نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ایران
2 دانشیار علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ایران، مسئول مکاتبات:j.h
3 دانشیار علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ایران
4 استادیار علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ایران
چکیده
تا به امروز آموزش مبتنی بر وب روند رو به رشدی را طی نموده است. تعداد بی‌شماری از دوره‌های آموزش مبتنی بر وب توسط مؤسسات آموزشی در سرتاسر دنیا ارائه شده است. برغم افزایش چشم‌گیر دوره‌های مبتنی بر وب و فراگیرانی که در این دوره‌ها ثبت‌نام می‌کنند، نشانه‌های زیادی مبنی بر اینکه دوره‌های فوق در برآورده سازی نیازهای فراگیران ناموفق بوده و فراگیران تجارب ناموفقی را از چنین دوره‌هایی به یاد دارند، به چشم می‌خورد. در این بین نتایج بسیاری از تحقیقات نشان می‌دهد عامل حضور، عامل مهمی در پیشرفت و موثر بودن همه آموزش‌ها از جمله آموزش‌های سنتی و از راه دور بوده و همبستگی بالایی با پیشرفت تحصیلی و رضایت فراگیران دارد. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر باهدف طراحی الگویی برای آموزش‌های مبتنی بر وب بر اساس عامل حضور انجام شد. روش تحقیق مورد استفاده در این مطالعه، تحلیل محتوای کیفی از نوع قیاسی بود جامعه پژوهش، شامل کلیه منابع و مقالات مرتبط نمایه شده در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی پروکوئیست، اسپرینگر، ساینسدایرکت، امرالد، ابسکو، سیج، اریک، و گوگل اسکولار بود. نمونه‌برداری از این منابع با روش نمونه‌گیری هدفمند انجام گرفت، 39 مقاله و کتاب مطابق معیارهای مورد نظر بررسی شد و داده‌های حاصله برای تشکیل چهارچوب پیشنهادی تلفیق گردید.
کلیدواژه‌ها
کاراکاپیلیدیس، نیکوس(2010). اجتماعات یادگیری مبتنی بر شبکه. ترجمه مقدم، علیرضا و سایرین(1394). تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.
فردانش، هاشم(1387). طبقه بندی الگوهای طراحی سازنده گرا بر اساس رویکردهای یادگیری و تدریس. فصلنامه مطالعات تربیتی و روانشناسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد ،9(2):21 -5
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Allmendinger, K. (2005). Passung von Medium und Aufgabentyp: Der Einfluss nonverbaler Signale in desktop-basierten kollaborativen virtuellen Umgebungen [Fit between medium and task type: The influence of nonverbal signals in desktop-based collaborative virtual environments]. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://w210.ub.uniUiebingen.de/dbt/volltexte.
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 ]
Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.
Arbaugh, J. B. (2001). How instructor immediacy behaviors affect student satisfaction and learning in web-based courses. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 42−54.
Archer, W. (2010). Beyond online discussions: Extending the Community of Inquiry framework to entire courses. Internet and Higher Education, )2–1(31, .96
Baker, J. D. (2004). An investigation of relationships among instructor immediacy and affective and cognitive learning in the online classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 1−13.
Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34–61.
Bibeau, S. (2001). Social Presence, Isolation, and Connectedness in Online Teaching and Learning. From the literature to real life. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 15(3),35-39.
Biocca, F. (2003). Can we resolve the book, the physical reality, and the dream state problems? Venice, Italy: EU Presence Research Conference.
Brooks D. & Jeong A. (2006) Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education 27, 371–390.
Catanzaro M. (1988). Using qualitative analytical techniques. In Nursing Research; Theory and Practice (Woods P. & Catanzaro M., eds), C. V. Mosby Company, New York, pp. 437–456.
Conrad, D. (2009). Cognitive, instructional, and social presence as factors in learners’ negotiation of planned absences from online study. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-18.
Conrad, R., & Donaldson, J. A. (2012). Continuing to engage the online learner activities and resources for creative instruction (First ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169−189.
De Wever B., Van Keer H., Schellens T. & Valcke M. (2010) Roles as a structuring tool in online discussion groups: the differential impact of different roles on social knowledge construction. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 516–523.
Diaz, S., Swan, K., Ice, Ph., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 22-30.
Dikkers,A., Whiteside.A& Lewis.S.(2013) Virtual High School Teacher and Student Reactions to the Social Presence Model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning . 12, (3), 156-170
Dow, M. (2008). Implications of Social Presence for Online Learning: A Case Study of MLS Students. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 49(4), 231-242.
Duphorne, P. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2005). The effect of three computer conferencing designs on critical thinking skills of nursing students. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 37−50.
Elo,s & kyngas, h. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Practice and directionVolume 4 in the Sloan C Series. (pp. 29−38). Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium.
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3),157–172.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,2(2-3), 87-105.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133- 148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Gilbert P. & Dabbagh N. (2005) How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: a case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 36, 5–18.
Han Y.H. & Hill J.R. (2007) Collaborate to learn, learn to collaborate: examining the roles of context, community, and cognition in asynchronous discussion. Journal of Educational Computing Research 36, .321–98
Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52, 78-82. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
Hwang, H. (2007). Development of social presence measurement of mediated social interaction: a case study of instant messaging. Communication Science Study, 7, 2, 529–561.
Kilic-Cakmak, E., Cebi, A., & Kan, A. (2014). Developing a ‘‘social presence scale’’ for e-learning environments. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(2), 755–768.
Korinek, L., Walther-Thomas, C., McLaughlin, V.L., & Williams, B.T. (1999, September). Creating classroom communities and networks for student support. Intervention in School & Clinic, 35(1), 3-8.
LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Re-thinking instructional immediacy for Web courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49(4), 320-338.
Lee, J. -M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Personality types and learners' interaction in web-based threaded discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 83−94.
Lehman, R. M., and S. C. O. Conceição. (2010). Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching: How to “Be There” for Distance Learners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lipmann, M. (2003). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer K.A. (2003) Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: the role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7, 55–65.
Nagel, L., & Kotze, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 45–51.
Oriogun, P. K., Ravenscroft, A., & Cook, J. (2005). Validating an approach to examining cognitive engagement in online groups. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 197−214.
Oliver K, Hannafin M. Developing and refining mental models in openended learning environments: A case study. Educ Technol Res Dev. .23-5:)4(94;1002
Park, C. L. (2009). Replicating the use of a cognitive presence measurement tool. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 140–155.
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chatbased virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 7
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.
Pisutova-Gerber, K., & Malovicova, J. (2009). Critical and higher order thinking in online threaded discussions in the Slovak context. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1−15.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
Rourke, I., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
Riva, G. (2009). Is presence a technology issue? Some insights from cognitive sciences. Virtual Reality, 13, 159–169. doi: 10.1007/s10055-009-0121-6
Rovai, A. P., & Downey, J. R. (2010). Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 141-147. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.07.001
Schrire, S. (2004). Interaction and cognition in asynchronous computer conferencing. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition, 32, 475−502.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster — “Epistemic engagement” and — “Cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52(3), 543−553.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9, 175–190
Spiro RJ, Collins BP, Thota JJ, Feltovich PJ (2003) Cognitive flexibility theory: hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. EducTechnol 45(5):5–10
Swan, K. (2004). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education:Practice and direction,Vol. 4 in the Sloan C Series (pp. 13−45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). Social presence and the development of virtual learning communities. In S. Hiltz & R. Goldman (Eds.), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 239– 260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43−57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living digitally: Embodiment in virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments (pp. 40-62). Lond
Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
Walberg, H. J., & Greenberg, R (1997, May). Using the learning environment inventory.Educational Leadership, 54(8), 45-46.
Walther, J. B., & Tidwell, L. C. (1995). Nonverbal cues in computermediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational commun. Journal of organizational computing,5(4),355-378.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95.
Whipp J. (2003) Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education 54, 321–333.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. MIT Press Journal, 7(3), 225– 240.
Xin, C., & Feenberg, A. (2006). Pedagogy in cyberspace: The dynamics of online discourse. Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 1−25.
Xun GE, Land SM. A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educ Res Technol Dev .2004;52(2):5-22.
Zhang, Q., & Oetzel, J. G. (2006). Constructing and validating a teacher immediacy scale: a Chinese perspective. Communication Education. .142-812 ,)2(55
Zydney, J. M. (2010). The effect of multiple scaffolding tools on students’ understanding, consideration of different perspectives, and misconceptions of a complex problem. Computers & Education 54 (2010) 360–370.
)