Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences

Published by: Kowsar

Identification and Prioritization of Factors Affecting the Improvement of Teaching-Learning at Smart Schools

Aliakbar Dolati 1 , * , Seyed Ali Siadat 1 and Hadi Dehgani 2
Authors Information
1 Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Isfahan University, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Marvdasht Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
Article information
  • Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences: September 2018, 9 (3); e68777
  • Published Online: October 6, 2018
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: March 18, 2018
  • Revised: September 28, 2018
  • Accepted: September 30, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijvlms.68777

To Cite: Dolati A, Siadat S A , Dehgani H. Identification and Prioritization of Factors Affecting the Improvement of Teaching-Learning at Smart Schools, Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. 2018 ; 9(3):e68777. doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.68777.

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. Discussion
References
  • 1. Lubis MA, Yunus MM, Embi MA. ICT and systematic steps in teaching and learning language in the classroom. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2010;9:1055-61. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.285.
  • 2. Markoe Hayes S, Chapple S, Ramirez C. Strong, smart and bold strategies for improving attendance and retention in an after-school intervention. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(3 Suppl):S64-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.030. [PubMed: 24560079].
  • 3. Taleb Z, Hassanzadeh F. Toward smart school: A comparison between smart school and traditional school for mathematics learning. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2015;171:90-5. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.093.
  • 4. Büyükbaykal CI. Communication technologies and education in the information age. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2015;174:636-40. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.594.
  • 5. Slay H, Siebörger I, Hodgkinson-Williams C. Interactive whiteboards: Real beauty or just “lipstick”? Comput Educat. 2008;51(3):1321-41. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.006.
  • 6. Bagheri K. Intelligent school under the magnifying of interactive teaching. School tomorrow. 2013;10(1):8-9.
  • 7. Hu BY, Fan X, Yang Y, Neitzel J. Chinese preschool teachers' knowledge and practice of teacher-child interactions: The mediating role of teachers' beliefs about children. Teach Teach Educ. 2017;63:137-47. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.014.
  • 8. Mitrofan N, Cioricaru MF. Emotional intelligence and school performance-correlational study. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2014;127:769-75. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.352.
  • 9. Ghonoodi A, Salimi L. The study of elements of curriculum in smart schools. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2011;28:68-71. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.014.
  • 10. Cidral WA, Oliveira T, Felice MD, Aparicio M. E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Comput Educat. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001.
  • 11. Ferdousi B, Bari J. Infusing mobile technology into undergraduate courses for effective learning. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2015;176:307-11. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.476.
  • 12. Breen R, Lindsay R, Jenkins A, Smith P. The role of information and communication technologies in a university learning environment. Stud High Educ. 2010;26(1):95-114. doi: 10.1080/03075070123233.
  • 13. UNESCO. School evaluation for quality improvement, An ANTRIEP report, meeting of the Asian Network of Training and Research Institutions in Educational Planning (ANTRIEP), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2004.
  • 14. Alt D. Science teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, ICT efficacy, ICT professional development and ICT practices enacted in their classrooms. Teach Teach Educ. 2018;73:141-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.020.
  • 15. Sani Idrahim M, Razak AZ, Kenayathulla HB. Smart principals and smart schools. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2013;103:826-36. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 16. Cai H. E-learning and english teaching. IERI Procedia. 2012;2:841-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ieri.2012.06.180.
  • 17. Altun T, Bektas E. Views of regional boarding school teachers about the use of ICT in education. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2010;9:462-7. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 18. Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Biochem Educat. 1989;17(3):140-1. doi: 10.1016/0307-4412(89)90094-0.
  • 19. Yuksel I. Instructor competencies for online courses. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2009;1(1):1726-9. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.305.
  • 20. Luo N, Zhang M, Qi D. Effects of different interactions on students' sense of community in e-learning environment. Comput Educat. 2017;115:153-60. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.006.
  • 21. Arvola M. Grading in interaction design education using design practitioners’ conceptions of process quality. Interact Comput. 2012;24(6):472-81. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2012.09.002.
  • 22. Aziz Z, Anowar MH. A comparison of cooperative learning and conventional teaching on students’ achievement in secondary mathematics. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2010;9:53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.115.
  • 23. Amiri R, Sharifi M. The influence of using interactive whiteboard on writings of EFL students regarding adverbs. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2014;98:242-50. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.413.
  • 24. Jesson R, McNaughton S, Rosedale N, Zhu T, Cockle V. A mixed-methods study to identify effective practices in the teaching of writing in a digital learning environment in low income schools. Comput Educat. 2018;119:14-30. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.005.
  • 25. Assareh A, Hosseini Bidokht M. Barriers to e-teaching and e-learning. Procd Comput Sci. 2011;3:791-5. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 26. Attaran M, Alias N, Siraj S. Learning culture in a smart school: A case study. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2012;64:417-23. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 27. Makki TW, O'Neal LTJ, Cotten RS, Rikard RV. When first-order barriers are high: A comparison of second- and third-order barriers to classroom computing integration. Comput Educat. 2018;120:90-7. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 28. Tezer M, Ertarkan Z. Teachers’ proficiency and infrastructural problems of using technology during the process of technology integration in pre-school education institutions of north Cyprus. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2010;9:1960-8. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.430.
  • 29. Umar IN, Hassan ASA. Malaysian teachers' levels of ICT integration and its perceived impact on teaching and learning. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2015;197:2015-21. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 30. Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Illustrated, annotated ed. London: SAGE Publications; 2003.
  • 31. Gokkurt B, Dundar S, Soylu Y, Akgun L. The effects of learning together technique which is based on cooperative learning on student's achievement in mathematics class. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2012;46:3431-4. doi: 10.1016/j.
  • 32. Hamzah MI, Ismail A, Embi MA. The Impact of technology change in Malaysian smart schools on Islamic education teachers and students. Int J Human Social Sci. 2010;4(11):824-36.
  • 33. Asli A, Berrado A, Sendide K, Darhmaoui H. Effect of the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) resources on the scholastic performance of middle school students in biology and geology courses. Procd Soc Behv Sci. 2012;5(5):1113-7. doi: 10.1016/j.
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