دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات13
تعداد شماره‌ها200
تعداد مقالات2,008
تعداد مشاهده مقاله2,680,129
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله1,937,343
علی پور, نسرین, نوروزی, داریوش, نوریان, محمد. (1400). طراحی الگوی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی. فناوری آموزش, 15(3), 503-518. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.7167.2505
نسرین علی پور; داریوش نوروزی; محمد نوریان. "طراحی الگوی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی". فناوری آموزش, 15, 3, 1400, 503-518. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.7167.2505
علی پور, نسرین, نوروزی, داریوش, نوریان, محمد. (1400). 'طراحی الگوی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی', فناوری آموزش, 15(3), pp. 503-518. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.7167.2505
علی پور, نسرین, نوروزی, داریوش, نوریان, محمد. طراحی الگوی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی. فناوری آموزش, 1400; 15(3): 503-518. doi: 10.22061/tej.2021.7167.2505

طراحی الگوی مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر کیفیت محیط‌های یادگیری الکترونیکی

فناوری آموزش
مقاله 7، دوره 15، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 59، تیر 1400، صفحه 503-518    اصل مقاله (942.17 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22061/tej.2021.7167.2505
نویسندگان
نسرین علی پور1؛ داریوش نوروزی* 2؛ محمد نوریان1
1گروه برنامه‌ریزی درسی، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران جنوب، تهران، ایران
2گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
تاریخ دریافت: 05 مهر 1399،  تاریخ بازنگری: 04 بهمن 1399،  تاریخ پذیرش: 09 اسفند 1399 
چکیده
پیشینه و اهداف:هدف از این تحقیق، مطالعه نظام­مند خصوصیات یک محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی است که در فرایند یاددهی- یادگیری در برنامه درسی  و اجرای عملی آن، از تمام جوانب مورد توجه قرار می­گیرد. منظور از محیط یادگیری، فضایی است که در آن مهم­ترین جنبه­های فعالیت­های آموزشی و تعامل یادگیرنده با مدرس انجام می­شود. این محیط متأثر از فرهنگ، سنت، تکنولوژی و غنا در طراحی و ساخت است. محیط یادگیری می ­تواند به یک رویکرد آموزشی، زمینه فرهنگی یا محیط فیزیکی اشاره کند که در آن تدریس و یادگیری رخ می­دهد. آموزش الکترونیکی عبارت است از رویکردی خلاقانه برای انتقال بینش­ها، مهارت­ها و اطلاعاتی که به­منظور خاص طراحی شده، فراگیر محور، تعاملی، انعطاف­پذیر و قابل گسترش و نوآورانه بوده و با استفاده از دستاوردهای فناوری دیجیتالی تولید و از طریق زیرساخت‌های شبکه و اینترنت انتقال می­یابند.
روش‌ها‌: رویکرد پژوهش از نوع کیفی با استفاده از تحلیل محتوا می­باشد. برای دست­یابی به تبیین فوق از روش سنتزپژوهی استفاده گردید. برای یافتن ویژگی­ها و مؤلفه­های محیط یادگیری، پژوهش­های اخیر با روشی نظام مند انتخاب، واکاوی محتوایی، غربالگری و دسته­بندی شده­اند. جامعه مورد مطالعه، تحقیقات انجام شده از پژوهش­های سال­های 2000 تا 2020 است که  طی واکاوی محتوایی دسته­بندی و غربالگری انجام گرفته و در حدود97  پژوهش، که واجد شرایط و معیارهای مد نظر بودند به­صورت هدفمند انتخاب گردید. ابتدا با تحلیل­های انجام شده، کد گذاری و طبقه بندی صورت گرفت و الگوها، پایه­های نظری و مضامین اصلی استخراج شدند. برای تحلیل داده­ها به روش کدگذاری باز و محوری، از نرم افزار Nvivo-8 استفاده شد.
یافته‌ها:با استفاده از تحلیل محتوا، 29 زیر­طبقه  شناسایی گردید و مؤلفه­های محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی که با استفاده از تحلیل محتوا، در 7 بعد استخراج شدند، عبارتند از: یادگیرنده، معلم، رویکردهای برنامه درسی، فرایند یاددهی- یادگیری، محتوای آموزش، فیزیک محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی و ارزشیابی. برای بررسی روایی و پایایی کد گذاری، از قابلیت اعتماد که دربرگیرنده چهار معیار باورپذیری( میزان باورداشتن به یافته­های تحقیق )، اطمینان پذیری( توانایی شناسایی جایی که داده­های یک مطالعه معین از آن آمده) تأییدپذیری( یافته­ها عملاً و واقعاً مبتنی بر داده­ها هستند )و  انتقال­پذیری(نتایج یک مطالعه کیفی می­تواند به یک محیط متفاوت دیگر نیز منتقل شود ) هستند، استفاده گردید.
نتیجه‌گیری: با طبقه­بندی زیر مؤلفه­ها، مؤلفه­های اصلی استخراج شده والگوی مفهومی طراحی شد. بُعد یادگیرنده در 6 زیر طبقه، شامل ویژگی­های فردی یادگیرنده، ملاحظات فرهنگی، رابطه یادگیرندگان با هم، رابطه یادگیرنده و معلم، پیش دانسته­های یادگیرنده، تعامل یادگیرنده با فیزیک محیط و بُعد رویکردهای برنامه درسی در 5 زیر طبقه شامل فرایند یادگیرنده محور، رویکرد اجتماعی آموزش، رویکرد رفتاری، رویکرد سازنده گرا، رویکرد ساختن گرایانه و بُعد معلم در 4 زیر طبقه شامل صلاحیت معلم، رابطه تعاملی با یادگیرنده، تجربیات معلم، رابطه معلم با اولیای مدرسه و بُعد فرایند یاددهی- یادگیری در 4 زیر طبقه شامل سبک­های تدریس و یادگیری، برنامه­ریزی درسی، راهبردهای یادگیری مشارکتی، انگیزش یادگیرنده، بُعد محتوای آموزش در 2 زیر طبقه شامل انتخاب محتوا، مواد و رسانه­های کمک آموزشی و  بُعد فیزیک محیط یادگیری در4 زیر طبقه شامل محیط فیزیکی، چیدمان محیط، نور- مکان- صدا، ایمنی در محیط یادگیری و بُعد ارزشیابی در 4 زیر طبقه شامل خودارزیابی، تکالیف درسی، مشاهده معلم، معیار­ها در ارزشیابی، به­دست آمده است. با وجود تلاش­های زیاد در جهت رسیدن به اهداف برنامه درسی ملی، طراحی ویژه­ای برای محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی صورت نمی­گیرد، لذا با توجه به الگوی طرح شده در این پژوهش می­توان مؤلفه­های الگو را در نظر گرفته و محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی را با توجه به رویکرد برنامه درسی مورد نظر، طراحی کرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی؛ محیط یادگیری مجازی؛ طراحی الگوی محیط یادگیری الکترونیکی
موضوعات
آموزش الکترونیکی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Designing a model of components affecting the quality of e-learning environments
نویسندگان [English]
N. Alipour1؛ D. Noroozi2؛ M. Nourian1
1Department of Curriculum Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University of South Tehran Branch,Tehran, Iran
2Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Psycology and Education Sciences, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran. Iran
چکیده [English]
Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study is the systematic study of the characteristics of an e-learning environment that is considered from all aspects in the teaching-learning process in the curriculum and its practical implementation. Learning environment means the space in which the most important aspects of educational activities and learner interaction with the teacher take place. This environment is influenced by culture, tradition, technology and richness in design and construction. Learning environment can refer to an educational approach, cultural context or physical environment in which teaching and learning take place. E-learning is a creative approach to convey insights, skills, and information designed for a specific purpose. It is learner-oriented, interactive, flexible, expandable and innovative produced using the achievements of digital technology; and they are transmitted through network infrastructure and the Internet.
Methods: The research approach is qualitative using content analysis. To achieve the above explanation, the synthesis research method has been used. To find the features and components of the learning environment, the recent studies have been systematically selected, content analyzed, screened and categorized. The study population is comprised of the research conducted from 2000 to 2020 during which classification and screening have been done through content revision, and about 97 studies that were appropriate and met the required criteria were purposefully selected. First, with the performed analyses, coding and classification were performed and patterns, theoretical bases, and main themes were extracted. Nvivo-8 software was used to analyze the data by open and axial coding method.
Findings: Using content analysis, 29 subcategories were identified and the components of e-learning environment that were extracted using content analysis in 7 dimensions include: the learner, the teacher, curriculum approaches, the teaching-learning process, the teaching content, the physics of e-learning environment and evaluation. To assess the validity and reliability of the coding, the trust feature was used.  it includes four criteria, namely reliability (the degree of belief in research findings), confirmability (the ability to identify the place from which the data of a particular study has come) and verifiability (the findings are practically based on the data) and transferability (the results of a qualitative study can be transferred to a different environment)
Conclusion: By classifying the sub-components, the main components were extracted and the conceptual model was designed. The learner dimension with six subcategories includes the learner’s individual characteristics, cultural considerations, the learners’ relationship with each other, the learner-teacher relationship, the learners’ presuppositions, the learners’ interaction with the environmental physics. The curriculum approaches include 5 subcategories, i.e., the learner-centered process, the social approach to education, the behavioral approach, the constructivist approach, and the constructivist approach. The teacher dimension with four subcategories includes the teacher competence, the interactive relationship with the learner, the teacher’s experiences. The teacher’s relationship with school authorities and the teaching-learning process with four subcategories include teaching and learning methods, curriculum planning, participatory learning strategies, the learner’s motivation. The educational content dimension with two subcategories includes content selection, the teaching aid materials and media. The physical dimension of the learning environment with four subcategories includes the physical environment, the environment layout, lighting, location, sound, safety in the learning environment. The evaluation dimension with four subcategories includes self-evaluation, homework, the teacher observation, the criteria in evaluation. Despite many efforts that have been made to achieve the goals of a national curriculum, there is no special design for the e-learning environment. Therefore, according to the model proposed in this research, the components of the model can be considered and the e-learning environment can be designed according to the curriculum approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
e-learning environment, virtual learning environment, e-learning environment model design
مراجع

[1]Van Beek J, De Jong F, Minnaert A, Wubbels T. Teacher practice in secondary vocational education: Between teacher-regulated activities of student learning and student self-regulation. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2014; 40:1-9.

[2] Nahar N, Talukder MHK, Khan MTH, Mohammad S, Nargis T. Students' perception of educational environment of medical colleges in Bangladesh. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University Journal. 2010;3(2):97-102.‏

[3] Turgut U, Colak A, Salar R. How is the learning environment in physics’ lesson with using 7e model teaching activities. European Journal of Education Studies. 2017; 3(6):1-27.

[4] Özerem A, Akkoyunlu B. Learning environments designed according to learning styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 61 :61-80.

[5]Smith S, Maund K, Hilaire T, Gajendran T, Lyneham J, Geale S. Enhancing discipline specific skills using a virtual environment built with gaming technology. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning. 2020; 21(3):193-209.

[6] Farooq S, Benade L. Constructing a dialogic pedagogy in virtual learning environments: A literature review.  Teachers’ Work. 2019; 16(1 & 2): 7-13.

[7] Zavaraki  E Z. Association on network communication with background characteristic of faculty teacher. Paper preented in the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education; 2003.

[8] Valencia HG, Enríquez JAV, Tigreros MEF. Innovative scenarios in the teaching and learning process: A view from the implementation of virtual platforms. English Language Teaching. 2018; 11 (7):131-141.

[9] Güney Z. Visual literacy and visualization in instructional design and technology for learning environments. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2019; 8 (1):103-117.

[10] Whalley R, Barbour MK. Collaboration and virtual learning in New Zealand rural primary  schools: A review of the literature. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2020; 21 (2):102-125.

[11] Belaineh MS. Students' conception of learning environment and their approach to learning and its implication on quality education. Educational Research and Reviews. 2017; 12 (14): 695-703.

[12] Pham T. Student-centredness: Exploring the culturally appropriate pedagogical space in Vietnamese higher education classrooms using activity theory. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online). 2016; 41(1): 1-21.

[13] Placklé I, Könings KD, Jacquet W, Struyven K, Libotton A, van Merriënboer JJ, et al. Students’ preferred characteristics of learning environments in vocational secondary education. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training (IJRVET). 2014; 1(2):107-124.

[14] Mehrmohammadi MH, Fnakhosro, M. Provide a pattern of interaction design in collaborative e-learning environments with regard to the role of aesthetic capabilities. Journal of Research in Educational Systems. 2004; 8 (26): 69-47. Persian.

[15]Noroozi D, Razavi A. Instructional Design Foundation. Tehran: Samt; 2013.

[16] Abari O, Bharadia D, Duffield A, Katabi D. (eds.) . Enabling high-quality untethered virtual reality. 14th {USENIX} Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation ({NSDI} 17); 2017.

[17] Seraji F, Attaran M, Ali Asgari M. [A study of characteristics of curriculum design in iranian virtual universities and its comparison with the model of virtual university curriculum development]. IRPHE. 2009; 14 (4) :97-118. Persian.

[18] Frei S, Gammill A, Irons S. Integrating Technology into the Curriculum. US: Shell Education; 2006.

[19] Mittelmeier J, Rienties B, Tempelaar D, Hillaire G, Whitelock D. The influence of internationalised versus local content on online intercultural collaboration in groups: A randomised control trial study in a statistics course. Computers & Education. 2018;  118: 82-95.

[20] Judge S, Bobzien J, Maydosz A, Gear S, Katsioloudis P. The use of visual-based simulated environments in teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2013 ;1 (1):88-97.

[21] Sandhu R, Hussain S. Role of faculty development forums in virtual teaching environment: A case study of marketing research & case group. Open Praxis. 2016 ;8 (4) :325-335.

[22] Nourian M. Analysis of Elementary School Curriculum in Iran (4th ed). Tehran: Gooyesheno, Fourth edition. 2019. Persian.

[23] Anderson D, Kisiel J, Storksdieck M. Understanding teachers' perspectives on field trips: discovering common ground in three countries. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2006 ;49 (3) :365-386.

[24] Rice K. Making the Move to K-12 Online Teaching: Research-based strategies and practices. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2012.

[25] Perez-Foguet A, Lazzarini B, Giné R, Velo E, Boni A, Sierra M, et al. Promoting sustainable human development in engineering: Assessment of online courses within continuing professional development strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;17 (2):4286-4302.

[26] Soffer T, Kahan T, Livne E. e-assessment of online academic courses via students' activities and perceptions. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2017; 54: 83-93.

[27] Lecon C, Oder B. e-tutorials as an addition to higher education learning scenarios. Athens Journal of Education. 2016; 3 (2):121-136.

[28] Siemens G, Tittenberger P. Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. Canada: University of Manitoba; 2009.

[29] Norlund A, Curcio IDD, Dipace A. Virtual realities and education. Research on Education and Media. 2016; 8 (2). 

[30] Merry P. Immersive Virtual Reality: Online Education for the Next Generation. US: Center for Digital Education. 2016.

[31] Mohammadpour A. Anti-Method Qualitative Research Method. Tehran: Jamee Shenasan; 2013. Persian.

[32] Ozorio K. Understanding Social and Emotional Needs as an Approach in Developing a Positive Classroom Environment. Dominican University of California. 2014.

[33] Oliveras  Ortiz Y. The impact of learning environments on student engagement. Educational leadership and policy studies. 2017; 25.

[34] Temli Durmus Y. Effective learning environment characteristics as a requirement of constructivist curricula: Teachers' needs and school principals' views. International Journal of Instruction. 2016; 9 (2):183-198.

[35] Stanton A, Zandvliet D, Dhaliwal R, Black T. Understanding students' experiences of well-being in learning environments. Higher Education Studies. 2016 ; 6: 90-99.

[36] Mardomi KD, m. Flexible learning environment. Journal of Iranian Architecture and Urban Development.2011;1 (89): 109-118. Persian.

[37] Radovan M, Makovec D. Relations between students’ motivation, and perceptions of the learning environment. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. 2015; 5(2):115-138.

[38] Kiriktas H, Eslek S. The experience of assessing out-of-school learning environments. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2017 ;5 (8):1410-1424.

[39] Karami M, Rahmanizadeh D. Judy B. The impact of inclusive features, educational design and work environment on learning transfer in the banking industry]. Journal of Human Resource Education and Development. 2015; 1(1) : 151 -172. Persian.

[40] Atomatofa R, Okoye N, Igwebuike T. Learning environments as basis for cognitive achievements of students in basic science classrooms in Nigeria. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4 (6):1471-1478.

[41] Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the health professions. 2002; 25(1):12-37.

[42] Farasatkhah M. An idea of the future curriculum, with emphasis on the achievement of actor-network theory. Paper presented in the Conference on Fundamental Change in the Iranian Curriculum System; 2011. Persian.

[43] Nitecki DA, Simpson K. Communicating the library as a learning environment. Journal of Learning Spaces. 2016; 5(2):39-52.

[44] Karshki H GQIS, & Tatari Y. [The role of perception of constructivist learning environment on the components of students' achievement goals]. Journal of Modern Educational Approaches. 2016; 1 (11): 1-20. Persian.

[45] Kelly M. Forming the optimal art classroom environment in order to activate flow within students,  (master’s thesis). Melbourne: T university of Melbourne.

[46] Dinç E. Differentiated learning environment--A classroom for quadratic equation, function and graphs. Paper presented in the 14th international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age. 2017.  

[47] Wirussawa S, Tesaputa K, Duangpaeng A. An effect of the learning environment management system toward student quality of Thai secondary school. International Education Studies. 2016; 9 (5):235-246.

[48] Chalme RLM. [features of metacognitive learning environment and academic achievement: A survey of the intermediate role of motivational beliefs in students]. Journal of Applied Psychology.  2013; 6 (3): 43-58.  Persian

[49] Rezaei H. Y, & Niko. [The role of learning environment in promoting education and introducing learning environment measurement tools]. Educational Development of Judishapur. 2016;  7 (1): 37-47 Persian.

[50] Walker J, Baepler P. Measuring social relations in new classroom spaces: development and validation of the social context and learning environments (scale) survey. Journal of learning spaces. 2017;6(3):34-41.

[51] Moradimokhles H, Heydari,J, Salehi,V. [The impact of computer-based and web-enhanced learning environments on the interaction of instructional elements]. Journal of Technology of Education.  2018; 11 (4) : 313-332 . Persian.

[52] Barzegar KS, A. [Psychometric properties of constructive-oriented learning environment questionnaire]. Journal of School Psychology. 2014; 2 (4): 6-24  Persian.

[53] Kazemi H, Mirdamadi,M,Omid Najafabadi,M. The effect of success goals and learning environment on the level of self-directed learning readiness of students. Agricultural Research Management Education. 2014; 27: 15-20 Persian.

[54] Toheri, Winarso, W., & Haqq, A. A. European journal of educational research. European Journal of Educational Research.2020;  9(2): 877-887.‏

[55] Chelysheva I, Mikhaleva GV. Basic approaches to media education in Russia: sociocultural and methodological aspects. International Journal of Media and Information Literacy.  2017;2 (1): 3-8.

[56] Ott LE, Carpenter TS, Hamilton DS, LaCourse WR. Discovery learning: development of a unique active learning environment for introductory chemistry. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2018; 18 (4):161-180.

[57] Gómez-Rey P, Barbera E, Fernández-Navarro F. Student voices on the roles of instructors in asynchronous learning environments in the 21st century. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2017;18(2):234-251.

[58] Wang Q, Quek CL, Hu X. Designing and improving a blended synchronous learning environment: an educational design research. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2017;18(3): 99-118.

[59] Darner R. influences on students' environmental self determination and implications for science curricula. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2014;9(1):21-39.

[60] András C. Space pedagogy- responsive environment for learning. Proceeding of the 5thinternasional conference on architecture and environment with AWARDS.2018.

[61] Mohammadi A, Mohammadi,J. [Sudents' perceptions of learning and educational environments at the university of medical sciences]. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2014;6 (11) :50-60. Persian.

[62] Mousavi M, Mohammadzadeh S,Shabani K. [The quality of the learning environment of internships from the perspective of undergraduate students, agricultural and natural resources university of Ramin Khuzestan]. Journal of Agricultural Research Management Education. 2015; 30: 55-66. Persian

[63] Mostafa ARA. creating a positive learning environment for adult. International Journal of Learning and Teaching. 2017;9 (3):378-387.

[64] Azimi AH, J. Fardanesh H. Norouzi A.[ Internal validation of educational design model for reflection-oriented internship learning environments with emphasis on scaffolding, peer assessment and peer review]. Quarterly Journal of Education.2020; 35 (137): 30-39. Persian.

[65] Pando VF. Teaching trends in virtual education: an interpretative approach. Journal of Educational Psychology-Propositos y Representaciones. 2018; 6 (1):485-505.

[66] Lancaster RW. A comparison of student-centered and teacher-centered learning approaches in one alternative learning classroom environment. US: Arkansas State University; 2017.

[67] Cantero JMM. Attraction factors into space as a required element of physical learning environment: A a review. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences. Selected Paper of 5th World Conference on Educational Technology (WCTER-2015),15-17 October 2015, Nicosia, North Cyprus. 2016; 2 (11):130-136.

[68] Winarso W, Haqq AA. Where exactly for enhance critical and creative thinking: the use of problem posing or contextual learning. European Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 9(2):877-887.

[69] Kheirandish JR, S. Psychological impact of educational environment on students' learning. Paper presented in the 4th  International Conference on Science and Technology Saint Petersburg - Russia. (2016). Persian.

[70] Hosseini Z. The usage of constructivism to enhance technology integration knowledge. Scientific-Research Journal Education Technology.2016; 1 (2) :155-164  Persian.

[71] Mehrmohammadi MH, Hatami J, Fanakgosro M. [Provide a pattern of interaction design in collaborative e-learning environments with regard to the role of aesthetic capabilities]. Journal of Research in Educational Systems..2015; 8 (26): 47-69.  Persian.

[72] Alkin-Sahin S. The extent to which the characteristics of a metacognitive oriented learning environment predict the characteristics of a thinking-friendly classroom. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2015;60:241-260.  

[73] Yousefi Afrashteh M, Morovati Z. Identifying the components of  effective learning environments based on health students’ Perception. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2015; 8 (4):261-268. Persian.

[74] Anagün SS. Teachers' perceptions about the relationship between 21st century skills and managing constructivist learning environments. International Journal of Instruction. 2018;11(4):825-840.

[75] Zarei M,  Zarei Zavaraki A, Aliabadi Kh,Delavar A. [Design and validation of virtual social network model of Iran,s schools]. Educational Technology Quarterly .2019; 13(2):471-483.persian

[76] Henriques S, Moreira JA, Goulão M, Barros D (eds). Online training of trainers from the open university. Portugal. Expanding Learning Scenarios Conference Proceedings EDEN; 2015.

[77] Könings KD, Bovill C, Woolner P. Towards an interdisciplinary model of practice for participatory building design in education. European Journal of Education. 2017; 52(3):306-317.

[78] Momeni Rad A. Identifying the factors that influence the formation of a learning community in e-learning and provide a model for its design. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabaei University. 2013. Persian.

[79] Naude M, Meier C. Elements of the physical learning environment that have impact on the teaching and learning in South African grade 1 classrooms. South African Journal of Education. 2019; 39 (1);1-11.

[80] Emre I, Kaya Z, Ozdemir T, Kaya ON eds). Effects of using interactive whiteboard on pre-service science teachers' achievement in topic of structure of cell membrane and attitudes toward information technology. Paper presented in the 6th International Advanced Technologies Symposium (IATS’11); 2011.

[81] Tunalı S. Schools of the future in globalized society: forecasting via scenario development method in Turkish schools, (dissertation) Ankara: Middle East Technical University; 2014.

[82] Gooneratne I, Munasinghe S, Siriwardena C, Olupeliyawa A, Karunathilake I. Assessment of psychometric properties of a modified PHEEM questionnaire. Ann Acad Med Singapore. Psychometrics of Educational Environment. 2008; 37(12):993-997.

[83] Vasilevski N, Birt J. Analysing construction student experiences of mobile mixed reality enhanced learning in virtual and augmented reality environments. Research in learning technology. 2020;28.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,520
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,061


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب