دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی
انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات11
تعداد شماره‌ها210
تعداد مقالات2,098
تعداد مشاهده مقاله2,877,119
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله2,084,949
میرزایی, انسیه, علی نژاد, مهرانگیز, دانشمند, بدرالسادات. (1403). تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی. فناوری آموزش, 18(2), 429-452. doi: 10.22061/tej.2023.9659.2877
انسیه میرزایی; مهرانگیز علی نژاد; بدرالسادات دانشمند. "تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی". فناوری آموزش, 18, 2, 1403, 429-452. doi: 10.22061/tej.2023.9659.2877
میرزایی, انسیه, علی نژاد, مهرانگیز, دانشمند, بدرالسادات. (1403). 'تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی', فناوری آموزش, 18(2), pp. 429-452. doi: 10.22061/tej.2023.9659.2877
میرزایی, انسیه, علی نژاد, مهرانگیز, دانشمند, بدرالسادات. تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی. فناوری آموزش, 1403; 18(2): 429-452. doi: 10.22061/tej.2023.9659.2877

تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی

فناوری آموزش
مقاله 10، دوره 18، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 70، فروردین 1403، صفحه 429-452    اصل مقاله (2.23 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22061/tej.2023.9659.2877
نویسندگان
انسیه میرزایی؛ مهرانگیز علی نژاد* ؛ بدرالسادات دانشمند
گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر، کرمان، ایران
تاریخ دریافت: 08 آبان 1401،  تاریخ بازنگری: 29 دی 1402،  تاریخ پذیرش: 03 اسفند 1402 
چکیده
پیشینه و اهداف: یادگیری الکترونیکی، به‌عنوان یکی از مشخصه‌های دوره‌های آموزشی در قرن حاضر است. در تمام دوره‌های آموزشی، به‌ویژه در محیط‌های یادگیری مجازی، تعامل می‌تواند موجب کارایی و اثربخشی فرایند آموزش شود. همچنین، طراحی دقیق و اندیشمندانه تعاملات مختلف در محیط یادگیری مجازی سبب توسعه ظرفیت‌های موجود در جهت تقویت برنامه‌های آموزش الکترونیکی شده و کیفیت یادگیری را افزایش می‌دهد. لذا، با توجه به اهمیت تعاملات در محیط یادگیری مجازی، پژوهش حاضر بر آن است با تبیین عناصر برنامه درسی آموزش‌عالی (اهداف، محتوا، فعالیت‌های یاددهی- یادگیری و روش‌های ارزشیابی) براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی و با ارائه راهکارهای مناسب مدرسان را جهت برگزارکردن دوره‌های آموزش الکترونیکی اثربخش، یاری رساند.
روش‌ها‌: این پژوهش، از نوع پژوهش‌های توصیفی و کاربردی است. جامعه‌آماری پژوهش، اعضای هیأت‌ علمی دانشگاه‌های شهید باهنر، فرهنگیان و علوم پزشکی کرمان بودند که طبق جدول مورگان، 297 نفر با روش نمونه‌گیری سهمیه‌ای به‌عنوان نمونه آماری، انتخاب شدند. جهت گردآوری داده‌های پژوهش، از ابزار پرسش‌نامه محقق‌ساخته استفاده شد که روایی و پایایی آن، به ترتیب 86/0 و 92/0 تعیین شد. جهت تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌های پژوهش، از آزمون تی تک‌نمونه‌ای، تحلیل‌ عاملی تأییدی و معادلات‌ ساختاری استفاده ‌شد و از نرم‌افزار‌های SPSS23، AMOS23 استفاده ‌شد. الگوی اندازه‌گیری، با استفاده از الگویابی معادلات ساختاری برآورد شدند.
یافته‌ها: نتایج، مشخص کرد برای ایجاد و افزایش انواع تعاملات‌آموزشی در عناصر برنامه‌ درسی آموزش ‌عالی در محیط یادگیری ‌مجازی، مقوله‌هایی مؤثرند. در عنصر اهداف مقوله‌هایی از قبیل توجه مدرس و برتامه‌ریزان ‌درسی در سطح وزارتخانه به تعاملات‌آموزشی، واقع‌گرایی و فراگیر بودن در اهداف، در عنصر محتوا مقوله‌هایی از قبیل مشارکت دانشجویان در تهیه محتوای ‌الکترونیکی، سهولت دسترسی به محتوا، استفاده از محتوای ‌تعاملی، نظرخواهی از دانشجویان، تدوین محتوای درسی متناسب با آخرین یافته‎های علمی، تهیه محتوای ‌تعاملی و تعامل اساتید با همکاران، در عنصر فعالیت‌های یاددهی- یادگیری مقوله‌هایی از قبیل روش‌های تدریس مشارکتی، بهره‌گیری از شبکه‌های اجتماعی، بهره‌گیری از ابزارهایی مثل اتاق‌های گفتگو، ارائه بازخورد، ترغیب دانشجویان به جستجوی اطلاعات از منابع گوناگون، ایجاد شبکه بین دانشجویان و منابع اطلاعاتی مختلف، در میان گذاشتن آخرین دستاوردهای علمی در حیطه درسی با استادان همکار، در عنصر روش‌های ارزشیابی مقوله‌هایی از قبیل ارزشیابی فرآیندمحور، اختصاص ‌دادن بخشی از نمره برای کار عملی و مشارکت ‌کلاسی، ارزیابی کار فردی هر دانشجو، توسط همکلاسی‌هایش و نقد نظرات سایر دانشجویان، مؤثر هستند. همچنین، نتایج مشخص کرد عناصر برنامه‌ درسی آموزش عالی براساس انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی، با هم رابطه‌ دارند. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل برازش مدل، با توجه به شاخص‌های برازندگی، نشان داد که مدل تحلیل عاملی جهت طراحی مدل مورد نظر دارای برازش مناسبی می‌باشد و می‌توان از این مدل، در برنامه‌ درسی آموزش عالی جهت ایجاد و افزایش انواع تعاملات آموزشی در محیط یادگیری مجازی، استفاده کرد. 
نتیجه‌گیری: به طور کلی، نتایج این پژوهش، بیانگر این است که ایجاد و افزایش انواع تعاملات آموزشی در آموزش الکترونیکی می‌تواند کیفیت آموزش را بهبود بخشد،. لذا، توصیه می‌شود طراحان، اعضای هیأت علمی، برنامه‌ریزان، مدیران و به طورکلی متصدیان جهت برگزاری دوره‌های آموزش الکترونیکی از الگوی پیشنهادی در پژوهش حاضر استفاده نمایند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
برنامه‌درسی؛ آموزش عالی؛ تعاملات آموزشی؛ محیط یادگیری مجازی؛ آموزش مجازی
موضوعات
محیط های یادگیری مبتنی بر فناوری
عنوان مقاله [English]
Explaining the elements of the higher education curriculum based on variety of educational interactions in the virtual learning environment
نویسندگان [English]
E. Mirzaei؛ M. Alinejad؛ B. Daneshmand
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran
چکیده [English]
Background and Objectives: Electronic learning is one of the characteristics of educational courses in this century. In all training courses, especially in virtual learning environments, interaction can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the training process. Also, the careful and thoughtful design of various interactions in the virtual learning environment develops existing capacities to strengthen electronic education programs and increases the quality of learning. Therefore, considering the importance of interactions in the virtual learning environment, the present research aimed to explain the elements of the higher education curriculum (goals, content, teaching-learning activities and evaluation methods) based on the types of educational interactions in the virtual learning environment and by providing solutions It helped the teachers to organize effective e-learning courses.
Methods: This research was a descriptive and applied study. The statistical population of the research included the faculty members of Shahid Bahnar, Farhangian and Medical Sciences Universities of Kerman; according to Morgan's table, 297 people were selected as the statistical sample using quota sampling method. To collect research data, a researcher-made questionnaire tool was used, and its validity and reliability were determined as 0.86 and 0.92, respectively. To analyze the research data, one-sample t-test, confirmatory factor analysis and structural equations were used, and SPSS23 and AMOS23 software were used. The measurement model was estimated using structural equation modeling.
Findings: The results showed that some categories effectively would create and increase educational interactions in the curriculum elements based on the types of interactions in the virtual learning environment. The effective categories in the element of objectives included teachers' attention to educational interactions, paying attention to educational interactions at the ministry level, realism in objectives, and comprehensiveness of objectives. The effective categories in the content element included students' participation in the preparation of electronic content, ease of access to content, use of interactive content, polling of students, a compilation of course content in accordance with the latest scientific findings, preparation of interactive content by professors, Digital Library Update, and interactions between professors. The effective categories in the element of teaching-learning activities included participatory teaching methods, use of social networks, use of tools such as chat rooms, providing feedback, awareness of the need for interaction, encouraging students to seek information from various sources, sharing their previous experiences, networking among students and various information sources, sharing the latest scientific achievements in the field among fellow professors. The effective categories in the element of evaluation methods included process-oriented evaluation, assigning a part of the grade for individual or teamwork and class participation, evaluation of each student's individual work by her classmates, and critique of other students' opinions. Also, the results showed that the elements of the higher education curriculum based on the types of educational interactions in the virtual learning environment were related to each other. The results showed that the factor analysis model had a suitable fit for the design of the desired model and this model could be used in the higher education curriculum to create and increase various types of educational interactions in the virtual learning environment.
Conclusion: In general, the results of this research indicated that the creation and increase of educational interactions in electronic education could improve the quality of education. Therefore, it is recommended that designers, faculty members, planners, managers and in general curators use the model proposed in the current research IN E-learning courses.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Curriculum, Higher Education, Educational Interactions, Virtual Learning Environment Virtual Education
مراجع
[1] Mohammadzade S, Liaghatdar MJ, Abedi A, Moinzadeh A. Examining the current situation of four elements of the ESP curriculum of education disciplines and its distance to the desired situation in graduate students' view. Journal of Curriculum Research. 2019; 9(1): 140-166. [In Persian]. https://doi:10.22099/jcr.2019.5218

[2] Richards JC. Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. Relc Journal. 2013 Apr; 44(1):5-33.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293

[3] Khosravi, R., Fathi Vajargah, K., Ashtiani, M. Pathology of Life Skills Curriculum in Secondary Education System. Teaching and Learning Research, 2014; 11(1): 1-18. [In Persian].

[4] Maleki, H., Fathi Vajargah, K. Principles and concepts of curriculum planning, 2008; Tehran: Bal Publications. [In Persian].

[5] Karami, M., Fattahi, H. Changing the curriculum of higher education: (case: curriculum of the master's degree in educational planning). Journal of higher education curriculum studies, 2013; 3(7): 111-138. [In Persian]. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.25382241.1392.3.7.7.6

[6] Solotani, A., Sharif, M., Roknizadeh, R. The Study of Faculty Members Views about Aspects of Nature of Science in the Science Curriculum. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 2023; 16(2): 1-17. [In Persian].

[7] Mohammadi Y, Hekmati N, Navidinia H. Investigating the Quality of General English Language Course Curriculum Based on Tyler’s Model from the Students’ Perspective at Birjand University of Medical Sciences in 2016. Birjand University of Medical Sciences. 2018; 25(2): 53-60. [In Persian].

[8] Gasell C. (dissertation). Measuring Faculty-Student Interaction in Online Courses Using Asynchronous Discussion Boards: A Campus-Wide Analysis. Boise, Idaho, United States: Boise State University. 2020:1-118.

[9] Pourtavakoli A, Alinejad M, Daneshmand B. [Designing a pattern for e-content development based on the factors affecting satisfaction in e-learning]. Tech. Edu. J. 2021; 15(1): 119-138. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/10.22061/ tej.2020.4490.2074

[10] Narenji Thani F, Keramati M, Hosseini Sohi. M [The role of self-directed learning in the effectiveness of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Tech. Edu. J. 2022; 16(3): 571-589. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2022.8299.2648

[11] Alhabeeb A, Rowley J. Critical success factors for eLearning in Saudi Arabian universities. International Journal of Educational Management. 2017; 31(2):131-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2016-0006

[12] Jensen PE, Fritt‑Rasmussen J. Influence of introduction of e‑based distance learning on student experience and performance. InProceed‑ings of the international RILEM conference: materials, systems and structures in civil engineering 2016 segment on innovation of teaching in materials and structures. Proceedings PRO 2016 (Vol. 108, pp. 37-46).

[13] Ahmadi R, Mohammadi B. [Evaluation of the quality of learning Management system of ELearning Center Shahid rajaee teacher Training university based on ISO 9126]. Tech. Edu. J. 2023; 17(1): 185-196. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/ 10.22061/tej.2022.9163.2800

[14] Häyrinen-Alestalo M, Peltola U. The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education. 2006 Sep; 52:251-281. 10.1007/s10734-004-2749-1

[15] Bora UJ, Ahmed M. E-learning using cloud computing. International Journal of Science and Modern Engineering. 2013 Jan; 1(2):9-12. B0111011213/2013©BEIESP

[16] Tari F, Javadipour M, Hakimzadeh R, Dehghani M. [Identifying and modeling the successful educational experiences of elementary school teachers in the e-learning environment during the Corona era]. Tech. Edu. J. 2023; 17(1): 69-86. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/10.22061/ tej.2022.8903.2750

[17] Marusteri M, Petrisor M, Olah P, Haifa B, Bacarea V, Brinzaniuc K. Challenges in the Design and Development of a “Third Generation” E-Learning/Educational Platform. InEncyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Third Edition 2015 (pp. 1369-1379). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch130

[18] Abdel-Gawad T, Woollard J. Critical success factors for implementing classless e-learning systems in the Egyptian higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2015 Apr; 12(4):29-36.

[19] Azami B, Attaranl M. The Phenomenological Exploration of the Learner's Interaction in Virtual Universities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. 2011; 2(2): 2-10. [In Persian].

[20] Mendis U, Vandika AY. Learning Interaction in Web Based Learning in Speaking II Class of English Education Study Program of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Bandar Lampung University. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Language (ICEL); 2016 May 21; Bandar Lampung, Indonesia. 2016: 98.

[21] Pourjamshidi M. The Study of the Interaction Preferences Power of the Students of Web-based Instruction Courses Learning Styles. Educational Psychology. 2016; 12(39): 175-197. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/10.22054/jep.2016.4123

[22] Soffer T, Nachmias R. Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer assisted learning. 2018 Oct; 34(5):534-543.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258

[23] Xiao J. Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance education. 2017 Jan 2; 38(1):123-135.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982

[24] Zimmerman TD. Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2012 Oct; 13(4):152-165. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302

[25] Narenji Sani F, mostafavi Z, keykhah A, ebeadi R. Explanation of retention rates based on the types of student interaction in the e-learning context. Information and communication technology in educational sciences. 2019; 10(2):27-48. [In Persian].

[26] Kamal Kharrazi A. N, Bazargan A, Narenji Sani F, Mostafavi Z. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERACTION OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL STUDENTS IN E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTE OF MEHR ALBORZ AND THEIR ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education. 2016; 17(68): 89. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22047/ijee.2016.12052

[27] Hesrcu-Kluska R. The interaction between learners and learner-facilitator in an online learning environment. Creative Education. 2019 Jul 4; 10(7):1713-1730.

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.107122

[28] Salmi L. Student Experiences on Interaction in an Online Learning Environment as Part of a Blended Learning Implementation: What Is Essential? Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-learning; 2013 Jul 22-26; Prague, Czech Republic. 2013 Jul; 356-360.

[29] Yengin I, Karahoca A, Karahoca D. E-learning success model for instructors’ satisfactions in perspective of interaction and usability outcomes. Procedia Computer Science. 2011 Jan 1; 3: 1396-1403.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.021

[30] Pourkarimi J, Alimardani Z. Factor's affecting interactions in e-learning environments (study of meta-synthesis). Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2020; 11(1): 25-44. [In Persian].

[31] Quadir B, Yang JC, Chen NS. The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022 Feb 4; 30(2):293-306.

https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10494820.2019.1652835

[32] Luo N, Zhang M, Qi D. Effects of different interactions on students' sense of community in e-learning environment. Computers & Education. 2017 Dec 1; 115: 153-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.006

[33] Kurucay M, Inan FA. Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education. 2017 Dec 1; 115: 20-37.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2017.06.010

[34] Khademi Y, sattari S. Evaluation and Prioritization of types of Interaction and Participation in E-learning Environment using Hierarchical Analysis Process (AHP). Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 87-107. [In Persian].

[35] Malekipour A. Representing the types of educational interaction university curriculum and determining its dominant type based on mixed approach. Journal of Research and Writing Academic Books. 2021; 24(2): 281-299. [In Persian].

https://doi.org/10.30487/ rwab.2021.134963.1409

[36] Choi BK, Kim MS. The student–faculty interaction beyond the formal curriculum in South Korea. Higher Education Quarterly. 2021 Jan; 75(1):35-50. 10.1111/hequ.12261

[37] Saeidipour, B., Sarmadi, M.R., Esmaeili, Z., Jafarzadeh, M.R. Assessment of Interaction: E-learning Challenge in Higher Education. Technology Review. 2015; 591-605.

[38] Shu H, GU X. determining the differences between online and face-to-face student–group interactions in a blended learning course. The Internet and Higher Education. 2018 Oct 1; 39:13-21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.003

[39] Soffer T, Nachmias R. Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer assisted learning. 2018 Oct; 34(5):534-543.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258

[40] Harper B. Technology and teacher–student interactions: A review of empirical research. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2018 Jul 3; 50(3):214-225.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1450690

[41] Schallert DL, Sanders AJ, Williams KM, Seo E, Yu LT, Vogler JS, Song K, Williamson ZH, Knox MC. Does it matter if the teacher is there? A teacher's contribution to emerging patterns of interactions in online classroom discussions. Computers & Education. 2015 Mar 1; 82: 315-328.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.019

[42] Mirzaei E, Alinejad M, Daneshmand B. Research procedures of various educational interactions in e-learning with the meta-analysis approach. The First National Conference on Curriculum Studies in the Third Millennium. 2022. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[43] Mirzaei E, Alinejad M, Daneshmand B. Explaining faculty members’ perceptions of virtual learning based on various types of educational interactions during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 outbreak: A qualitative content analysis. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2022 Dec 1; 19(1).

[44] Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 103(3): 411-423.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

[45] Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51(6): 1173-1182. 0022-3514/86/$00.75

[46] Gholampour M, Ayati M. Analysis of Symbolic Interaction Theory and Its Implications in Curriculum. Journal of Higher Education Letter. 2019; 12(45): 147-169. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[47] Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Bures EM, Borokhovski E, Tamim RM. Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of computing in higher education. 2011 Dec; 23(2-3):82-103.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x

[48] Ekwunife-Orakwue KC, Teng TL. The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education. 2014 Sep 1; 78: 414-427.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011

[49] Kuo YC, Walker AE, Schroder KE, Belland BR. Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The internet and higher education. 2014 Jan 1; 20:35-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001

[50] Ebrahimzadeh I, Masoomifard M. Studying the Various Types of Interaction in the e-learning environment with Learning Quality in Virtual Campuses. Research in Curriculum Planning. 2017; 14(52): 47-62. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[51] Yazdani Kashani Z, Tamannayifar MR. Importance and status of web 2 tools in virtual education implementing an interactive approach at virtual Universities of Iran. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2013; 6(2): 119-128. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[52] Mohammad NM, Sara F, Zahra T, Mojtaba H. The study of the teacher's role and student interaction in e-learning process. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on e-Learning and e-Teaching (ICELET); 2013 Feb 13-14; Shiraz, Iran. 2013: 130-134.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICELET.2013.6681659

[53] Ustati R, Hassan SS. Distance learning students’ need: Evaluating interactions from Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2013 Apr 1; 14(2):292-304.

[54] Mijatovic I, Jovanovic J, Jednak S. Students Online Interaction in a Blended Learning Environment-A Case Study of the First Experience in using an LMS. InCSEDU (2) 2012 (pp. 445-454). 10.5220/0003963804450454

[55] Kalim Shastani M. The Role of Virtual Social Networks in Student, s Educational Interactions of Sistan and Baluchestan University. Master thesis, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Department of Educational Sciences. 2017. ‎[In Persian]‎

[56] Mansouri Z. Analysis of different kinds of interaction among students related to curriculum in a virtual space. Master thesis, Payamnour University Tehran South Centre, Department of Educational Science.2012. ‎[In Persian]‎

[57] Zareai E, Seyedi T. Measuring the Level of Interaction in E-Curriculum of Khajeh Nasir Toosi University of Technology. Training Measurement. 2013; 4(11):147-163. [In Persian].

[58] Mahmodi M, Ebrahimzadeh E, Mosakazemi M, Farajollahi M. An Analysis on the Relationship between Frequency of Instructional Communication and Student Persistence in Distance Education, Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 2014; 4(4): 56-68. ‎[In Persian]‎. https://doi.org/10.22051/jontoe.2015.381

[59] Moradimokhles H, Heydari J, Salehi V, Pouti N. The impact of computer-based and web-enhanced learning environments on the interaction of instructional elements. Technology of Education Journal. 2017; 11(3): 223-233. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2017.682

[60] Taghizadeh A, Hatami J, Fardanesh H, Norouzi O. Pattern design for web-based tutoring based on attendance factor. Journal of Research in Educational Science. 2017; 10(35): 35-59. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[61] Sundari H. Classroom interaction in teaching English as foreign language at lower secondary schools in Indonesia. Advances in language and Literary Studies. 2017; 8(6):147-154. https://doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls. v.8n.6p.147

[62] Moradi R, Aliabadi KH, Mohammadimehr M. Pedagogical Principles of the Theories of Interaction in Distance Learning: The Study of Interaction Anderson Model in Web-based Environments. Journal of educational studies. 2014; 3(1): 29-41. ‎[In Persian]‎.

[63] Rossi D, Van Rensburg H, Beer C, Clark D, Danaher P, Harreveld R. Learning interactions: A cross-institutional multi-disciplinary analysis of learner-learner and learner-teacher and learner-content interactions in online learning contexts. University of New England: New South Wales, Australia. 2013:1-211.

[64] Moore GE, Warner WJ, Jones DW. Student-to-Student Interaction in Distance Education Classes: What Do Graduate Students Want? Journal of Agricultural Education. 2016; 57(2):1-13. 10.5032/jae.2016.02001

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 407
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 296


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب