Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences

Published by: Kowsar

A Critical Reflection of the Appraisal Indicators of Distance Education Systems: A Meta-Synthesis

Anwar Shahmohammadi 1 , Ali Taghipourzahir 2 , Nematollah Azizi 2 , 3 , * and Issa Ebrahimzadeh 2 , 4
Authors Information
1 Management of Higher Education, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3 University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
4 Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Article information
  • Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences: June 2018, 9 (2); e68103
  • Published Online: August 8, 2018
  • Article Type: Review Article
  • Received: February 27, 2018
  • Revised: May 19, 2018
  • Accepted: August 1, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijvlms.68103

To Cite: Shahmohammadi A, Taghipourzahir A, Azizi N, Ebrahimzadeh I. A Critical Reflection of the Appraisal Indicators of Distance Education Systems: A Meta-Synthesis, Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2018 ; 9(2):e68103. doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.68103.

Abstract
Copyright © 2018, Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited
1. Background
2. Methods
3. Results
4. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Fitzpatrick J, Sanders L, Worthon B. Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidance. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Press; 2011.
  • 2. Castello-Climent A, Hidalgo-Cabrillana A. The role of educational quality and quantity in the process of economic development. Economics of Education Review. 2012;31(4):391-409. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.11.004.
  • 3. Azizi N. [Reflecting on challenges facing the secondary education in relationship to job market]. Q J Educ. 2013;28(4):99-128. Persian.
  • 4. Wang Y-S, Wang H-Y, Shee DY. Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23(4):1792-808. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.006.
  • 5. Comerchero M. E-learning concepts and techniques. USA: Institute for Interactive Technologies, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania; 2006.
  • 6. Stallings D. Measuring success in the virtual university. J Acad Librarian. 2002;28(1-2):47-53. doi: 10.1016/s0099-1333(01)00300-7.
  • 7. Eskandari H, Fardanesh H, Sajadi. M . Connectivism: in competing for or in alignment with other learning theories? J Edu Psychol. 2010;5(15):35-64.
  • 8. Ghasemi AR, Shahriarifard A. Identification and prioritization of indicators involved in the quality of electronic education. J Tech Educ. 2015;10(4):307-18.
  • 9. Rezaei I, Nasri S, Armand M. [Communication theory and its application in the design of the academic textbook]. Ayar. 2011;(24):81-94. Persian.
  • 10. Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Int J Instr Tech Dist Learn. 2005;2(1):25-39.
  • 11. Islas E, Perez M, Rodriguez G, Paredes I, Avila I, Mendoza M. E-learning tools evaluation and roadmap development for an electrical utility. J Theor Appl Electron Commerce Res. 2007;2(1):61-75.
  • 12. Yengin I, Karahoca A, Karahoca D. E-learning success model for instructors’ satisfactions in perspective of interaction and usability outcomes. Procedia Comput Sci. 2011;3:1396-403. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.021.
  • 13. Mohammadi R, Zafaripour T, Sadeghimandi F, Zamanifar M. [Accreditation and quality assurance of distance learning: A review on patterns and processes]. J Edu Meas Eval Stud. 2015;4(8):95-137. Persian.
  • 14. Arbaugh JB, Benbunan-Fich R. The importance of participant interaction in online environments. Decis Support Syst. 2007;43(3):853-65. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.12.013.
  • 15. Douglas DE, Van Der Vyver G. Effectiveness of e-learning course materials for learning database management systems: An experimental investigation. J Comput Inform Syst. 2004;44(4):41-8.
  • 16. Liu G-Z, Liu Z-H, Hwang G-J. Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors. Comput Educ. 2011;56(1):65-79. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.019.
  • 17. Oztekin A. A decision support system for usability evaluation of web-based information systems. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(3):2110-8. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.151.
  • 18. Kanuka H, Anderson T. Ethical issues in qualitative e-learning research. Int J Qual Meth. 2016;6(2):20-39. doi: 10.1177/160940690700600204.
  • 19. Ekmekci E. Distance-education in foreign language teaching: evaluations from the perspectives of freshman students. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2015;176:390-7. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.487.
  • 20. Dorobat I. Models for measuring e-learning success in universities: A literature review. Inform Economica. 2014;18(3/2014):77-90. doi: 10.12948/issn14531305/18.3.2014.07.
  • 21. Hand A. Evaluating the suitability of current authoring tools for developing e-learning Resources [Dissertation]. 2012.
  • 22. Abdellatief M, Sultan M, Jabar M, Rusli A. A technique for quality evaluation of e-learning from developers perspective. Am J Econ Bus Admin. 2011;3(1):157-64. doi: 10.3844/ajebasp.2011.157.164.
  • 23. AbuSneineh W, Zairi M. An evalution farmework for e-learning effectivenss in the Arab world. International encyclopedia of eduction (Third Edition). 2010. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01708-5.
  • 24. Anarinejad A, Mohammadi M. The practical indicators for evaluation of e-learning in higher education in Iran. Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2014;5(1):11-25.
  • 25. Jahanian R, Etebar S. [Evaluating the status of virtual education in e-learning centers of Iran's universities from the viewpoint of students]. Inform Comm Tech Edu Sci. 2012;2(4):53-65. Persian.
  • 26. Javadi B, Ebrahimzade E, Farajollahi M, Sarmadi MR. [Designing an effectiveness assessment model for distance education system in Payame Noor University]. Q J Inform Comm Tech Edu Sci. 2011;2(1):80-98. Persian.
  • 27. Bench S, Day T. The user experience of critical care discharge: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(4):487-99. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.013. [PubMed: 20004396].
  • 28. Cresswell JW. Educational research, planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc; 2012.
  • 29. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company; 2006.
  • 30. Munyoka W, editor. Evaluation impact of tele-education as new open distance learning delivery mode on Learners in Botswana. 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013 - Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2014. p. 1248-52.
  • 31. Masoumi D, Lindstrom B. Quality in e-learning: a framework for promoting and assuring quality in virtual institutions. J Comput Assist Learn. 2012;28(1):27-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00440.x.
  • 32. Erdogan Y, Bayram S, Deniz L. Factors that influence academic achievement and attitudes in web based education. Int J Instruct. 2008;1(1):31-47.
  • 33. Islam MA, Abdul Rahim A, Tan CL, Momtaz H. Effect of demographic factors on e-learning effectiveness in a higher learning institution in Malaysia. Int Educ Stud. 2011;4(1). doi: 10.5539/ies.v4n1p112.
  • 34. Akbary Boorang M, Jafari Sani H, Ahanchian MR, Kareshki H. [The evaluation of e-learning quality of iran’s universities based on curriculum orientations and faculty members’experiences]. Q J Res Plan High Edu. 2013;66(1):75-97. Persian.
  • 35. Seraji F. Providing a framework for evaluating education quality at e-colleges. Fifth Education Quality Assessment Conference on Academic System. May; University of Tehran, Technical Schools Campus. 2011.
  • 36. Orehovacki T, Granic A, Kermek D. Evaluating the perceived and estimated quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. J Syst Software. 2013;86(12):3039-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.05.071.
  • 37. Oztekin A, Delen D, Turkyilmaz A, Zaim S. A machine learning-based usability evaluation method for eLearning systems. Decis Support Syst. 2013;56:63-73. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.003.
  • 38. Pazalos K, Loukis E, Nikolopoulos V. A structured methodology for assessing and improving e-services in digital cities. Telematics Informat. 2012;29(1):123-36. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2010.05.002.
  • 39. Savic, S , Stankovic, M , Janackovic, G . Hybrid model for e-learning quality evaluation. The Second International Conference on e-Learning (eLearning-2011). 29-30 September 2011; Belgrade, Serbia. 2011.
  • 40. Ozkan S, Koseler R. Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Comput Educ. 2009;53(4):1285-96. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011.
  • 41. Khodabakhshi A, Movahed Mohammadi H, Shabanali Fami H. [Analysis of components of quality of e-learning in the Iranian agricultural higher education]. Iran J Agr Econ Dev Res. 2014;44(4):693-707. Persian.
  • 42. Hasanzade A, Karimzadegan Moghadam D, Motaghian H. [Assessing the factors influencing university instructors adoption of web-based learning systems using an integrated model]. Manag Res Iran. 2013;17(1):41-72. Persian.
  • 43. Darab B, Montazer G. [Designing an electronic learning readiness assessment model in Iranian universities]. Sharif J Ind Eng Manag. 2009;1(1):21-30. Persian.
  • 44. Iskenderoglu M, Iskenderoglu TA, Palanci M. Opinion of teaching staff in distance education systems, regarding the assessment and evaluation process. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:4661-5.
  • 45. Karal H, Cebi A. Views on modular assessment and evaluation process in distance education. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2012;46:2073-7. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.430.
  • 46. Fariborzi E, bt Abu Bakar K. Factors influencing the effectiveness of courses in Iranian university e-learning centers. Int J Tech Knowl Soc. 2010;6(1):71-80. doi: 10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v06i01/56057.
  • 47. Norollahy S, Hakimzadeh R, Seraji F. [Evaluation of instructional design quality of e-learning courses of hadith science college]. High Educ Lett, New Edition. 2012;5(17):119-35. Persian.
  • 48. Hadadian A. [Surveying national e-learning system in the globalization era]. J Strat Stud Publ Pol. 2011;2(4):117-48. Persian.
  • 49. Enayati Novinfar A, Uosefi M, Siyami L, Javaheri Daneshmand M. [Evaluation of the quality of education services of Payam Noor University of hamedan based on the SERVQUAL model]. Q J Res Plan High Edu. 2011;17(3):135-51. Persian.
  • 50. Hassanzadeh A, Kanaani F, Elahi S. A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(12):10959-66. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028.
  • 51. Kay R. Evaluating learning, design, and engagement in web-based learning tools (WBLTs): The WBLT evaluation scale. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(5):1849-56. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.007.
  • 52. Caramihai M, Severin I. Elearning tools evaluation based on quality concept distance computing. A case study. World Acad Sci Eng Tech. 2009;29::569-73.
  • 53. Kazemi Ghareche M, Amin Khandaghi M, Jafari Sani H. [The evaluation of quality of e-content development stages in curriculum of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in 2011]. Q J Edu Manag Eval Stud. 2013;3(3):71-99. Persian.
  • 54. ECOTEC E Learning Evaluation. Final evaluation of the e-learning programme: Annex to the joint report. Birmingham, United Kingdom: Priestley House; 2007.
  • 55. Pohl M, Rester M, Judmaier P, Stockelmary K. Ecodesign - design and evaluation of an e-learning system for vocational training. E & I: Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik. 2005;122(12):473-6. doi: 10.1007/bf03054382.
  • 56. Ardito C, Costabile MF, Marsico M, Lanzilotti R, Levialdi S, Roselli T, et al. An approach to usability evaluation of e-learning applications. Univers Access Inform Soc. 2005;4(3):270-83. doi: 10.1007/s10209-005-0008-6.
  • 57. Zarei A, Mohd-Yusof K, Daud MF, Azizi N. Web 2.0 applications for engineering education: Faculty members’ perception, barriers, and solutions. Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2017;25(3):449-57. doi: 10.1002/cae.21812.

Featured Image:

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments