Sun, Jun 8, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 16, Issue 50 (2023)
JMED 2023, 16(50): 40-50 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SUMS.REC.1398.902
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Masoudi M, Karimian Z, Mehrabi M. Investigating the components of virtual education development based on the four-frame model of organizational development. JMED 2023; 16 (50) :40-50
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1599-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1599-en.html
1- MSc of E-learning in medical sciences, Consulting expert, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
2- Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excelence in E-Learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,z_karimian_z@yahoo.com
3- Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excellence in E-Learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excelence in E-Learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran ,
3- Department of E-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School and Center of Excellence in E-Learning, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract: (1942 Views)
Background & Objective: The development of virtual education is one of the important needs of universities and one of the main policies of higher education. The present research was conducted based on Bolman and Deal's four-frame model (1991) to compare the existing situation and the importance of the components of virtual education development (structural, human resources, political, and symbolic) from faculty members' perspectives.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive survey study was conducted in 2019-2020. The research community was the faculty members of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2019 with at least one year of experience (700 people). The sample size was calculated at 220 cases using Cochran's formula, and 156 participants provided complete questionnaires. The research tool was a researcher-made questionnaire consisting of 32 items in four domains- structural, political, human resources, and symbolic (cultural). Form and content validity were confirmed from the perspectives of 10 experts, and construct validity was confirmed with KMO=0.944. Bartlett's Sphericity index was P<0.001, and reliability was reported with Cronbach's alpha of 0.973. Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 24) using paired t-test, independent t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation.
Results: There was a significant difference between the existing situation and the importance of the components (favorable) (P<0.001). Based on the four-frame model, the mean scores of human resources, symbolic, structural, and political components were reported as 3.44±0.86, 3.13±1.10, 3.11±0.92, and 2.93±1.07, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean of the components by gender and years of employment (P>0.05); nonetheless, it was different by academic rank, disciple, and faculty (P<0.05). There was a significant correlation among the components (P<0.001).
Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, the development of virtual education requires close attention to organizational, cultural, human, and political variables. Furthermore, the development is also affected by the culture of the discipline; therefore, a comprehensive examination is needed in the analysis of issues and provision of solutions.
Materials & Methods: This descriptive survey study was conducted in 2019-2020. The research community was the faculty members of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2019 with at least one year of experience (700 people). The sample size was calculated at 220 cases using Cochran's formula, and 156 participants provided complete questionnaires. The research tool was a researcher-made questionnaire consisting of 32 items in four domains- structural, political, human resources, and symbolic (cultural). Form and content validity were confirmed from the perspectives of 10 experts, and construct validity was confirmed with KMO=0.944. Bartlett's Sphericity index was P<0.001, and reliability was reported with Cronbach's alpha of 0.973. Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 24) using paired t-test, independent t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation.
Results: There was a significant difference between the existing situation and the importance of the components (favorable) (P<0.001). Based on the four-frame model, the mean scores of human resources, symbolic, structural, and political components were reported as 3.44±0.86, 3.13±1.10, 3.11±0.92, and 2.93±1.07, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mean of the components by gender and years of employment (P>0.05); nonetheless, it was different by academic rank, disciple, and faculty (P<0.05). There was a significant correlation among the components (P<0.001).
Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, the development of virtual education requires close attention to organizational, cultural, human, and political variables. Furthermore, the development is also affected by the culture of the discipline; therefore, a comprehensive examination is needed in the analysis of issues and provision of solutions.
Keywords: Development, Faculty members, Human resources, Political, Structure, Symbols, Virtual education
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Received: 2022/05/13 | Accepted: 2023/03/30 | Published: 2023/05/17
Received: 2022/05/13 | Accepted: 2023/03/30 | Published: 2023/05/17
References
1. Cidral WA, Oliveira T, Di Felice M, Aparicio M. E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers and Education. 2018; 122: 273–90. [DOI]
2. Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, Tramacere I, Moja L. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. 21;1(1):CD011736. [DOI]
3. Singh V, Thurman A. How many ways can we define online learning? A systematic literature review of definitions of online learning (1988–2018). American Journal of Distance Education. 2019;33(4):289–306. [DOI]
4. Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of educational technology systems. 2020;49(1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0047239520934018. [PubMed]
5. Rivera-Vargas P, Anderson T, Cano CA. Exploring students' learning experience in online education: analysis and improvement proposals based on the case of a Spanish open learning university. Education Technology Research and Development. 2021;69(6):3367-3389. [DOI]
6. Yawson DE, Yamoah FA. Understanding satisfaction essentials of E-learning in higher education: A multi-generational cohort perspective. Heliyon. 2020 Nov 15;6(11):e05519. [DOI]
7. Eltahir M.E. E-Learning in developing countries: is it a panacea? A case study of Sudan. IEEE Access. 2019;7:97784–97792.
8. Salahshouri A, Eslami K, Boostani H, Zahiri M, Jahani S, Arjmand R, Heydarabadi AB, Dehaghi BF. The university students' viewpoints on e-learning system during COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Iran. Heliyon. 2022 Feb;8(2):e08984. [DOI]
9. Aung, T.N., Khaing, S.S. Challenges of Implementing e-Learning in Developing Countries: A Review. In: Zin, T., Lin, JW., Pan, JS., Tin, P., Yokota, M. (eds) Genetic and Evolutionary Computing. GEC 2015. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2016; vol 388. 405-411 Springer, Cham. [DOI]
10. 10. Taher TMJ, Saadi RB, Oraibi RR, Ghazi HF, Abdul-Rasool S, Tuma F. E-Learning Satisfaction and Barriers in Unprepared and Resource-Limited Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Cureus. 2022;13;14(5):e24969. [DOI]
11. Kanwal, F., & Rehman, Factors Affecting E-Learning Adoption in Developing Countries–Empirical Evidence From Pakistan’s Higher Education Sector. IEEE Access, 2017; 5, 10968-10978, [DOI]
12. Karimian Z, Farrokhi MR, Moghadami M, Zarifsanaiey N, Mehrabi M, Khojasteh L, Salehi N. Medical education and COVID-19 pandemic: a crisis management model towards an evolutionary pathway. Education and Information Technologies. 2022;27(3):3299-3320. [DOI]
13. Volery, T. & Lord, D. Critical success factors in online education. International journal of educational management,. 2000;14(5), 216-223. [DOI]
14. Khan KU, Badii A. Impact of e-learning on higher education: Development of an e-learning framework. Life Science Journal. 2012;9(4):4073-82.
15. Selim HM. Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education. 2007;49(2):396-413.
16. Beckhard R. Organisational development: strategies and models Reading MA: Addison Wesley, 1969. [DOI]
17. Fry, R. Szabla, D.B., Pasmore, W.A., Barnes, M.A., Gipson, A.N. Richard Beckhard:The Formulator of Organizational Change. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.2017. [DOI]
18. Bolman L.G., Deal T.E. Leadership and Management Effectiveness: A Multi-frame, Multi-sector Analysis. Human Resource Management. 1991;30(4):509–534. [DOI]
19. Bolman L.G., Deal T.E. Reframing Organizations' Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
20. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. Reframing organizations (Fifth edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2013.
21. Uzarski D, Broome ME. A Leadership Framework for Implementation of an Organization's Strategic Plan. Journal of Professional Nursing. 2019 Jan-Feb;35(1):12-17. [DOI]
22. Karimian, Z., Farokhi, M. R. Eight Steps in the Development of Virtual Education in Educational Innovation Plan in Medical Sciences Universities, A review of an experience. Journal of Medicine and Spiritual Cultivation(JMC), 2018; 27(2): 101-112.. [In Persian]
23. Sahu P. Closure of Universities Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on Education and Mental Health of Students and Academic Staff. Cureus. 2020 Apr 4;12(4):e7541. [DOI]
24. Rose S. Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2131-2132. [DOI]
25. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30:607–610. [DOI]
26. Cochran W.G. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York, NY, USA: 1977
27. Ahmadi, H., Gholaamee, K. Azizi N, Developmental areas in virtual learning in Kurdestaan University: towards a strategic framework. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 2013; 9(1): 9-34. [DOI]
28. Waltz C. F., Bausell B. R. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Davis FA. 1981
29. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75. [DOI]
30. Mirsaidi G, Imani M N, Nazem F. Evaluation of organizational infrastructure affecting the use of E-learning, Quarterly Journal of Nursing Management, 2016; 5(2): 51-58. [In Persian] [Article]
31. Mousavi S N, Alirezaei S, Ramezani-badr F, Poursina N. Exploring the Key Components of Initiating and Establishing Electronic Learning in Zanjan University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2021; 13 (40) :41-56 [In Persian]. [Article]
32. Lee SJ, Srinivasan S, Trail T, Lewis D, Lopez S. Examining the relationship among student perception of support, course satisfaction, and learning outcomes in online learning, The Internet and Higher Education, 2011; 14(3): 158-63 [DOI]
33. O’Doherty D، Dromey M، Lougheed J، Hannigan A، Last J، McGrath D. Barriers and solutions to online learning in medical education–an integrative review. BMC Medical Education. 2018 Dec;18:130. [DOI]
34. Khademi kolahlo, M., Arefi, M., Rezayan, A., Khorasani, A. Identification and Ranking of IT Leaders’ Key Tasks in Higher Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 2018; 8(32): 129-156. [In Persian]
35. Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, Althunibat A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25(6):5261-5280. [DOI]
36. Regmi K, Jones L. A systematic review of the factors - enablers and barriers - affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Med Educ. 2020 Mar 30;20(1):91. [DOI]
37. Peterson K, Stevens J, Integrating the scholarship of practice into the nurse academician portfolio. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice. 2013; 3(11): 84-92. [DOI]
38. Lieff SJ, Albert M. The mindsets of medical education leaders: how do they conceive of their work? Academic Medicine. 2010 Jan;85(1):57-62. [DOI]
39. Farrell M. Health care leadership in an age of change. Australian Health Review. 2003;26(1):153-64. [DOI]
40. Hadavand S., Kashanchi A.R.. Effective factors on electronic learning. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2013; 6 (2) :89-93. [Article]
41. Bajis D, Chaar B, Basheti IA, Moles R. Identifying perceptions of academic reform in pharmacy using a four-frame organizational change model. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2018 Oct;14(10):921-930. [DOI]
42. Kolomitro K, Hamilton J, Leslie K, Hazelton L, Veerapen K, Kelly-Turner K, Keegan D. Viewing faculty development through an organizational lens: Sharing lessons learned. Medical Teacher. 2021 Aug;43(8):894-899. [DOI]
43. Asghari M, Alizadeh M, Kazemi A, Safari H, Asghari F, Bagheri-Asl M M et al . An investigation of the challenges of e-Learning in medical sciences from the faculty members’ viewpoints of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Medical Education and Development. 2012; 7 (1) :26-34.[In Persian] [Article]
44. Karimian Z, Sabbaghian Z, Salehi A, Sedghpour BS. Obstacles to undertaking research and their effect on research output: a survey of faculty members' views at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. East Mediterr Health Journal. 2012 Nov;18(11):1143-50 [DOI]
45. Karimian Z, Kojouri J, Lotfi F, Amini M. Higher Education Administration and Accountability the Necessity of Autonomy and Academic Freedom from Faculties’ Viewpoint. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2012; 11 (8) :855-863. [DOI]
46. Karimi M. N. Disciplinary variations in English domain-specific personal epistemology. Insights from disciplines differing along Biglan’s dimensions of academic domains classification. System, 2014; 44: 89–100. [DOI]
47. Rosman T, Seifried E, Merk S. Combining Intra- and Interindividual Approaches in Epistemic Beliefs Research. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020.16;11:570. [DOI]
48. Biglan, A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. ournal of applied Psychology.1973,57 (3) 195–203. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
