Sat, Apr 26, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 18, Issue 1 (2025)
JMED 2025, 18(1): 132-139 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.UMSHA.REC.1402.037
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shavandi F, Emad Momtaz H, Moradi N, Cheraghi Z, Seidi M. The frequency and acceptance of educational technology as a learning tool among faculty members. JMED 2025; 18 (1) :132-139
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2161-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-2161-en.html
1- Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hamadan, Iran.
2- Department of Pediatrics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
3- Department of Nutritional Science, Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hamadan, Iran.
4- Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
5- Assistant Professor, Ph.D. medical education, Education Development Center(EDC), Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ,seidimasoomeh@gmail.com
2- Department of Pediatrics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
3- Department of Nutritional Science, Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hamadan, Iran.
4- Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
5- Assistant Professor, Ph.D. medical education, Education Development Center(EDC), Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran. ,
Abstract: (194 Views)
Background & Objective: Educational technologies improve instruction and make learning easier. They have several advantages, such as encouraging active learning, raising motivation, and improving the standard of instruction. This study aimed to determine how frequently and how well faculty members at Hamadan University of Medical Sciences used educational technology as a teaching tool. Additionally, it aimed to identify the difficulties related to online learning and collect their opinions on educational technology.
Materials & Methods: By the ethical code IR.UMSHA.REC.1402.037, a cross-sectional study, was conducted between early February and early May 2023. The target population consisted of all Hamadan University of Medical Sciences faculty members, of which 139 or so were chosen by stratified random sampling from each particular school. The research instrument was a questionnaire divided into sections covering: 1) socio-demographics and occupation, 2) experience with new educational technologies, 3) a list of these technologies, and 4) questions derived from the validated Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). We utilized a multiple linear regression model to analyze the relationship between demographic variables and outcomes. We also used the chi-square test to compare proportional differences at a 95% confidence level.
Results: According to the analysis, 86.33% of faculty members have integrated new educational technologies into their instruction. Wearable technology was used the least for instruction (1.44%), while mobile apps were the most common (53.96%). The majority of new educational technologies (47.48%) were used for theoretical instruction.
Conclusion: Given the advantages of educational technologies, investigating how they are currently being used and creating a systematic plan for their successful implementation can benefit faculty, students, and academic institutions. This method should supplement conventional lectures.
Materials & Methods: By the ethical code IR.UMSHA.REC.1402.037, a cross-sectional study, was conducted between early February and early May 2023. The target population consisted of all Hamadan University of Medical Sciences faculty members, of which 139 or so were chosen by stratified random sampling from each particular school. The research instrument was a questionnaire divided into sections covering: 1) socio-demographics and occupation, 2) experience with new educational technologies, 3) a list of these technologies, and 4) questions derived from the validated Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). We utilized a multiple linear regression model to analyze the relationship between demographic variables and outcomes. We also used the chi-square test to compare proportional differences at a 95% confidence level.
Results: According to the analysis, 86.33% of faculty members have integrated new educational technologies into their instruction. Wearable technology was used the least for instruction (1.44%), while mobile apps were the most common (53.96%). The majority of new educational technologies (47.48%) were used for theoretical instruction.
Conclusion: Given the advantages of educational technologies, investigating how they are currently being used and creating a systematic plan for their successful implementation can benefit faculty, students, and academic institutions. This method should supplement conventional lectures.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2024/04/16 | Accepted: 2025/02/6 | Published: 2025/04/14
Received: 2024/04/16 | Accepted: 2025/02/6 | Published: 2025/04/14
References
1. Selvaraj A, Radhin V, Nithin K, Benson N, Mathew AJ. Effect of pandemic based online education on teaching and learning system. International Journal of Educational Development. 2021;85:102444. [DOI]
2. Almahasees Z, Mohsen K, Amin MO. Faculty’s and students’ perceptions of online learning during covid-19. InFrontiers in Education 2021 May 12 (Vol. 6, p. 638470). Frontiers Media SA. [DOI]
3. Almajali D, Al-Okaily M, Barakat S, Al-Zegaier H, Dahalin ZM. Students’ perceptions of the sustainability of distance learning systems in the post-covid-19: a qualitative perspective. Sustainability. 2022;14(12):7353. [DOI]
4. Bahasoan AN, Ayuandiani W, Mukhram M, Rahmat A. Effectiveness of online learning in pandemic covid-19. International Journal of Science, Technology & Management. 2020;1(2):100-6. [DOI]
5. Alea LA, Fabrea MF, Roldan RDA, Farooqi AZ. Teachers' covid-19 awareness, distance learning education experiences and perceptions towards institutional readiness and challenges. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 2020;19(6):127-44. [DOI]
6. Zalat MM, Hamed MS, Bolbol SA. The experiences, challenges, and acceptance of e-learning as a tool for teaching during the covid-19 pandemic among university medical staff. PloS One. 2021;16(3):e0248758. [DOI]
7. Soubra L, Al-Ghouti MA, Abu-Dieyeh M, Crovella S, Abou-Saleh H. Impacts on student learning and skills and implementation challenges of two student-centered learning methods applied in online education. Sustainability. 2022;14(15):9625. [DOI]
8. Mugo DG, Njagi K, Chemwei B, Motanya JO. The technology acceptance model (TAM) and its application to the utilization of mobile learning technologies. Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science.2017;20(4): 1-8 [DOI]
9. Al-Gahtani S. The applicability of TAM outside North America: an empirical test in the United Kingdom. Information Resources Management Journal. 2001;14(3):37-46. [DOI]
10. Bond M, Buntins K, Bedenlier S, Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M. Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Tigher Education. 2020;17:1-30 [DOI]
11. Seidi M, Ramezani-Aliakbari F, Doosti-Irani A. Effectiveness of the flipped classroom method using clinical scenarios and Educational Technology versus Subject-Based Lectures in a gastrointestinal physiology course for medical students. BMC Medical Education. 2024 Aug 9;24(1):858. [DOI]
12. Huang R. Educational technology a primer for the 21st century: Springer; 2019. [DOI]
13. Li S, Zhang C, Liu Q, Tong K. E-Learning during covid-19: perspectives and experiences of the faculty and students. BMC Medical Education. 2022;22(1):328 [DOI]
14. Amare EM, Zegeye RT, Wondie SG, Negash TT, Siyoum MT. Getting ready for digital shift: the level of acceptance towards educational technology among faculty members in higher education institutions in Ethiopia. Discover Education. 2024;3(1):10. [DOI]
15. Voicu MC, Muntean M. Factors that influence mobile learning among university students in Romania. Electronics. 2023;12(4):938. [DOI]
16. Fussell SG, Truong D. Using virtual reality for dynamic learning: an extended technology acceptance model. Virtual Reality. 2022;26(1):249-67. [DOI]
17. Gabriel M, Campbell B, Wiebe S, MacDonald R, McAuley A. The role of digital technologies in learning: Expectations of first year university students. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 2012;38(1). [DOI]
18. Granić A, Marangunić N. Technology acceptance model in educational context: a systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019;50(5):2572-93 [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
