Volume 3, Issue 4 (December 2024)
IJER 2024, 3(4): 271-298 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Forozanmehr M, Aliesmaeili A, Ghasemzadeh K. (2024). Using of Interpretive Structural Modeling Technique to Design a Technological Learning Model Focused on Emerging Metaverse Technology for Schools. IJER. 3(4), 271-298. doi:10.22034/3.4.271
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-275-en.html
URL: http://ijer.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-275-en.html
1- Ph.D. student of Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran. ,shahramae@gmail.com
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran. ,
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran.
Abstract: (474 Views)
Objective: Metaverse has gained increasing interest in education, with much of literature focusing on its great potential to enhance both individual and social aspects of learning. This study aimed to design a technological learning model focused on emerging metaverse technology for schools in Iran in 2024.
Methods: The research was conducted using a mixed methods approach (qualitative-quantitative), with the target group consisting of experts in educational sciences and information technology. In the qualitative part, data was collected through in-depth interviews based on focus groups and analyzed using thematic analysis and grounded theory. In the quantitative part, the interpretative structural model was used.
Results: The qualitative findings included a systematic theoretical model that identifies causal, strategic, contextual, intervening and consequential factors. In the quantitative part, a structural interpretation model was categorized into three levels. All factors included in the model were statistically significant, with p-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.04, confirming the validity and reliability of the hierarchical structure. The driving factors at the first level included the creation of interactive and technological educational environments and the development and strengthening of skills. The enabling factors at the second level included assessing and improving educational progress, the digital revolution in education and learning, and optimizing teachers and administration. The outcome factors identified at the third level were skills development and teacher training, innovation and progress in management and education, process improvement and optimization, educational development and empowerment, and transformation in education and learning.
Methods: The research was conducted using a mixed methods approach (qualitative-quantitative), with the target group consisting of experts in educational sciences and information technology. In the qualitative part, data was collected through in-depth interviews based on focus groups and analyzed using thematic analysis and grounded theory. In the quantitative part, the interpretative structural model was used.
Results: The qualitative findings included a systematic theoretical model that identifies causal, strategic, contextual, intervening and consequential factors. In the quantitative part, a structural interpretation model was categorized into three levels. All factors included in the model were statistically significant, with p-values ranging from <0.001 to 0.04, confirming the validity and reliability of the hierarchical structure. The driving factors at the first level included the creation of interactive and technological educational environments and the development and strengthening of skills. The enabling factors at the second level included assessing and improving educational progress, the digital revolution in education and learning, and optimizing teachers and administration. The outcome factors identified at the third level were skills development and teacher training, innovation and progress in management and education, process improvement and optimization, educational development and empowerment, and transformation in education and learning.
Conclusions: Therefore, it can be concluded that the implementation of a technology-enhanced learning model focused on emerging technologies can contribute to the advancement and development of the national education system. It is recommended that the model proposed in this study be piloted and, if proven effective and efficient, be implemented more broadly.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Studies
Received: 2024/02/28 | Accepted: 2024/10/22 | Published: 2024/12/1
Received: 2024/02/28 | Accepted: 2024/10/22 | Published: 2024/12/1
References
1. Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Gamification and the internet: experts expect game layers to expand in the future, with positive and negative results. Games for health: Research, development, and clinical applications, 1(4), 299-302. [DOI:10.1089/g4h.2012.0027]
2. Andriani, S., Kesumawati, N., & Kristiawan, M. (2018). The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teachers performance. International journal of scientific & technology research, 7(7), 19-29.
3. Balat, Ş., Yavuz, M., & Kayalı, B. (2023). Using Metaverse in Education: Bibliometric and Content Analysis on Applications, Tools and Impacts. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi(13), 1365-1384. [DOI:10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1393700]
4. Chiu, T. K. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup1), S14-S30. [DOI:10.1080/15391523.2021.1891998]
5. Comission, E. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age. In: European Comission Bruselas.
6. De la Fuente Prieto, J., Lacasa, P., & Martínez-Borda, R. (2022). Approaching metaverses: Mixed reality interfaces in youth media platforms. New Techno Humanities, 2(2), 136-145. [DOI:10.1016/j.techum.2022.04.004]
7. Falloon, G. (2020). From digital literacy to digital competence: the teacher digital competency (TDC) framework. Educational technology research and development, 68(5), 2449-2472. [DOI:10.1007/s11423-020-09767-4]
8. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. [DOI:10.1177/002224378101800104]
9. Hamilton, L. S., Diliberti, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2020). Teaching and leading through a pandemic: Key findings from the American educator panels spring 2020 COVID-19 surveys. [DOI:10.7249/RRA168-2]
10. Hasteer, N., Sindhwani, R., Sharma, R., & Singh, P. L. (2023). A fuzzy Interpretive Structural Modeling approach for implementing IoT and achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Decision Analytics Journal, 8, 100313. [DOI:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100313]
11. Hwang, G.-J., & Chien, S.-Y. (2022). Definition, roles, and potential research issues of the metaverse in education: An artificial intelligence perspective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100082. [DOI:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100082]
12. Jeon, J. H. (2021). A study on education utilizing metaverse for effective communication in a convergence subject. International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, 13(4), 129-134. [DOI:https://doi.org/10.7236/IJIBC.2021.13.4.129]
13. Joshua, J. (2017). Information bodies: computational anxiety in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 19(1), 17-47. [DOI:10.5325/intelitestud.19.1.0017]
14. Khadivi, A. (2024). Investigating the Applications and Challenges of Metaverse in Education: a Systematic Review. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, -. [DOI:10.22034/jpiut.2024.62124.3787]
15. Kim, J.-G. (2021). A study on metaverse culture contents matching platform. International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 9(3), 232-237.
16. Kuril, S., Maun, D., & Chand, V. S. (2023). Measuring teacher innovative behavior: a validated multidimensional inventory for use with public school teachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(2), 393-416. [DOI:10.1108/IJEM-03-2022-0095]
17. Lee, A., Park, W., & Park, H. (2022). Exploring experience and applicability of metaverse based medical humanities course. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci, 13, 1129-1140. [DOI:0.22143/hss21.13.1.79]
18. Lee, H., & Hwang, Y. (2022). Technology-enhanced education through VR-making and metaverse-linking to foster teacher readiness and sustainable learning. Sustainability, 14(8), 4786. [DOI:10.3390/su14084786]
19. Lee, L.-H. (2021). All one needs to know about metaverse: A complete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and research agenda. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05352. [DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2110.05352]
20. Moradi, A., Sheibani, Z., Sanagoo, A., & Jouybari, L. (2023). Metaverse Applications in Medical Education [letter to Editor]. Research in Medical Education, 15(3), 1-3. [DOI:10.32592/rmegums.15.3.1]
21. Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia, 2(1), 486-497. [DOI:10.3390/encyclopedia2010031]
22. Nemati, S., & Momeni, N. (2013). Designing Compensation System in Knowledge-Based Organization (KBO) by Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) Approach. Organizational Resources Management Researchs, 3(2), 131-151.
23. Pathania, A., & Tanwar, S. (2024). Decoding startup failures in Indian startups: Insights from interpretive structural modeling and cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 20(2), 93-116. [DOI:10.7341/2024202]
24. Sánchez, V. V., & Gutiérrez-Esteban, P. (2023). Challenges and enablers in the advancement of educational innovation. The forces at work in the transformation of education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, 104359. [DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104359]
25. Siyaev, A., & Jo, G.-S. (2021). Towards aircraft maintenance metaverse using speech interactions with virtual objects in mixed reality. Sensors, 21(6), 2066. [DOI:10.3390/s21062066]
26. Suzuki, S.-n., Kanematsu, H., Barry, D. M., Ogawa, N., Yajima, K., Nakahira, K. T., . . . Yoshitake, M. (2020). Virtual Experiments in Metaverse and their Applications to Collaborative Projects: The framework and its significance. Procedia Computer Science, 176, 2125-2132. [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.249]
27. Wu, C., Tang, Y., Tsang, Y., & Chau, K. (2021). Immersive learning design for technology education: A soft systems methodology. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 745295. [DOI:doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745295]
28. Zhao, Y., Jiang, J., Chen, Y., Liu, R., Yang, Y., Xue, X., & Chen, S. (2022). Metaverse: Perspectives from graphics, interactions and visualization. Visual Informatics, 6(1), 56-67. [DOI:10.1016/j.visinf.2022.03.002]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International. |
