Identifying the Competency Components of Instructors in E-learning Environment Based on a Constructivist Approach

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
mahbubeh aslami
nahid ojaghi
10.22034/irphe.2022.705233
Abstract
Current study used exploratory mixed method designs to identify the competencies of e-instructors based on the constructivism approach. A qualitative and quantitative methods were applied in this research. The qualitative method was thematic synthesis and the quantitative method was a survey method. The statistical population of the study included all works published in this field from 1992 to 2019 in 6 valid databases.  The study sample included 30 documents. In the quantitative section, due to the researcher’s access and utilizing Krejcie and Morgan table, the statistical sample consisted of 135 e-instructors in the field of educational sciences and psychology who were selected from Payame Noor University. At this stage, a 41-item questionnaire was designed based on the components obtained in the qualitative section and for the purpose of validation. The results obtained by data collection were analyzed after adjustment and summarization using statistical tests including first and second order confirmatory factor analysis using applying LISREL 8.8 and SPSS 22 software. Experts were used to confirm the content validity of the research instrument, and confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine the construct validity of the measurement instrument. Also, the reliability of the tool was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. According to the findings of synthesis research, the components of constructivist competencies of instructors in e-learning environment as the main theme include four themes of constructivist guide, constructivist instructor, constructivist designer and constructivist collaborator. The dimension of constructivist guide consisted of three components: modeling, improving critical thinking skills and upgrading problem solving skills. The dimension of constructivismm instructor consisted of three dimensions of cognitive instructor, feedback, and motivational. The dimension of constructivism designer included three dimensions of content design skills, organizing and the use of interactive and participatory tools in designing. The dimension of constructivist colleague included four dimensions of class dynamics, knowledge sharing skill and social negotiation skill and group formation skill. Fit indices of first-order confirmatory factor analysis of the inclusive themes showed the alignment of items with the theoretical structure and confirmation of factor analysis. Also, the second-order confirmatory factor analysis of organizing themes showed that the mentioned components played a role in explaining the variance of the main structure. The research findings can be used in the design of e-learning environments based on the constructivist approach and also to improve the instructors' career development programs.

Keywords

Subjects

  1. References

    1. Abdellahi, M., Zamani, B.E., Ebrahim Zadeh, I., Zaree, H., & Zandi, B. (2011). Barriers to participation in electronic technology courses encountered by university teachers. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 16 (2), 19-40 [in Persian].
    2. Aslami, M., Esmaeili, Z., Saeidipour, B., & Sarmadi, M.R. (2017). Explaining the professional competencies of instructors in the e-learning environment. Journal of Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 48, (11), 15-24 [in Persian].
    3. Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online,7(1), 1-30
    4. Baran, E. (2011). Transforming online teaching practices: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online instructors. Distance Education, 32(3), 421-439.
    5. Barbour, M.K., Siko, J., Gross, E., & Waddell, K. (2013). Virtually unprepared: Examining the preparation of K-12 online teachers Teacher education programs and online learning tools. Innovations in Teacher Preparation (pp. 60-81). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
    6. Bonk, C.J., & Zhang, K. (2008). Empowering online learning:100+ activities for reading, reflecting, displaying, and doing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    7. Bostock, S.J. (1998). Constructivism in mass higher education: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3), 225-240.
    8. Carril, P.C., Sanmamed, M.G, & Sellés, N.H. (2013). Pedagogical roles and competencies of university teachers practicing in the e-learning environment. IRRODL, 14(3), 462-87.
    9. Chaijaroen, S. (2008). Educational technology: Principles theories to practices. Khon Kaen University.
    10. Chalmers, , Hedges, L.V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25(1), 12-37.
    11. Coppola, N., Hiltz, S.R., & Rotter, N. (2002). Becoming a virtual professor: Pedagogical roles and asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 169-190.
    12. Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection in action. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
    13. Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    14. Gorsky, P., & Blau, I. (2009). Online teaching effectiveness: A tale of two instructors. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).
    15. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/ 2020/3/ the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (accessed 2 August 2020).
    16. Hong, S., & Jung, I. (2011). The distance learner competencies: A three-phased empirical approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 21-42.
    17. Huang, H.M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
    18. (2003). The 2003 instructor competencies. Batavia, IL: International board of standards for training, performance and instruction international board of standards for training, performance and instruction (IBSTPI).
    19. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.
    20. Jonassen, D.H. (1994). Computers in schools: Mindtools for critical thinking. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    21. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 215-239.
    22. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
    23. Jonassen, D.H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide, Vol. 6. San Francisco.
    24. Jonassen, D.H., Lee, C.B., Yang, C.C., & Laffey, J. (2005). The collaboration principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York. Cambridge University Press.
    25. Kommers, P., Jonassen, D.H., & Mayers, T. (1992). Cognitive tools for learning. Heidelberg: FRG: Springer-Verlag.
    26. Leow, Fui-Theng, & Neo, Mai. (2015). Collaborative learning with web 2.0 tools: Analysing Malaysian students’ perceptions and peer interaction. Educational Media International. 52. 1-20. 10.1080/09523987.2015.1100392.
    27. Li & Irby, M. (2018). Applying constructivist and objectivist learning theories in the design of a web-based course: Implications for practice. Educational Technology & Society 4(3).
    28. Martin, D.J. (2006). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach (4th ed.). United State: Thomson Wadsworth.
    29. Mayer, R., & Johnson, Ch. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380-386.
    30. Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    31. Clark, V.L., & Creswell, J.W. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide.
    32. Richey, R., Klein, J.D., & Tracey, M.W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
    33. Roberts, J. (2018). Future and changing roles of staf in distance education: A study to identify training and professional development needs. Distance Education, 39 (1), 37-53. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1419818
    34. Rourke, A., & Sweller, J. (2009). The work example effect using ill-defi ned problems: Learning to recognize designers’ styles. Learning and Instruction,19, 185-199.
    35. Rovai, A.P. (2003). Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 89-107.
    36. Rovai, A.P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 79-93.
    37. Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. OUP USA.
    38. Moghaddam, A., & Sarkarani, M.R. (2003). Network-based learning and innovation in distance education. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations, 3, 77-108.
    39. Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35, 31-38.
    40. Schmidt, H.G., Van der Molen, H.T., Te Winkel, W.W., & Wijnen, W. H. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: A meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227-249. analysis. Instructional Science, 40(2), 371-395.
    41. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self –explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285-296.
    42. Sellers, R.G. (2001). Learning to teach in a virtual environment: A case study of the Louisiana virtual classroom teachers. (Order No. 3016578, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 190-190.
    43. Shiri, A., & Heidarinejad, Z. (2022). Designing a faculty members professional care framework: A case study at Chamran University. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 27(4), 143-172 [in Persian].
    44. Talaa'ee, E., & Bozorg, H. (2015). The necessity of paying attention to the developmental and educational significance of pre-school years, as indicated by contemporary research. QJOE, 31 (2), 91-118.
    45. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational, 6(4), 339-362.
    46. Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Stein, D., Liu, Q., & Chen, W. (2019). Examining Chinese beginning online instructors’ competencies in teaching online based on the Activity theory. Journal of Computers in Education, 6, 363-384. 1007/s40692-019-00140-w.
    47. Whitaker, J.P. (2015). Traditional faculty in transition: Theory, cha nge, and preparation for the online paradigm. Alabama: The University of Alabama.
    48. Williams, P.E. (2003). Roles and competencies for distance education programs in higher education institutions. Am J Distance Educ, 17(1),45-57.
    49. Wlodkowski, R.J., Mauldin, J., & Campbell, S. (2002). Early exit: Understanding adult attrition in accelerated and traditional postsecondary programs. Synopsis: Higher Education Research Highlights.
    50. Xiao, & Xiao (2018). Supporting the construction of college teachers’ information-based teaching ability with online open course system. University Teaching in China, 09, 70-73.
    51. Yew, E.H., & Schmidt, H.G. (2012). What students learn in problem-based learning: A process.

     

  • Receive Date 09 September 2021
  • Revise Date 16 April 2022
  • Accept Date 01 August 2022
  • Publish Date 22 December 2022