Volume 26, Issue 2 (6-2023)
jha 2023, 26(2): 146-171 |
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:
Chahartangi F, Karimian Z. A Comparative Study of the Educational Agility’s Dimensions in Face-to-face and Virtual Spaces Based on Medical Students’ Views: Experiencing a Change. jha 2023; 26 (2) :146-171
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4408-en.html
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-4408-en.html
1- Ph.D student, Department of e-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz
2- Associate Professor, Department of e-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz ,z_karimian_z@yahoo.com
2- Associate Professor, Department of e-Learning in Medical Sciences, Virtual School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz ,
Abstract: (723 Views)
Introduction: Organizational agility is the ability of an organization to respond quickly to uncertain and unpredictable environmental conditions. After the COVID-19 pandemic, students had diverse experiences of providing educational services virtually. The present study was conducted to compare the educational agility status in two modes of face-to-face and virtual from the perspective of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences students.
Methods: The research method was descriptive survey on 372 students of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in 2022 who had experienced both virtual and face-to-face education and were randomly selected from various faculties. The researcher-made questionnaire was a 5-option Likert scale that was sent electronically to the students' emails. To analyze the data, paired t-test, independent t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation test were used. The data was analyzed using SPSS 24 software.
Results: Agility in the responsiveness (P<0.001), integrity (P<0.001), and adecuacy (P<0.001) components in the face-to-face mode was significantly higher than the virtual mode, but in the flexibility (P<0.001) and speed (P<0.001) components, the virtual environment score was significantly higher than the face-to-face mode. In general, the mean total educational agility in both environments did not have a significant difference (P=0.225). All components of educational agility had a high correlation with each other and with the total score(P<0.001).
Conclusion: It seems that face-to-face and virtual environments enhance some of the capabilities of educational agility. It is obvious that a combined use of both face-to-face and virtual modes can be much more effective in promoting organizational agility. Development of technology is one of the main solutions and requirements in increasing the agility of educational organizations.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Health Information Management
Received: 2023/03/31 | Accepted: 2023/06/21 | Published: 2024/01/20
Received: 2023/03/31 | Accepted: 2023/06/21 | Published: 2024/01/20
References
1. Ghorbanizadeh V, Roodsaz H, Abbaspoor J. Meta-analysis of barriers to the deployment of e-government in Iran. BI Management Studies. 2014;2(8):1-32. Available from: https://ims.atu.ac.ir/article_1493.html?lang=en [In Persian].
2. Aghaee M, Aghaee R. Effective Factors in Organizational Agility. Roshd-e-Fanavari. 2014;10(39):37-43. Available from: https://rimag.ricest.ac.ir/en/Article/20010/FullText [In Persian]. [DOI:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.10.005]
3. Ebrahimian-Jelodar SS, Ebrahimian-Jelodar SM. Organizational agility: response speed and organizational flexibility. JPOD. 2010;8(39):13-34. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/132890/fa [In Persian].
4. Omranzadeh E, Khoshchehreh M, Monavarian A, Alaei H. Explaining the Organizational Learning Pattern in the Employees of NIPC. Public Organizations Management. 2017;5(3):95-112. [In Persian].
5. Salehi AM, Mohammadi HA, Ahmadian M, Khanlarzadeh E. Move to the fourth-generation universities: A systematic Scoping review of educational and management strategies. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2021 Dec;18(1):e1065. doi: 10.22062/sdme.2021.196266.1065.
6. Goudarzvand Chegini M. The fourth generation university labor; and action approach (case studies: Cambridge, Stanford, and Harvard universities). IJEE. 2018;20(78):1-16. doi: 10.22047/ijee.2018.128487.1541. [In Persian].
7. Naghavi SA, Azar A, Asadi MM. Prioritizing factors enabling organizational agility in universities and centers of higher education in Yazd. IRPHP 2023;21(1):61-81. [In Persian].
8. Keane T, Linden T, Hernandez-Martinez P, Molnar A, Blicblau A. Digital technologies: students' expectations and experiences during their transition from high school to university. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(1):857-877. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11184-4. Epub 2022 Jul 7. PMID: 35818631; PMCID: PMC9261211. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-022-11184-4]
9. Meyer S, Newsome D, Fuller T, Newsome K, Ghezzi PM. Agility: What It Is, How to Measure It, and How to Use It. Behav Anal Pract. 2020 Aug 3;14(3):598-607. doi: 10.1007/s40617-020-00465-4. PMID: 34631367; PMCID: PMC8458529. [DOI:10.1007/s40617-020-00465-4]
10. Aghamohammadi A, Hassanvand A. Dimensions and the components of agility of military organizations. Strategic Defense Studies. 2019;17(76):281-304. Available from: https://sds.sndu.ac.ir/article_535.html?lang=en [In Persian].
11. Goldman S, Nagel RN, Preiss K, Iacocca LA. Agile competitors and virtual Organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, International Thomas Publishing; 1995.
12. Dove R. Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise. J. Knowl. Manag. 1999;3(1):18-35. Available from: [DOI:10.1108/13673279910259367]
13. Sharifi H, Zhang Z. A Methodology for Achieving Agility in Manufacturing Organizations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1999;62:7-22. Available from: [DOI:10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5]
14. Sherehiy B, Karwowski W, Layer JK. A review of enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007 May 1;37(5):445-60. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007 [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.01.007.]
15. Lombardo MM, Eichinger RW. High potentials as high learners. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2000 Jan 1;39(4):321-329. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:4<321::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-1
https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:4<321::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-1 [DOI:10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:43.0.CO;2-1]
16. Ozgenel M, Yazıcı S. Learning Agility of School Administrators: An Empirical Investigation. IJPE. 2021;17(1):247-261. DOI: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.329.16 [DOI:10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.16]
17. Ahmadi Baladehi SM, Dastoor A. Investigating the Impact of Transformational Leadership on the Promotion of Strategic Thinking at the NAJA Organizational Level in the Disciplinary Command of Mazandaran Province. JPOD. 2020;17(72):11-29. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/399517/en
18. Fathian M, Fekri R. The impact of information technology on organisational agility in Iranian firms. IJASM. 2003;1(1):279-298. DOI: 10.1504/IJASM.2006.010943 [In Persian] [DOI:10.1504/IJASM.2006.010943]
19. Rose S. Medical Student Education in the Time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020 Jun 2;323(21):2131-2132. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.5227. PMID: 32232420. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.5227]
20. Rad FA, Otaki F, Baqain Z, Zary N, Al-Halabi M. Rapid transition to distance learning due to COVID-19: Perceptions of postgraduate dental learners and instructors. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246584. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0246584]
21. Johnson N, Veletsianos G, Seaman J. U.S. Faculty and Administrators' Experiences and Approaches in the Early Weeks of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Online Learning. 2020 Jun 1;24(2). Available from: [DOI:10.24059/olj.v24i2.2285]
22. 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. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(3):3299-3320. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10697-8. Epub 2021 Sep 20. PMID: 34566468; PMCID: PMC8450917. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-021-10697-8]
23. Rahnavard F, Alijani Z. The Effect of Information Technology on Organizational Agility in The Light of Organizational Culture. JDEM. 2016;8(24):45-55. [In Persian].
24. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1977.
25. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. EPM. 1970;30:607-610. [DOI:10.1177/001316447003000308]
26. Worley CG, Lawler III EE. Agility and organization design: A diagnostic framework. Organ Dyn. 2010;39(2):194-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.01.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.01.006]
27. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-75. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
28. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: Davis FA; 1981.
29. Meyer M, Rego A. Measuring practical wisdom. Exploring the value of Aristotle's phronesis for business and leadership. In: Schwartz B, Bernacchio C, Gonxález-Contón C, Robson A, editors. Handbook of Practical Wisdom in Business and Management. Cham: Springer; 2020. p. 1-18. Available from: [DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-00140-7_21-1]
30. Azad N, Anderson HG Jr, Brooks A, Garza O, O'Neil C, Stutz MM, Sobotka JL. Leadership and Management Are One and the Same. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017 Aug;81(6):102. doi: 10.5688/ajpe816102. PMID: 28970603; PMCID: PMC5607712. [DOI:10.5688/ajpe816102]
31. Turriago-Hoyos Á, Thoene U, Arjoon S. Knowledge Workers and Virtues in Peter Drucker's Management Theory. SAGE Open. 2016 Jan 1;6(1):215824401663963. Available from: [DOI:10.1177/2158244016639631]
32. Lalegani F. The relationship between learning organization and organizational agility in the administration of social security branch Chaharmahal & Bakhtiari province. Soc Secur J. 2019;15(1):167-183. Available from: https://qjo.ssor.ir/article_96136.html?lang=en [In Persian].
33. Peng X, Wang-Trexler N, Magagna W, Land S, Peck K. Learning Agility of Learning and Development Professionals in the Life Sciences Field During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Study. Interact J Med Res. 2022 Apr 26;11(1):e33360. doi: 10.2196/33360. PMID: 35417403; PMCID: PMC9045484. [DOI:10.2196/33360]
34. Bahari A, Moody B. Factors Influencing the Creation and Development of E-Learning from the Viewpoint of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences Students. payavard 2021; 15(4):319-329. Available from: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-6962-fa.html
35. Khojasteh L, Karimian Z, Farahmandi AY, Nasiri E, Salehi N. E-content development of English language courses during COVID-19: a comprehensive analysis of students' satisfaction. J Comput Educ. 2023;10(1):107-33. doi: 10.1007/s40692-022-00224-0. Epub 2022 Mar 26. PMCID: PMC8956454. [DOI:10.1007/s40692-022-00224-0]
36. Jafarpoor M. Study and identification of mobile commerce expansion obstacles in Iran. BI Management Studies. 2011;1(1):91-121. Available from: https://ims.atu.ac.ir/article_1140.html?lang=en [In Persian].
37. Ghanbri S, Rezghishirsavar H, Ziyaeei MS, Mosleh M. Presentation of an E-Learning Assessment Model - Islamic Azad University E-Campus. JEARQ. 2019;11(41):75-100. Available from: https://jearq.roudehen.iau.ir/article_1575.html?lang=en [In Persian].
38. Rezazadeh A, Hoseininasab SD, Sarmadi M, Farjollahi M. Assess and Prioritizing Affecting Factors on Quality of Education in E-learning Environments Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Method. JINEV. 2018;11(41):115-134. [In Persian].
39. Müller C, Mildenberger T, Steingruber D. Learning effectiveness of a flexible learning study programme in a blended learning design: why are some courses more effective than others? Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2023;20(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x. Epub 2023 Feb 17. PMID: 36811132; PMCID: PMC9934945. [DOI:10.1186/s41239-022-00379-x]
40. Hrastinski S. What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends. 2019; 63(September 2019): 564-569. doi: 10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5. [DOI:10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5]
41. Smith K, Hill J. Defining the nature of blended learning through its depiction in current research. High Educ Res Dev. 2019;38(2):383-397. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1517732. [DOI:10.1080/07294360.2018.1517732]
42. Lowry PB, Wilson DW. Creating agile organizations through IT: The influence of internal IT service perceptions on IT service quality and IT agility. J Strateg Inf Syst. 2016 Oct 1;25(3):211-26. Available from: [DOI:10.1016/j.jsis.2016.05.002]
43. Zaleznik A. Managers and leaders. Are they different? Harv Bus Rev. 2004 Jan;82(1):74-81. PMID: 14723179.
44. Harris P. Leadership role models earn trust and profits. Human Res Manage Int'l Digest. 2010;18(6). Page 4. Available from: [DOI:10.1108/hrmid.2010.04418fad.003]
45. Werder K, Richter J. A meta-analysis on the effects of IT capability toward agility and performance: New directions for information systems research. PLoS One. 2022 Oct 27;17(10):e0268761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268761. PMID: 36301914; PMCID: PMC9612477. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0268761]
46. Farsijani H. Explaining and identifying the components affecting organizational agility in universities. J Bus Manag Perspect. 2013;12(15):93-114 [In Persian].
47. Bagheri Kerachi A, Abbaspour A, Aghazade A, Rahimian H, Mehregan MR. Application Level of Organizational Agility Indices at Universities. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2014;7(1):25-31. Available from: http://edcbmj.ir/article-1-371-fa.html [In Persian].
48. Tan B, Tian S, Wang E, Xiao L, Cao K, Zheng B, Luo L. Research on the development and testing methods of physical education and agility training equipment in universities. Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 28;14:1155490. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155490. PMID: 37457097; PMCID: PMC10338840. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155490]
49. Ogundoyin SO, Kamil IA. An efficient authentication scheme with strong privacy preservation for fog-assisted vehicular ad hoc networks based on blockchain and neuro-fuzzy. Vehicular Communications. 2021 Oct 1;31:100384. Available from: [DOI:10.1016/j.vehcom.2021.100384]
50. Qin R, Nembhard DA. Workforce agility for stochastically diffused conditions-A real options perspective. Int J Prod Econ. 2010 Jun 1;125(2):324-34. Available from: [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.01.006]
51. Kiaee M. Agile organization and agile employees. Public Policy In Administration. 2010;1(1):94-119. Available from: http://ensani.ir/fa/article/55603/ [In Persian].
52. Dyer L, Shafer RA. From Human Resource Strategy to Organizational Effectiveness: Lessons from Research on Organizational Agility. 1998. Available from: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/76468
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Site Keywords
Health, Administration, Scientific Article, Iran University of Medical Sciences,
