Çevrimiçi Eşzamanlı Öğrenme Ortamlarında Öğrencilerin Öğretimsel, Sosyal ve Bilişsel Buradalık Algılarının Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 350 - 364, 04.08.2016

Servet Kılıç Ünal Çakıroğlu Mehmet Barış Horzum

https://doi.org/10.16949/turcomat.35549

Öz

Bu çalışmada, çevrimiçi eşzamanlı öğrenme ortamlarında Sorgulama Topluluğu Modeli (STM) bileşenleri öğrencilerin öğretimsel, sosyal ve bilişsel buradalık algılarının belirlenmesi ve bu bileşenlerin birbirleriyle olan ilişkilerinin ortaya konulması amaçlanmaktadır. 14 hafta devam eden uygulamada dersler Adobe Connect web konferans sistemi üzerinden sunulmuştur. Araştırmada kesitsel tarama modeline uygun olarak toplanan nicel verilerden yararlanılarak çözümlemeler yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını, Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü Uzaktan Eğitim Programı 4. sınıfa devam eden 40 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda; çevrimiçi eşzamanlı olarak düzenlenen öğretimde; Öğretimsel buradalık algısına yönelik maddelerin ortalaması (X=3,14), bilişsel buradalık algısına yönelik maddelerin ortalaması (X=3,03)  ve sosyal buradalık algısına yönelik maddelerin ortalamalarının (X=3,01) her üçü de genel olarak orta noktadan yüksek olup “Katılıyorum”  düzeyinde çıkmıştır. Öğretimsel, sosyal ve bilişsel buradalıklar arasındaki ilişki incelendiğinde bilişsel buradalık ile sosyal ve öğretimsel buradalık arasında orta, sosyal ile öğretimsel buradalık arasında orta düzeyde anlamlı ilişki bulunmuştur. Bu çerçevede çalışmada elde edilen sonuçların, öğrenme ortamındaki bireyler ve ortam iletişimini göz önüne alarak hazırlanacak öğrenme ortam ve etkinlikler için çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamı tasarlayıcılara katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Investigating Teaching, Social and Cognitive Presence of Students in Synchronous Online Environments

Öz

In this study it is aimed to define the teaching, social and cognitive presence perceptions Community of Inquiry Components (CoI) students in simultaneous online learning environments. During the practically continuing 14 weeks, courses were presented over Adobe Connect web conferencing system. In the research analyzes were performed by using the quantitative data that was collected properly for cross-sectional survey model. The participants of research consist of 40 students who are 4th grade students at Computer and Instructional Technologies Department, Distance Learning Program. According to research results; at online teaching held simultaneously; the average of materials intended for teaching presence perception (X=3.14), the average of materials intended for cognitive presence perception (X=3.03)  and the average of materials intended for social presence perception(X=3.01)  all three were generally higher than the midpoint and all were resulted as "Agree". When the relationship level among presences is examined, on one hand a meaningful relationship at medium level occurs between cognitive-social presences and cognitive-teaching presences on the other hand a meaningful relationship at medium level occurs between social and teaching presences. In this context, it is considered that the results obtained in this study can contribute to online learning environment designers for learning environments and activities which will be prepared by considering individuals in the learning environment and communication environment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Kaynakça

• Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2011). Understanding cognitive presence in an online and blended community of inquiry: Assessing outcomes and processes for deep approaches to learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 233–250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01029.x
• Aljabre, A. (2012). An exploration of distance learning in Saudi Arabian universities: current practices and future possibilities. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(2), 132–137.
• Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 5(2), 1-17.
• Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 133-136.
• Bangert, A. (2008). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,20(1), 34-61.
• Bober, M. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction in online environments. Educational Media International, 38(4), 241−250.
• Carlen, U., & Jobring, O. (2005). The rationale of online learning communities. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1, 272–295.
• Carlon, S., Bennett-Woods, D., Berg, B., Claywell, L., LeDuc, K., Marcisz, N., Mulhall, M., Noteboom, T., Snedden, T., Whalen, K., & Zenoni, L. (2012). The community of inquiry instrument: Validation and results in online health care disciplines. Computers & Education, 59, 215–221.
• Chang, C. C. (2003). Towards a distributed web-based learning community. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40, 27–42.
• Daspit, J. J., & D'Souza, D. E. (2012). Using the community of inquiry framework to introduce wiki environments in blended-learning pedagogies: Evidence from a business capstone course. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 666-683. http://dx.doi.org/lu.5465/amle.2010.0154
• Deryakulu, D. (2000). Yapıcı öğrenme. A. Şimşek (Ed.), Sınıfta Demokrasi içinde (s. 53-77). Ankara: Eğitim-sen Yayınları.
• Díaz, S. R, Swan, K., Ice, P., & Kupczynski, L. (2010). Student ratings of the importance of survey items, multiplicative factor analysis, and the validity of the community of inquiry survey. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 22–30.
• Driver, M. (2002). Exploring student perceptions of group interaction and class satisfaction in the web-enhanced classroom. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(1), 35–45.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text based environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7–23.
• Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilating cognitive presence in online learning: interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148.
• Garrison, D. R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 25-34.
• Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31–36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
• Hew, K. F., Cheung, W. S., & Ling, C. S. (2009). Student contribution in asynchronous online discussion: A review of the research and empirical exploration. Instructional Sience. Online first.
• Horzum, M. B. (2015). Online learning students` perceptions community of inquiry based on learning outcomes and demographic variables. Croatian Journal of Education, 17(2), 535-567.
• Horzum, M. B., & Kaya-Uyanık, G. (2015). An item response theory analysis of the community of inquiry scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(2), 206-226.
• Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education Spring, 15(2), 30-49.
• Kozan, K., & Richardson, J. C. (2014). Interrelationships between and among social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 68-73.
• Maddrell, J. A., Morrison, G. R., & Watson, S. (2011). Community of inquiry framework and learner achievement. Presented at The Annual Meeting of The Association of Educational Communication & Technology. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
• Mercer, D. M. (2002). Synchronous communication in collaborative onlinelearning: Learners' perspectives (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). University of Toronto, Canada
• Molka-Danielsen, J., & Deutschmann, M. (2009). Learning and teaching in virtual worlds of Second Life. Trondheim: Topir academic Press.
• Naidu, S., & Jarvela, S. (2006). Analyzing CMC content for what? Computers & Education, 46, 96-103.
• Öztürk, E. (2009). Çevrimiçi öğrenme topluluklarında iletişim aracı türünün ve sanal konukların bilişsel ve toplumsal buradalık üzerindeki etkisi (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Öztürk, E. (2012). Araştırma topluluğu ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 11(2), 408-422. [Online]: http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
• Paulus, T. M., & Phipps, G. (2008). Approaches to case analyses in synchronous and asynchronous environments. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(2), 459-484.
• Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21−40.
• Reisoğlu, İ. (2014). 3B sanal öğrenme ortamlarında öğretimsel, sosyal ve bilişsel buradalık (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
• Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Carlson, R. D. (2005). Effective use of CMC tools in interactive online learning. Computers in the Schools, 22(1-2), 57-69.
• Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 397-431). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
• Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19−48.
• Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
• Rubin, B. F., & Avgerinou, R. M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the community of Inquiry and satisfaction with online courses. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 48–57.
• Savin-Baden, M. (2010). A practical guide to using Second Life in higher education. USA: Open University Press.
• Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education, 46(1), 49-70.
• Shea, P. J., Fredericksen, E. E., Pickett, A. M., & Pelz, W. E. (2003). A preliminary investigation of “teaching presence” in the SUNY learning network. In J. Bourne & Janet C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Into the mainstream (pp. 279-312). Needham, MA.: Sloan-C.
• Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Community of inquiry as a theoretical framework to foster ‘‘epistemic engagement” and ‘‘cognitive presence” in online education. Computers & Education, 52, 543–553.
• Shea, P., Hayes, S., Uzuner Smith , S., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., Gozza-Cohen, M., Wilde, J., & Jian, S. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 89–95.
• Stein, D. S., Wanstreet, C. E., Glazer, H. R., Engle, C. L., Harris, R. A., Johnston, et al. (2007). Creating shared understanding through chats in a community of inquiry. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 103–115.
• Stodel, E. J., Thompson, T. L., & MacDonald, C. J. (2006). Learner’s perspectives on what is missing from online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and distance Learning, 7(3), 1-14.
• Swan, K., & Ice, P. (2010). The community of inquiry framework ten years later: Introduction to special issue. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 1-4.
• Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: the Community of Inquiry framework. In Payne, C. R. (Ed.) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43-57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Szeto, E. (2015). Community of inquiry as an instructional approach: What effects of teaching, social and cognitive presences are there in blended synchronous learning and teaching?. Computers & Education, 81, 191-201.
• Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2002). Research in online learning community. Retrieved December 25, 2006 from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/ docs/html2002/chtu_frame.html
• Uysal, M. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ve karma öğrenme öğrencilerinin teknoloji ile öz-yönelimli öğrenmeleri ve sorgulama topluluğu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Sakarya.
• Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 1-12.
• Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asyncronous discussion and assesment in online learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309-328.
• Wang, A.,& Newlin, M. (2001). Online lectures: Benefits for the virtual classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 29(1), 17-24.
• Wanstreet, C. E., & Stein, D. S. (2011). Presence over time in synchronous communities of inquiry. American Journal of Distance Education, 25(3), 162-177.
• Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computermediated communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, 820–833.