[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
Registered in

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

..
Open Access Policy
..
:: Volume 11, Issue 1 (2019) ::
Research in Medical Education 2019, 11(1): 29-36 Back to browse issues page
Evaluating E-Learning Maturity from the viewpoints of Medical Sciences Students
MH Ronaghi * , F Hosseini
Department of management,School of Economic, Management & Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran , mh_ronaghi@shirazu.ac.ir
Abstract:   (4210 Views)
Introduction: Digitalization of education is considered  as  a major reforming in higher education. E-learning programs are increasingly seen as a way to reform in medical sciences education, giving access to ongoing learning and training without any time or geographical barriers.
Technology is a powerful tool for effective teaching and deep learning. Therefore, the aim of this paper is evaluate e-learning maturity and rank e-learning dimensions in medical sciences.
Methods: This applied, descriptive- survey research has been done in two phases in 2018. In the first phase e-learning dimensions of Michael Marshall Model were ranked by a panel of e-learning experts including ten members and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method is used in this regards. In the second phase, e-learning maturity was evaluated in the target population by calculating weight of models ´dimension (first phase output). The survey sample population consisted of 365 students of medical science Universities in Shiraz and Tehran that were selected by simple random sampling. Data were analyzed using one sample t test, kolmogorov and Smirnov through SPSS.
Results: according to the experts opinion by AHP planning and management as 2 dimensions of e- learning (0.32, 0.28) had respectively higher weight among other e-learning dimensions and by considering T-value (4.53,3.19,4.22,5.51,4.16) 5 basic E-learning processes (Learning(0.001), Development(0.019), Support (0.002), Evaluation(0.00) and Organization(0.002)) are located in acceptable level in medical education (Sig.<0.05) but delivery dimension of learning (0.067) and optimization dimension of organization (0.055) aren't located in acceptable level.
Conclusion: based on results, medical universities have true movement toward deployment of effective e-learning in medical education. The weights of dimensions (the importance of planning and management) and detailed results showed, at first policymakers who work in the area of e-learning should be aware of the role of standardization and optimization. Understanding the importance of continuous improvement may help managers and policymakers to manage e-learning activities more effectively.
Keywords: Learning Electronics, Evaluation, Students, Education, Medical
Full-Text [PDF 313 kb]   (1021 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Educational technology, e-Learning,Virtual Education
References
1. Favaretto J. Stage level measurement of information and communication technology in organizations. [dissertation]. Sao Paulo. Brazil; 2015.
2. Farhangi A, Yazdani H, Haghshenas M. [Identification of learning management systems functional areas and limitations (case study: e-learning center of university of Tehran)]. Journal of information technology management 2018; 10 (2): 331-54. [Persian]
3. Zehry K, Halder N, Theodosiou L. E-Learning in medical education in the United Kingdom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2011; 15: 3163-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.265]
4. Marshall S. Using the e-learning maturity model to identify good practice in e- learning. Proceedings Electric Dreams. 30th ascilite Conference; 2013 Dec1-4; Macquarie University, Australia.Sydney; 2013.
5. Nolan L, McFarlan F. Information technology and the board of Directors. Harvard business review 2005; 83 (10): 96-106.
6. Teicher J, Hughes O, Dow N. E-government: a new route to public sector quality. Managing service quality 2002; 12 (6): 384-393. [DOI:10.1108/09604520210451867]
7. Misra D, Dhingra C. E-government maturity model national information center, department of. information technology. Electronic information planning journal 2005; 3: 14-17.
8. Juniawan M, Sandhyaduhita P, Purwandari B. Smart government assessment using Scottish smart city maturity model: A case study of Depok city, International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS). Bali, Indonesia: IEEE; 2017. [DOI:10.1109/ICACSIS.2017.8355018]
9. Marshall J, Mitchell G. Assessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning maturity model. In D. Whitelock and S. Wheeler, Eds. proceedings of the 13th international conference of the association for learning technology (ALT-C); 2006 Sep 5-7; Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt University; 2006.
10. Abdullahi S, Ghadiri S, Tabrizian M. [Assessing the influence of qualitative indexes on user applicability for Esfahan University's e-learning department LMS]. The 9th Annual Iranian Conference on e-Learning; 2015 March 11; Kharazmi University in cooperation with Iran's E-learning Association,Iran.Tehran:CIVILICA; 2015. [Persian]
11. Espinoza-Guzmán J, Georgina Gomez Zermeno M. Maturity model for e-learning classroom, bimodal and virtual courses in higher education: a preliminary study. International journal of web-based learning and teaching technologies 2017; 12 (1): 19-31. [DOI:10.4018/IJWLTT.2017010102]
12. Kim S. The future of e-learning in medical education: current trend and future opportunity. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions 2006; 3 (3): 1-8. [DOI:10.3352/jeehp.2006.3.3]
13. Haukijarvi I. E-Learning maturity model- process-oriented assessment and improvement of e-Learning in a Finnish University of applied sciences. IFIP Conference on Information Technology in Educational Management; 2014 Jul 1; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2014. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-45770-2_9]
14. Saadi H, Mirzaei K. E-Learning maturity of Iranian agricultural higher education based on Misra and Dhingra models and its hookup using artificial neural network 2017; 12 (1): 1-16. [Persian].
15. Salari M, Yaghmaei F, Mehdizade S, Vafadar Z, Afzali M. [Factors related to accept of e-learning in nursing students]. Scientific journal of educational strategies in medical sciences. 2009; 2 (3): 103-8. [Persian]
16. Khorasani A, Abdolmaleki J, Zahedi H. [Factors affecting e-learning acceptance among students of Tehran University of medical sciences based on technology acceptance model (TAM) ]. Iranian journal of medical education 2011; 11 (6): 664-73. [Persian]
17. Sirisawat P, Kiatcharoenpol T. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Computers industrial engineering 2018; 117: 303-318. [DOI:10.1016/j.cie.2018.01.015]
18. Kaganski S, Majak J, Karjust K. Fuzzy AHP as a tool for prioritization of key performance indicators. Procedia CIRP 2018; 72: 1227-1232. [DOI:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.097]
19. Naderifar M, ghaljaie F, jalalodini A, rezaie N, salalr A. [Challenges of E-learning in Medical Sciences: A Review Article]. J Med Educ Dev. 2016; 9 (23) :102-111. [Persian]
20. Dargahi H, Ghazi Saidi M, Ghasemi M.[The role of e-learning in Medical Sciences Universities]. payavard 2008; 1 (2):20-29. [Persian]
Send email to the article author



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ronaghi M, Hosseini F. Evaluating E-Learning Maturity from the viewpoints of Medical Sciences Students . Research in Medical Education 2019; 11 (1) :29-36
URL: http://rme.gums.ac.ir/article-1-714-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 1 (2019) Back to browse issues page
پژوهش در آموزش علوم پزشکی Research in Medical Education