Öğretmen Adaylarının Çevrimiçi Tartışma Ortamlarına Yönelik Görüşleri

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 24 - 47, 30.04.2015

Ferhat Kadir Pala Mukaddes Erdem

https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.12373

Cited By: 3

Öz

Öz

 Çevrimiçi tartışma ortamları öğretmen adaylarına verimli çalışma olanakları sağlayabilmekte midir? Daha verimli ve katılımı motive eden çevrimiçi tartışma ortamları oluşturma konusunda öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri ve beklentileri nelerdir? Bu sorulardan hareketle gerçekleştirilen bu araştırma, daha verimli ve katılımı motive eden çevrimiçi tartışma ortamları oluşturmaya rehberlik edebilecek öneriler geliştirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Çalışmada veriler, çevrimiçi öğrenme ve tartışma ortamlarında yaşantı geçirmiş öğretmen adaylarıyla yürütülen odak grup görüşmeleri yoluyla toplanmıştır. Çalışma grubunu 2007-2008 öğretim yılı güz döneminden 2010-2011 öğretim yılı güz dönemine kadar üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıfta öğrenim gören öğretmen adayları (84 katılımcı) oluşturmaktadır. Odak grup görüşmelerinde katılımcılara; “çevrimiçi tartışma ortamlarına katılma ya da katılmama nedenleri”, “bu ortamlardan beklentileri”, “hangi özelliklere sahip ortamlarda daha iyi öğrenecekleri” gibi açık uçlu sorular yöneltilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi ile temalara ayrılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda; Katılım Biçimleri, Hiyerarşik Yapı, Dönüt Sistemi, Tartışma Başlıkları, Yorum Takip Etme Şekli, Anlık Tepkilerin İfade Edilmesi ve Görsel Tasarım temaları oluşmuştur. Oluşan bu temalara göre geliştirilen önerilerden bazıları: Çevrimiçi tartışma ortamlarının yorumları yazılı yapabilmenin yanı sıra görsel ve işitsel materyal ekleyerek görüntülü ve sesli yorum yapabilmeye, dolayısıyla okumanın yanında dinleyerek ve izleyerek yorumları takip edebilmeye olanak vermesi, yorumların uygun bir listeleme yöntemiyle verilmesi, katılımcı yorumlarına yapılan yorumların farklı bir renkle ve yorum sayısını gösterir şekilde verilmesidir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamları, çevrimiçi katılım, öğretmen adayı görüşleri

  

Abstract

 Do online discussion environments provide affective opportunities to the pre-service teachers? What are the opinions and the expectations of the pre-service teachers to create more affective online discussion environments that motived the online participation? Departing from these questions, this research aimed to present some suggestions to create more affective online discussion environments that motived the online participation. The study data were collected from focus group interviews of pre-service teachers who have experience on online learning environments and online discussions. The study group consisted of 84 pre-service teachers whose grade were between 3^rd year and 4^th year. The study had conducted between fall semester of the 2007-2008 academic year and fall semester of the 2010-2011 academic year. Open-ended questions like “what are your reasons to participate or not to online discussion environment”, “what are your expectations from these environments” and “in which environment you would learn better” were asked to participants of focus group interviews. The obtained data were divided to the themes by content analysis. As a result of this study, seven themes were formed. These themes are Participation Forms, Hierarchical Structure, Feedback System, Discussion Topics, Comment Tracking, Expression of Instant Response and Visual Design. Some of the suggestions developed from these themes are online comments would be in visual and audible formats by adding visual and audible materials as well as having done in text format, therefore comment tracing would allow listening and watching, comments would be listed in an appropriate sorting methodology, reply comments would be displayed in different color and with quantity.

 Keywords: Online learning environment, online participation, pre-service teachers’ opinions

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamları, çevrimiçi katılım, öğretmen adayı görüşleri

Kaynakça

• Agosto, D. E. (2004). Design vs. content: A study of adolescent girls' website design preferences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(3), 245-260.
• Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. T. Anderson ve F. Elloumi (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning içinde (ss. 3-31). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University.
• Althaus, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-line discussions. Communication Education, 46(3), 158-174.
• Anderson, T. (2004). Teaching in an Online Learning Context. T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning içinde (ss. 271-294). Athabasca, Kanada: Athabasca University.
• Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the ‘Invisible’ online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147-155.
• Bento, R., Brownstein, B., Kemery, E., ve Zacur, S. R. (2005). A taxonomy of participation in online courses. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2(12), 79-86.
• Bento, R., ve Schuster, C. (2003). Participation: The online challenge. A. K. Aggarwal (Ed.), Web-Based Education: Learning from Experience içinde (ss. 156-164). ABD: IRM Press.
• Berge, Z. L. (1998). Guiding principles in Web‐based instructional design. Educational Media International, 35(2), 72-76. doi: 10.1080/0952398980350203
• Bilal, D. (2002). Children design their interfaces for Web search engines: A participatory approach. CAIS/ACSI Conference [CAIS/ACSI Konferansı]'nda sunulan bildiri. Kanada: Toronto.
• Burke, M., Kraut, R., ve Marlow, C. (2011). Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems bildiri kitabı içinde (ss.571-580). Kanada: Voncouver, BC.
• Cheong, C. M., ve Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 556-573.
• Dennen, V. P. (2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624-1633. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.06.003
• Gao, F., Zhang, T., ve Franklin, T. (2013). Designing asynchronous online discussion environments: Recent progress and possible future directions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 469-483. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01330.x
• Gerbic, P. (2006). To post or not to post: Undergraduate student perceptions about participating in online discussions. ASCILITE - Who’s learning? Whose technology?'nde sunulan bildiri. Avusturalya: Sydney.
• Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
• Hrastinski, S. (2006). The relationship between adopting a synchronous medium and participation in online group work: An explorative study. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 137-152. doi: 10.1080/10494820600800240
• Hrastinski, S. (2007). Participating in Synchronous Online Education.
• Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information & Management, 45(7), 499-506. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005
• Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 78-82. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009
• Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., ve Jaspers, J. (2007). Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1037-1065. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.004
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory içinde (ss. 215-239). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Jorgensen, D. (2003). The challenges and benefits of asynchronous learning networks. The Reference Librarian, 37(77), 3-16. doi: 10.1300/J120v37n77_02
• Kılıç, Y. (2010). Eşzamanlı ve eşzamansız uzaktan eğitim ortamlarındaki çevrimiçi etkileşimlerin yapısal çözümlemesi. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Küçük, M. (2010). Lurking in online asynchronous discussion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2260-2263. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.319
• McIsaac, M. S., Blocher, J. M., Mahes, V., ve Vrasidas, C. (1999). Student and teacher perceptions of interaction in online computer‐mediated communication. Education Media International, 36(2), 121-131.
• Moore, J. L., ve Marra, R. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of online discussion participation protocols. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 191-212.
• Nonnecke, B., ve Peece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. Americas Conference on Information Systems'de sunulan bildiri. ABD: Boston.
• Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., ve Chang, C.-F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119-140.
• Pena-Shaff, J. B., ve Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243-265. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003
• Richards, I. G. (2009). Effective use of online discussion forums: The importance of assessment. http://www.usq.edu.au/users/richards/forums/ForumUse.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Schultz, N., ve Beach, B. (2004). From lurkers to posters. Australian National Training Authority. https://sielearning.tafensw.edu.au/toolboxes/Toolbox808/toolbox/resources/e_space/e_sources/documents/docs/lurkerstoposters.pdf adresinden erişimiltir.
• Seethamraju, R. (2014). Effectiveness of using online discussion forum for case study analysis. Education Research International, 2014, 10. doi: 10.1155/2014/589860
• Shaw, R.-S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111-120. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.013
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331. doi: 10.1080/0158791010220208
• Vrasidas, C., ve McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36. doi: 10.1080/08923649909527033
• Vrasidas, C., ve McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37(2), 105-111.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
• Weaver, C. M. (2005). What encourages student participation in online discussions. (Doktora tezi.). Avustralya: University of Southern Queensland.
• Yamada, M., ve Goda, Y. (2012). Application of social presence principles to CSCL design for quality interactions. J. Jia (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarden to workplace training içinde (ss. 31-48). doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0137-6