Abstract

Ergonomics is a science designed to create equal opportunities by employing and optimizing scientific processes. It ensures that products, places, and procedures align with the physical, cognitive, cultural, and emotional capabilities and limitations of users.  It involves optimizing the interaction between humans and other elements of a system. Ergonomic interventions can occur at three levels: Micro, Meso, and Macro. Macroergonomics, the broadest level, considers the entire system, including its social, organizational, and technical aspects. Microergonomics is about a specific goal and Mesoergonomics is an intermediate point of view that considers the relationships between people, organizations, and socio-technical systems. Numerous studies have explored Macroergonomics in various sectors, with a particular focus on the structural dimensions of systems. Macroergonomics, with its systems-oriented approach, examines work analysis, productivity estimation, and tool design. It is implemented on a larger scale by integrating into broader environments such as organizations or institutions. A Macroergonomic approach emphasizes organizational structure, human-organizational interaction, and motivational aspects of work. Currently, in addition to students, all academic staff are facing challenges that create new demands on management. They are confronted with changes in their workplaces, job duties, and the student body. The simultaneous decrease in hiring and increase in the average age of staff and faculty have led to increased physical and psychological workloads, resulting in decreased capacity and productivity. A Macroergonomic framework can address these issues by providing a structured approach to higher education reform. By identifying and describing the various components of a socio-technical educational system, such as social, organizational, technical, and external subsystems, we can improve teaching and learning efficiency. One of the hallmarks of a modern higher education institution is the extent to which it adheres to the principles and foundations of ergonomics. This leads to improved quality of teaching and learning and, in advanced countries, specific ergonomic standards have been designed and implemented. Attention to educational ergonomics, as an action-oriented framework, improves teaching and learning processes by controlling and designing or redesigning factors that affect learners and instructors in higher education institutions. The use of Macroergonomics leads to the synergization of systemic processes, meaning that by considering common technical and social factors, it can provide greater performance than what can be achieved through ergonomic intervention alone. The shift from first-generation to higher-generation universities has led to a transition from educational challenges to ergonomic challenges. Ensuring the quality of higher education across all dimensions requires a long-term commitment to ergonomics.
 The aim of the present study is to identify the dimensions of Macroergonomics in higher education (with an emphasis on teaching and learning) based on identified studies in this field, and to provide necessary guidelines for conducting more objective and interventional studies using a mixed (qualitative) synthesis research approach. This research is fundamentally applied, employing a qualitative approach and specifically a synthesis research method. The strategy used is a meta-synthesis approach, involving inductive content analysis followed by meta-synthesis of the analyses. The population of the study includes research conducted in the field of ergonomics in higher education.
In this research, studies in this field were used as the population and sample. An initial search yielded 43 relevant articles on Macroergonomics in higher education from various Persian and English databases. A systematic review of the selected documents was then conducted. At this stage, the abstracts of the documents were examined, and 27 relevant articles were purposefully selected. Subsequently, the findings, methods, and research tools were jointly reviewed and examined.
The data and results of the research findings were categorized and analyzed into three dimensions: concepts, categories, and main codes. The data and resources used were refined and extracted through several stages and, after analysis and synthesis of the results, were incorporated into a comprehensive conceptual framework or model. Through the classification of the results presented in the extracted theoretical model, 36 key Macroergonomics components in higher education were identified. These categories were grouped into seven main codes, which in fact represent the primary indicators and components of Macroergonomics in higher education, with a focus on teaching and learning. The first main code identified was learning Macroergonomics, which includes categories such as teaching methods, curriculum and classroom design, and the alignment between educational processes and student abilities. The second main code is educational Macroergonomics, which includes categories such as educational facilities, educational technology, educational equipment, educational software, educational research, educational reform planning, and the learning environment, including classrooms and buildings. The third identified main code is individual and social factors, which includes categories such as race and native language, gender, anthropometric dimensions, health, nutrition, substance abuse, academic aptitude, mobility, communication and interactions, and social and family factors. The fourth main code identified is organizational design and management, which includes categories such as commitment of management levels to implementing Macroergonomics, effective Macroergonomics in periodic management evaluation, Macroergonomics in knowledge transfer, macroergonomics in linking the organization or system with its external environment, Macroergonomic organizational design, and Macroergonomics and the design of organizational dimensions (centralization, complexity, and formalization). The fifth main code identified is Macroergonomics education, which includes categories such as Macroergonomics education in schools, teacher training centers, and other universities (as a course, short-term courses), recruitment of ergonomists at various levels, formation of education, evaluation, and ergonomics intervention committees, formation of green university committees with the participation of ergonomists, and the establishment of ergonomics training centers at universities. The sixth main code identified is Macroergonomics and graduation standards, which includes categories such as the quantity and type of skills and knowledge, the duration of the educational program, and the type and number of courses.
The findings suggest that implementing Macroergonomics principles in higher education can lead to long-term benefits, such as addressing the needs and expectations of all stakeholders, improving resource utilization and coordination, protecting the environment, enhancing the quality of life and services, and promoting equity in educational opportunities for generations to come. Ultimately, this can contribute to the overall well-being and success of higher education institutions.