ÖĞRENENLERİN SOSYAL ETKİLEŞİM ARAÇLARININ YER ALDIĞI ÇEVRİMİÇİ ÖĞRENME ORTAMINA İLİŞKİN UYARLAMA TERCİHLERİ VE GÖRÜŞLERİ

Bu araştırmanın amacı, tasarlanan çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenenlerin tercihlerine bağlı olarak uyarlamış oldukları sosyal etkileşim araçlarını tercih etmelerini etkileyen unsurlar ile çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamına ilişkin görüşlerini değerlendirmektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü 20102011 eğitim-öğretim yılı Güz dönemi "Proje Geliştirme ve Yönetimi I" dersini alan 87 öğrenen oluşturmuştur. Uygulamanın Proje Geliştirme ve Yönetimi I dersinin seçilmesinde işbirlikli çalışmaya uygun olması, uygulamalı ve proje temelli işlenebilir olması etkili olmuştur. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak öğrenenlerin sosyal etkileşim araçlarını seçimlerine ilişkin seçim ve tercih nedenleri formu ile ortama ilişkin görüşlerini belirttikleri yapılandırılmış form kullanılmıştır. Ulaşılan sonuçlar özetlenirse öğrenenlerin ortam tercihlerindeki en önemli etken etkileşim araçlarının sayısı ile öğrenme ortamında daha çok etkileşim aracı bulunmasının öğrenmeleri açısından daha faydalı olacağını düşünmeleridir. İkinci olarak öğrenenlerin tercihleri ile ilgili öne çıkan etken; öğrenme ortamında beyaz tahta aracının bulunup bulunmamasıdır. Öğrenenler genellikle beyaz tahta uygulamasını kullanmak istemişlerdir. Öğrenenler daha çok; rahat, verimli ve hızlı etkileşim kurabileceklerine inandıkları araçları seçme eğilimindedirler. Bunun yanında, öğrenenlerin öğrenme ortamına ilişkin görüşlerinden yüksek düzeyde memnun oldukları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

ADAPTATION PREFERENCE AND CHOICES OF LEARNERS TOWARDS THE SOCIAL INTERACTION TOOLS IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

The aim of this research was to investigate the factors that affect the choice of learners’ adaptable social interaction tool preferences in designed online learning environments and their views on online learning environments. The study group of the research was composed of 87 learners, from Gazi University Faculty of Gazi Education Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology who were enrolled in “Project Development and Management-I” course in 2010-2011 Fall Semester. The choice of this course for the implementation was due to the appropriateness of the course for cooperative, applied and project-based implementation. The data collection tools were choice and preference reasons of learners for social interaction tools form and structured forms in which they stated their views on the environment. To summarize the findings; the most important factor in the environment preference of the learners was that they think the number of the interactive tools and having more interactive tools in the learning environment are more beneficial in their learning. The second reason for learner preference was whether there is a white board in the learning environment or not. Learners wanted to use the white board implementation in general. Learners mostly tend to choose the tools that they believe to interact comfortably, productively and fast. Finally, it was concluded that the satisfaction levels of learners towards the learning environments were quite high

PDF

___

KAYNAKÇA
Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 267-282.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication (CMC), e-learning and interactivity: A review of the research. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161-179.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Bonk, C. J., Hansen, E. J., Grabner-Hagen, M. M., Lazar, S. A., & Mirabelli, C. (1998). Time to ‘‘Connect’’: Synchronous and asynchronous case-based dialogue among preservice teachers. In C. J. Bonk & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discours, 289-314. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brahmawong, C. (2004). Guidelines for Internet-based distance education in colleges and universities in Thailand. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 12(2), 7-13.
Bulterman D.C.A., Rutledge L., Hardman L., & Van Ossenbruggen J. (1999). Supporting adaptive and adaptable hypermedia presentation semantics. The 8th IFIP 2.6 Working Conference on Database Semantics (DS8). Semantic Issues in Multimedia Systems. January 5-8.
Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive modelling of student learning in web-based instructional programmes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17(3), 375-402.
Chou, C. C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in synchronous and asynchronous learning networks. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Chou, H., & Wang, T. (2000). The influence of learning style and training method on self-efficacy and learning performance in WWW homepage design training. International Journal of Information Management, 20(6), 455-472.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions?. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351-366.
De Bra, P. (1999). Design issues in adaptive hypermedia application development, Brusilovsky, P., & De Bra, P.,(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Adaptive Systems and User Modeling on the World Wide Web, 29-39, Toronto and Banff, Canada.
Edwards, J. T. (2009). Undergraduate students’ perceptions and preferences of computer-mediated communication with faculty. American Communication Journal, 11(1), 1-10.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media and Society, 2(2), 195-225.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001) Exploring multiplexity: social network structures in a computer-supported distance learning class. The Information Society, 17(3), 211-226.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-learning, 1(1), 19-27.
Hrastinski, S. (2007). Using chat as a complement to discussion board in small-group online seminars: How is student participation affected?. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(5-6).
Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information and Management, 45(7), 499-506.
Kane, T., & Baggaley, J. (2002). Online learners’ interest in collaborative tools. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(2).
Kurhila, J. (2003). Considering Individual Differences in Computer-Supported Special and Elementary Education. Doctoral Thesis, University of Helsinki.
Mabrito, M. (2006). A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class, The American Journal of Distance Education 20(2), 93-107.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Ng, E. W. J., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
Rich, E. (1983). Users are individuals: Individualizing user models. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18, 199-214.
Schwier, R. A., & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2), 21-30.
Schullo, S., Venable, M., Barron, A. E., Kromrey, J. D., Hilbelink, A., & Hohlfeld, T. (2005). Enhancing online courses with synchronous software: An analysis of strategies and interactions. In: Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
So, H. J. (2008). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: Collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 143- 160.
Southwell, B. G., Anghelcev, G., Himelboim, I., & Jones, J. (2007). Translating user control availability into perception: The moderating role of prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 554–563.
Spencer, D. (2002). A field study of the use of synchronous computer-mediated communication in asynchronous learning networks. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.