Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Clinical Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cognitive, psychomotor, and attitudinal
readiness of faculty members and students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for using
e‑learning in 2019 in order to move toward the desired future of e‑learning in medical education,
promote the benefits of e‑learning in the country, and provide training to each of the research groups
if needed.
METHODS: This is a cross‑sectional study conducted in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences,
Iran, in 2019. The study population consisted of 379 students and 281 professors selected through
the systematic random sampling in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. The e‑learning readiness
questionnaire developed by Zarif Sanaei et al. was used to evaluate the students’ and teachers’
viewpoints.
RESULTS: The results showed that the average level of skill, knowledge, and attitude among students
and teachers was positive and higher than the mean (P < 0.05). It had only a significant relationship
in the level of education of the teachers and the marital status of the participants. There was also a
significant interaction between skill, knowledge, and attitude.
CONCLUSION: There is a need for successful implementation of e‑learning by creating appropriate
infrastructure, applying the required standards, as well as taking measures to reduce the existing
resistance in this regard, which can be achieved through training workshops. The experience of
successful universities in the country and abroad can also be used to implement e‑learning.
Keywords
provided instruction in e‑learning center of Tarbiat Modares
University (TMU) from students’ and educational experts’ point
of view. Q J Iran Distance Educ 2018;1:29‑38.
2. Alhabeeb A, Rowley J. E‑learning critical success factors:
Comparing perspectives from academic staff and students.
Comput Educ 2018;1:1‑2.
3. Akbarilakeh M, Razzaghi A, Moghaddam HD. Attitudes of
faculty members towards using e‑learning. Res Dev Med Educ
2019;8:12‑9.
4. Yazdan‑Panah A. Competitive Explanation and Evaluation of
Virtual Universities. J Strateg Manage Stud 2012;12:101‑22.
5. Bordbar A, Naghi Zade M, Zargardi B, Laghaei T. Review and
prioritize the effective factors in the successful implementation of
e‑learning faculty members Fasa University of Medical Sciences,
Horizon. J Med Educ Dev 2010;4:47‑54.
6. Proceedings of the Seventh EDEN (European Distance Education
Network) Annual Conference 1998;2:225-9.
7. Truong HM. Integrating learning styles and adaptive e‑learning
system: Current developments, problems and opportunities.
Comput Hum Behav 2016;55:1185‑93.
8. Vanslambrouck S, Zhu C, Pynoo B, Lombaerts K, Tondeur J,
Scherer R. A latent profile analysis of adult students’ online
self‑regulation in blended learning environments. Comput Hum
Behav 2019;99:126‑36.
9. Arkorful V, Abaidoo N. The role of e‑learning, advantages and
disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int J Instr
Technol Distance Learn 2015;12:29‑42.
10. Mitchell P, Sarah S. Reading, Christine. Student preparedness
for university e‑learning environments. Internet Higher Educ
2015;25:1‑10.
11. Park SY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in
understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use
e‑learning. Educ Technol Soc 2009;12:150‑62.
12. Amal R, Iwona M. Analysis of student attitudes towards
e‑learning: The case of engineering students in Libya. Issues Inf
Sci Inf Technol 2014;11:169‑90.
13. Zarifsanaiey N, Mehrabi M. Development of the academics’
e‑readiness questionnaire (ARQ) for medical universities, Turkish.
Online J Distance Educ 2019;20:77‑88.
14. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of e‑learning in
medical education. Acad Med 2006;81:207‑12.
15. Hekmatzadeh MH, Khojasteh L, Shokrpour N. Are emotionally
intelligent EFL teachers more satisfied professionally? Int J Appl
Linguist Eng Lit 2016;5:97‑106.
16. Violante MG, Vezzetti E. Virtual interactive e‑learning application:
An evaluation of the student satisfaction. Comput Appl Eng Educ
2015;23:72‑91.
17. Wilson RC, Gaff JG, Diensky ER, Wood L, Bavry JL. College
Professors and Their Impact on Students. New York: Wiley and
Sons; 1975.
18. Zolfaqari M, Nagarandeh R, Ahmadi F. The efficacy of blended
e learning in education. Educ Med Sci 2010;10:398‑409.
19. Naghavi MA. Study of teachers and students’ attitude toward
e‑learning: Surveying in Iran’s e‑learning universities. J Res Plan
High Educ 2007;13:157‑76.
20. Barbour MK. Virtual schools are more cost-effective compared
to traditional, brick-and-mortar schools? In K. P. Brady (Ed.),
Technology in Schools: Debating Issues in American Education.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; [In press].
21. Khoshrang H, Dadgaran I, Shaigan H. Designing a questionnaire
to measure threats and opportunities of e‑learning and
determining its psychometric properties. Interdiscip J Virtual
Learn Med Sci 2014;5:1‑10.
22. Dalili Saleh M, Hasannezhad F, Tabaraei Y. E‑learning readiness
assessment among students in Sabzevar University of Medical
Science. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences
2018;25, #M00317:429-40. Available from: www.sid.ir/en/
journal/viewpapers.aspx?ID=604474. [Last accessed on 2020
Apr 20].
23. Jafari H, Azmoude E, Ahour M. Studying the knowledge and
attitude of students of Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical
Sciences toward e‑learning. J Torbat Heydariyeh Uni Med Sci
2018;6:38‑47.
24. Latifnejad Roudsari R, Jafari H, Hosseini BL, Esfalani A.
Measuring students’ knowledge and attitude towards e‑learning
in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS). Iran J Med
Educ 2011;10:364‑73.
)