Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 MSc Student, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran


Background: Given that interaction is a vital element in virtual learning, using the professors’ experiences and perceptions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak can provide useful information about the quality of educational interactions in virtual learning courses in order to improve virtual learning.
Objectives: This study aims to explain the perceptions of faculty members of Kerman universities regarding virtual learning based on educational interactions during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Methods: This study was conducted with a qualitative content analysis approach in the academic year of 2021 in Kerman University of Medical Sciences and Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. The data collection method was semi-structured interviews with 13 professors of these universities who were included in the study using purposive sampling. Data analysis was performed using the qualitative content analysis method according to the steps introduced by Graneheim and Lundman.
Results: The results of this study were presented in the form of 4 main themes: 1) Teacher-learner interactions, including the tools used, how they interact, and their barriers; 2) Learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction, and teacher-content interaction, including the professors’ actions to create and increase them; 3) Teacher-teacher interactions, including professors’ instructional and research interactions and their barriers; 4) Content-content interaction, which the findings indicated that professors did not pay much attention to this type of interaction.
Conclusion: Virtual learning is not limited to the COVID-19 outbreak period but can be used as a supplement to face-to-face learning, even when the universities reopen; therefore, valuable experiences of professors of virtual learning can be used to strengthen various types of educational interactions and develop virtual learning in the studied universities and other universities.


  1. Liu N, Zhang F, Wei C, Jia Y, Shang Z, Sun L, et al. Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter. Psychiatry Res. 2020; 287:112921. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112921. [PMID: 32240896] [PMCID: PMC7102622]
  2. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. [Cited 2021 Sept 23]. Available From:
  3. Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Deputy Minister of Education, Higher Education Planning Office. Basic points in maintaining the educational quality of the country's universities in the face of coronation. Tehran: Higher Education Planning Office; 2020.
  4. 290 million students out of school due to COVID-19: UNESCO releases first global numbers and mobilizes response. [Cited 2020 Mar 06]. Available from: UNESCO.
  5. Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, Sinclair J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in human behavior. 2020;1(102):67-86. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.
  6. Nguyen QL, Nguyen P, Huynh VD. Roles of e-learning in higher education. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2019;6(4):7-13.
  7. Pourtavakoli Chatroodi A. (dissertation). Designing a Pattern for E-Content Development Based on the Factors Affecting Satisfaction in E-Learning. Kerman: Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman Faculty of Literature and Humanities Department of Educational Sciences; 2018: 1-241. [In Persian]
  8. Gasell C. (dissertation). Measuring Faculty-Student Interaction in Online Courses Using Asynchronous Discussion Boards: A Campus-Wide Analysis. Boise, Idaho, United States: Boise State University; 2020:1-118.
  9. Hamutoglu NB, Gemikonakli O, Duman I, Kirksekiz A, Kiyici M. Evaluating students' experiences using a virtual learning environment: satisfaction and preferences. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2020 Feb;68(1):437-62. doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09705-z.
  10. Ayazi Z, Ahmady S. Managerial Analysis and Explaining the Viewpoints of the Students on Virtual Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic at the Virtual School of Medical Education and Management of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences in 2020. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2020 Sep 1;17(Suppl):1-8. doi: 22062/SDME.2020.91453.
  11. Keleş MK, Özel SA. A review of distance learning and learning management systems. In: Cvetkovic D. Virtual learning. Croatia: Iva Lipovic; 2016:1-19.
  12. Kaviani H, Mousavi Chelak A. A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Educational Technologies in Medical Education. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2018;15(1):1-9. doi:10.5812/sdme.74118.
  13. Maddux CD. Developing online courses: Ten myths. Rural Special Education Quarterly. 2004 Jun;23(2):27-32. doi:10.1177/875687050402300205.
  14. Wagner ED. In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. 1994;8(2):6-29. doi:10.1080/08923649409526852.
  15. Moore MG. Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education. 1989;3(2):1-6. doi:10.1080/08923640109527080.
  16. Soffer T, Nachmias R. Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face‐to‐face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2018;34(5):534-43. doi:10.1111/jcal.12258.
  17. Pourjamshidi M. The Study of the Interaction Preferences Power of the Students of Web-based Instruction Courses Learning Styles. Educational Psychology. 2016; 12(39): 175-97. [In Persian]
  18. Xiao J. Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education. 2017 Jan 2;38(1):123-35. doi:10.1080/01587919.2017.1298982.
  19. Quadir B, Yang JC, Chen NS. The effects of interaction types on learning outcomes in a blog-based interactive learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 2019; 30(2):1-4. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1652835.
  20. Zimmerman Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2012;13(4):152-65. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302.
  21. Kurucay M, Inan FA. Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course. Computers & Education. 2017; 115:20-37. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010.
  22. Pourjamshidi (dissertation). Identify factors affecting interaction in Web-based instruction and to improve this interaction by providing a model for it. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba-ee University Faculty of Education and Psychology Science; 2014:1-270. [In Persian]
  23. Khademi Y, Sattari S. Evaluation and Prioritization of types of Interaction and Participation in E-learning Environment using Hierarchical Analysis Process (AHP). Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2021; 11(43): 87-107. [In Persian]
  24. Pourkarimi J, Alimardani Z. Factors affecting interactions in e-learning environments (study of meta-synthesis). Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2020; 11(1): 25-44. [In Persian]
  25. Choi BK, Kim MS. The student–faculty interaction beyond the formal curriculum in South Korea. Higher Education Quarterly. 2021 Jan;75(1):35-50. doi:10.1111/hequ.12261.
  26. Hesrcu-Kluska R. The Interaction between Learners and Learner-Facilitator in an Online Learning Environment. Creative Education. 2019;10(7):1713-30. doi:10.4236/ce.2019.107122.
  27. Abbasi R, Raeesi A, Zare S. A Survey of Graduate and Postgraduate Students’ Perspective on the Use of E-learning Technology in Kerman University of Medical Sciences in 2017. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2020;17(1):1-6. doi:22062/SDME.2020.91006.
  28. Rahmanian A, Nouhi E. The Effect of Virtual Education with a Problem-Solving Approach Using Small Virtual Groups on Academic Achievement and Participatory Learning of Midwifery Students of Islamic Azad University, Jahrom Branch. Strides in Development of Medical Education. 2020 Dec 1;17(1):1-5. doi: 22062/SDME.2020.91548.
  29. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today. 2004 Feb 1;24(2):105-12. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
  30. Holloway I, Wheeler S. Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare. 3th edition. West Sussex: Willey-Blackwell; 2010.
  31. Kuo YC, Walker AE, Schroder KE, Belland BR. Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The internet and higher education. 2014; 20:35-50. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001.
  32. Salmi L. Student Experiences on Interaction in an Online Learning Environment as Part of a Blended Learning Implementation: What Is Essential?. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-learning; 2013 Jul 22-26; Prague, Czech Republic. 2013 Jul;356-60.
  33. Mendis U, Vandika AY. Learning Interaction in Web Based Learning in Speaking II Class of English Education Study Program of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Bandar Lampung University. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Language (ICEL); 2016 May 21; Bandar Lampung, Indonesia. 2016:
  34. Paiva R, Bittencourt II, Tenório T, Jaques P, Isotani S. What do students do on-line? Modeling students' interactions to improve their learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 64:769-81. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.048.
  35. Ekwunife-Orakwue KC, Teng TL. The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education. 2014; 78:414-27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.011.
  36. Emmah V. Online Discussion Forum: A Tool for Effective Student-Teacher Interaction. [Cited 2014 Nov 16]. Available from:
  37. Rossi D, Van Rensburg H, Beer C, Clark D, Danaher P, Harreveld R. Learning interactions: A cross-institutional multi-disciplinary analysis of learner-learner and learner-teacher and learner-content interactions in online learning contexts. University of New England: New South Wales, Australia. 2013:1-211.
  38. Ustati R, Hassan SS. Distance learning students’ need: Evaluating interactions from Moore’s theory of transactional distance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2013;14(2):292-304.
  39. Yazdani Kashani Z, Tamannayifar MR. Importance and status of web 2 tools in virtual education implementing an interactive approach at virtual Universities of Iran. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2013; 6(2): 119-28. [In Persian]
  40. Purjamshidi M, Fardanesh H, Norouzi D. Effective Factors on Student-Teacher Interaction in Web-Based Learning Environment. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2014;7(1):41-50. [In Persian]
  41. Sundari H. Classroom interaction in teaching English as foreign language at lower secondary schools in Indonesia. Advances in language and Literary Studies. 2017;8(6):147-54. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.147.
  42. Yengin I, Karahoca A, Karahoca D. E-learning success model for instructors’ satisfactions in perspective of interaction and usability outcomes. Procedia Computer Science. 2011; 3:1396-403.
  43. Saeidipour, B, Sarmadi, M.R., Esmaeili, Z, Jafarzadeh, M.R. Assessment of Interaction: E-learning Challenge in Higher Education. Technology Review. 2015;591-605.
  44. Malekipour A. Representing the types of educational interaction university curriculum and determining its dominant type based on mixed approach. Journal of Research and Writing Academic Books. 2021; 24(2):281-99. [In Persian]
  45. Mohammad NM, Sara F, Zahra T, Mojtaba H. The study of the teacher's role and student interaction in e-learning process. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on e-Learning and e-Teaching (ICELET); 2013 Feb 13-14; Shiraz, Iran. 2013: 130-4.
  46. Zareai E. Measuring the Level of Interaction in E-Curriculum of Khajeh Nasir Toosi University of Technology. Training Measurement. 2013;4(11):147-63. [In Persian]