Approach and Technological Framework to break the current limitations of MOOC model. Journal of Universal Computer Science 2016; 21(5):712-734.

10. Dang A, Khanra S, Kagzi M. Barriers towards the continued usage of massive open online courses: A case study in India. The International Journal of Management Education 2022; 20 (1): 100562. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100562]

11. Cusumano, MA. MOOCs revisited, with some policy suggestions. Communications of the ACM 2014; 57 (4): 24-26. [DOI:10.1145/2580941]

12. Zhao F, Fu Y, Zhang QJ, Zhou Y, Ge PF, Huang HX, He Y. The comparison of teaching efficiency between massive open online courses and traditional courses in medicine education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6 (23): 458. [DOI:10.21037/atm.2018.11.32]

13. Matoor M, Aliabadi K, Mozayani N, Delavar A, Nili Ahmadabadi MA. [Critical Introduction to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)]. Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences 2017; 17 (6): 257-280. [Persian]

14. Lucio-Ramirez CA, Nigenda JP, Garcia-Garcia M, Olivares SL. Clinical competence assessment: development of a mobile app to enhance patient centerderness. Dev Learn Organ: An Intern J 2019; 34: 17-20. [DOI:10.1108/DLO-08-2019-0186]

15. Ministry of Health and Medical Education. [Innovations in Medical Education Packages Based on the Health system Higher Education Program]. [Cited 2022 Sept 18]. Available from: https://dme.behdasht.gov.ir/uploads/113/doc/Basteha_v12.pdf

16. Perlman S. Another Decade, another Coronavirus. New England Journal of Medicine 2020; 382 (8): 760-2. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMe2001126]

17. Holshue ML, DeBolt C, Lindquist S, Lofy KH, Wiesman J, Bruce H, et al. First case of 2019 novel coronavirus in the United States. New England journal of medicine 2020; 382 (10): 929-36. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2001191]

18. Gong Z. The development of medical MOOCs in China: current situation and challenges. Med Educ Online 2018; 23 (1): 1527624. [DOI:10.1080/10872981.2018.1527624]

19. Setia S, Tay JC, Chia YC, Subramaniam K. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) for continuing medical education - why and how? Adv Med Educ Pract 2019; 10: 805-812. [DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S219104]

20. Smart University of Medical Sciences. [ Monitoring report on virtual education activities of Iranian schools and universities of medical sciences in the second half of 2020]. [Cited 2022 Sept 18]. Available from: https://yun.ir/ek41y7

21. Higher Education Research and Planning Institute.[Research and Technology, Higher Education Statistics Book of Iran] [Cited 2022 Sept 18]. Available from: https://www.imps.ac.ir/index.aspx?fkeyid=&siteid=1&fkeyid=&siteid=1&pageid=6821

22. Jafari E, Fathi vajargah, K, Arefi M, RezaeiZadeh M. [Qualitative meta-analysis on the conducted researches in the field of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses)]. Research in Curriculum Planning 2017; 14 (53): 27-41. [Persian]

23. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1977.

24. Bolman LG. Deal TE. Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.

25. Liyanagunawardena TR, Williams SA. Massive open online courses on health and medicine: review. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16 (8): e191. [DOI:10.2196/jmir.3439]

26. Ospina-Delgado J, García-Benau MA, Zorio-Grima A. Massive Open Online Courses for IFRS education: a point of view of Spanish Accounting Educators. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2016; 228: 356-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.053]

27. Gholampour M, Rostami Nejad M, pourshafei H.[Identifying the Key Factors of the Success of MOOC Courses: Synthesis Research Based on the Roberts Model]. Journal of Curriculum Research 2020; 9 (2): 139-162. [Persian]

28. Rezaei E, Zaraii Zavaraki S, Hatami J, Ali Abadi K, Delavar A.[Development of MOOCs Instructional Design Model Based on Connectivism Learning Theory]. jmed 2017; 12 (1 and 2): 65-86. [Persian]

29. Karimian Z, Abolghasemi M. Comparison between the Viewpoints of Faculty Members Regarding the Share of Scholarship Functions in Different Disciplines. JMED 2018; 11 (29) :63-76. [DOI:10.29252/edcj.11.29.63]

30. Lowenthal P, Snelson C, Perkins R. Teaching Massive, Open, Online, Courses (MOOCs): Tales from the Front Line. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2018; 19 (3):1-19. [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3505]

31. Zhang J, Gao M, Zhang J. The learning behaviours of dropouts in MOOCs: A collective attention network perspective. Computers & Education 2021;167: 104189. [DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104189]

32. Arpaci I, Al-Emran M, Al-Sharafi MA. The impact of knowledge management practices on the acceptance of massive open online courses (MOOCs) by engineering students: A cross-cultural comparison. Telematics and Informatics 2020; 54: 101468. [DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2020.101468]

33. Dai HM, Teo T, Rappa NA. Understanding continuance intention among MOOC participants: The role of habit and MOOC performance. Computers in Human Behavior 2020; 112: 106455. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106455]

34. Qi C, Liu S. Evaluating on-line courses via reviews mining. IEEE Access 2021; 9:35439-35451. [DOI:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062052]

35. Masoudi M, Karimian Z, Mehrabi M. Investigating the components of virtual education development based on the four-frame model of organizational development. JMED 2023; 16 (50): 40-50. [DOI:10.32592/jmed.2023.16.50.40]

36. Cooper S, Sahami M. Reflections on Stanford's MOOCs. Communications of the ACM 2013; 56 (2): 28-30. [DOI:10.1145/2408776.2408787]

37. Kop R, Fournier H, Mak JS. A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses (MOOCs). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2011;12(7):74-93. [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v12i7.1041]

38. Farasatkhah M, Maniee R.[Effective factors on faculty participation in higher education policy making and university planning]. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education 2023; 20 (4): 29-53. [Persian]

39. Moore RL, Wang C. Influence of learner motivational dispositions on MOOC completion. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 2021; 33 (1): 121-34. [DOI:10.1007/s12528-020-09258-8]

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Back to the articles list

Back to browse issues page