Investigation of the Relationship between Learning Process and Learning Outcomes in E-Learning Environments

Problem durumu: Geleneksel öùrenme ortamlar×ndan çevrimiçi ortamlara geçiüte öùrenen profili de deùiüime uùram×üt×r. Zaman ve mekan k×s×tlamas× olmamas× çevrimiçi öùrenme ortamlar×nda bireyi baù×ms×z hale getirerek öùrenen özerkliùi kavram×n× gündeme getirmiütir. Bireyin kendi öùrenmesinin sorumluluùunu almaya yönelik becerisi üeklinde tan×mlanan özerklik, öz-düzenlemeli öùrenme, öz-güdümlü öùrenme ve üstbiliü çal×üma süreçlerini içine alan bir üemsiye kavramd×r. Birer psikoeùitsel yap× olan motivasyon ve öùrenme stratejileri de bu üemsiye kavram×n alt×nda yer almaktad×r. Biggs ve Moore'un önerdiùi öùrenmede 3P modeli, öùrenme süreçleri ve ç×kt×lar× için uygun bir kuramsal çerçeve sunmaktad×r. Modele göre ilk P (presage),öùrenme sürecinin öùrenen ile ilgili deùiükenlerini, öùrenenin ön bilgilerini, kiüilik özelliklerini ve haz×r bulunuüluùunu ifade etmektedir. úkinci P (process), öùrenme sürecinde bireyin motivasyonu, davran×ülar× ve öùrenme stratejilerini içermektedir. Diùer bir deyiüle süreç deùiükeni belirli bir öùrencinin girdi unsurlar×n× ele al×ü biçimini göstermektedir. Son P (product) ise öùrenme ç×kt×lar×n×n niteliùi ve niceliùi ile ilgilidir. Öùrenme ürünlerinin formal ve informal deùerlendirmesi, alg×lanan öùrenme ve tatmin düzeyi bu sürecin öùeleridir. Bu çal×ümada modelin süreç ve ç×kt× deùiükenleri üzerinde durularak öùrenme süreçlerinin öùrenme ç×kt×lar× üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiütir. Öùrenme ç×kt×lar× ise a)alg×lanan öùrenme düzeyi ve b) gerçekleüen öùrenme düzeyi olarak iki farkl× formda ele al×nm×ü, ayn× zamanda bu iki öùrenme ç×kt×s× aras×ndaki iliüki incelenmiütir. Araüt×rman×n amac×: Bu çal×ümada 3P modelinin süreç ve ç×kt× deùiükenleri üzerinde durularak öùrenme süreçlerinin öùrenme ç×kt×lar× üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiütir. Öùrenme ç×kt×lar× a)öùrenme alg×s× ve b)öùrenme performans× olmak üzere iki boyutta ele al×nm×ü, öùrenme alg×s× ile öùrenme performans× aras×ndaki iliüki incelenmiütir. Araüt×rman×n Yöntemi: Çal×ümada 3P modeli temelinde iliükisel araüt×rma deseni kullan×lm×üt×r. Bilgisayar Aùlar× ve úletiüim dersine devam eden lisans düzeyinde 68 öùrenci çevrimiçi öùrenme ortam×nda Öùrenme Yönetim Sistemi arac×l×ù×yla öùrenme yaüant×s× geçirmiülerdir. Çal×ümada öùrencilerin öùrenme ç×kt×lar×n× belirlemek amac×yla iki farkl× ölçme arac× kullan×lm×üt×r: a) Alg×lanan öùrenme düzeyi, 6 maddeden oluüan Çevrimiçi Öùrenme Alg×s× Ölçeùi ile belirlenmiütir. Ölçekte yer alan 6 maddenin öz deùeri 1'den büyük tek faktör alt×nda topland×ù× görülmüütür. Araüt×rmac×lar taraf×ndan geliütirilen ölçeùin Cronbach Alfa deùeri .93 olarak bulunmuütur. b) Gerçekleüen öùrenme düzeyini ortaya koymak amac×yla 20 maddelik akademik baüar× testi uygulanm×üt×r. Uzman görüüleri ve dersin kazan×mlar×na dayal× olarak kapsam geçerliùi saùlanan bu testin iç tutarl×k katsay×s× .76 olarak bulunmuütur. Araüt×rmada kullan×lan üçüncü ölçme arac× olarak öùrenenlerin öùrenme yaklaü×mlar×n× (derin ve yüzeysel) Öùrenme Yaklaü×mlar× Ölçeùi kullan×lm×üt×r. Belirtilen psiko-eùitsel yap×lar aras×ndaki iliükiler Yap×sal Eüitlik Modellemesi (YEM) ile incelenmiütir. Araüt×rman×n Bulgular×: YEM analizine göre öùrenenlerin öùrenme yaklaü×mlar× öùrenme alg×s× üzerinde anlaml× bir etkiye sahiptir. Diùer yandan yüzeysel yaklaü×m×n öùrenme alg×s× üzerinde anlaml× bir etkisi görülmemiütir (p>.05). Derin strateji yaklaü×m× öùrenme performans×n× olumlu yönde etkilerken derin motivasyon ve öùrenme performans× aras×nda anlaml× bir iliüki ortaya ç×kmam×üt×r. Öùrenme performans× yüzeysel yaklaü×mlardan olumsuz yönde etkilenmektedir (p

Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Öğrenme Süreçleri ve Öğrenme Çıktıları Arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi

Problem Statement: Learners can access and participate in online learning environments regardless of time and geographical barriers. This brings up the umbrella concept of learner autonomy that contains self-directed learning, self-regulated learning and the studying process. Motivation and learning strategies are also part of this umbrella concept. Taking into consideration learning processes and outcomes together, Biggs' 3P model of learning is used as the theoretical framework. The first P was defined as learning presage and included learning inputs such as learner variables, prior knowledge, learner readiness, personality, etc. The second P was considered the learning process, which covers learner motivation and learning strategies. The last P was suggested as learning outcomes (product) which consist of the results of formal and informal assessment, perceived learning, self-concept, satisfaction, etc. Purpose of Study: In this study, we especially considered the learning process and the learning outcomes and investigated the effects of learning process on learning outcomes. In addition, we took into consideration the two dimensions of learning outcomes as a) perceptions of learning, and b) performances of learning, respectively. Also, we investigated the relationship between learners' perceptions of learning and performance of learning. Methods: Relational scanning model was used based on the 3P model. Within the Computer Networks and Communication Course, 68 students participated in the study. Study Process Questionnaire, Online Learning Perception Scale and performance test were used to identify student learning processes and outcomes. Associations between these psychoeducational constructs were examined through Structural Equation Model Findings and Results: According to SEM analysis, learners' approaches to learning have a significant effect on their perception of learning. Conversely, the effects of surface approaches on learners' perception of learning was not statistically significant (p>.05). Whereas deep strategy approaches have significant effects on performance of learning, the relationship between deep motivation and performance of learning was not significant. Performance of learning was negatively affected by surface approaches (p

PDF

___

Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, Holt: Rinehartand Winston.
Baeten, M., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2013). Student-centered teaching methods: Can they optimize students' approaches to learning in professional higher education?. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 14-22.
Bat×, A. H., Tetik, C., & Gürp×nar, E. (2010). Öùrenme yaklaü×mlar× ölçeùi yeni üeklini Türkçeye uyarlama ve geçerlilik güvenirlilik çal×ümas× [Assessment of the validity and reliability of the Turkish adaptation of the Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F)]. Türkiye Klinikleri T×p Bilimleri Dergisi, 30(5), 1639- 1646.
Beccaria, L., Kek, M., Huijser, H., Rose, J., & Kimmins, L. (2014). The interrelationships between student approaches to learning and group work. Nurse Education Today, 34(7), 1094-1103.
Biggs, J. (1982). Student motivation and study strategies in university and college of advanced education populations. Development, 1(1), 33-55.
Higher Education Research and
Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised twoGfactor study process questionnaire: RGSPQG2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133- 149.
Bracey, P. (2010, October). Self-directed learning vs self-regulated learning: Twins or just friends?. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (No. 1, pp. 1600-1607).
Diseth, Å., & Martinsen, Ø. (2003). Approaches to learning, cognitive style and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology 23(2), 195-207.
Enwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325-345.
Fritzsche, D.J. (1977). On the relationships of learning style, perceived learning, and performance in an experiential learning environment. Computer Simulation and Learning Theory, 3, 455-462.
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
Geçer, A. K. (2012). An examination of studying approaches and information literacy self-efficacy perceptions of prospective teachers. Eùitim Araüt×rmalar×-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 151-172.
Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2005). The relationship between students' approaches to learning and the assessment of learning outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 327-341.
Haverila, M. (2012). The Biggs and Moore model in E-Learning: The role of motivation and collaboration as moderators. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 169-179.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Klinger, T. H. (2006). Learning approach, thinking style and critical inquiry: The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 16(1), 91-113.
Knowles, M. S. (1979). Speaking from experience: The professional organization as a learning community. Training and Development Journal, 36-42.
Köksal, N. & Çöùmen, S. (2013). Pre-service teachers as lifelong learners: University facilities for promoting their professional development. Eùitim Araüt×rmalar×- Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53, 21-40.
Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Struyven, K., & Cascallar, E. (2011). The direct and indirect effect of motivation for learning on students' approaches to learning through the perceptions of workload and task complexity. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 135-150.
Laird, T. F. N., Seifert, T. A., Pascarella, E. T., Mayhew, M. J., & Blaich, C. F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students' thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(3), 402-432.
Lazarevi?, D., & Trebjesanin, B. (2013). Characteristics and factors of learning approaches of the prospective teachers. Psihologija, 46(3), 299-314.
Lee, S. W. Y. (2013). Investigating students' learning approaches, perceptions of online discussions, and students' online and academic performance. Computers & Education, 68, 345-352.
MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84-99.
Martens, R., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation on eGlearning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of computer assisted learning, 20(5), 368-376.
Moore, M. G. (1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76-88.
Mutlu, A. & Eröz-Tuùa, B. (2013). The role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Eùitim Araüt×rmalar×-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 107-122.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students' expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222-229.
Parpala, A., LindblomGYlänne, S., Komulainen, E., Litmanen, T., & Hirsto, L. (2010). Students' approaches to learning and their experiences of the teaching- learning environment in different disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 269-282.
Platow, M. J., Mavor, K. I. & Grace. D.M. (2013). On the role of discipline-related self- concept in deep and surface approaches to learning among university students. Instructional Science 41(2), 271-285.
Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education 24(1), 87-103.
Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics of students' approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 279-294.
Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183-1202.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Edition). Boston: Allynand Bacon.
Tanyeli, N., & Kuter, S. (2013). Examining learner autonomy in foreign language learning and instruction. Eùitim Araüt×rmalar×-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 53/A, 19-36.
Yeung, J.W.K., Ong, A.C. (2012). Framing and consolidating the assessment of outcome-based learning (OBL) in higher institutes in Hong Kong: An example case demonstration. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala, 37, 34-48.
Zainal, N.F.A., Shahrani, S., Yatim, N.F.M., Rahman, R.A., Rahmat, M. & Latih, R. (2012). Students' perception and motivation towards programming. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences 59, 277-286.