Çevrim İçi Canlı Toplantılarda Karşılaşılan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri

Abstract

Dijital toplantı ortamları özellikle son aylarda küresel salgının etkisiyle tercih edilebilirlik bakımından artan bir eğilim göstermektedir. Küresel salgın süreci, neredeyse işleyen tüm operasyonları etkilediği ve dönüşüme zorladığı gibi, eğitim öğretim biçimleri de bu dayatmaya maruz kaldı. Dünyanın yaşadığı önceki kriz dönemlerine benzer şekilde, hemen her alanda hızla değişim gösteren, yeni ve geçici düzene uyum sağlamak zorundalığına sahip yeni yapılar ve çözüm yaklaşımları ortaya çıktı. Bu kriz dönemi süreci, kimi firma, şirket ve kurumları ekonomik olarak zorlasa da bu süreçte topluma alternatif iş yaşamı ve uzaktan izole olmayı sunan girişimler veya hizmetler yükselen bir eğilim ortaya koydu. Öyle ki, en çok eğitim alanında tercih edilen web tabanlı toplantıları sağlayan şirketler piyasa değerlerini kat be kat artırdı. Bu çalışmada salgın sürecinde kullanılan çevrim içi canlı toplantılarda karşılaşılan sorunlar irdelenmiş ve bu doğrultuda çözüm önerileri sunulmuştur. Çalışma, eylem araştırması modelini temel alan bir çalışma olarak gerçekleştirildi. Çalışmanın verileri, OSTİM Teknik Üniversitesi’nin organize ettiği Zoom, Teams, Streamyard ve Open Broadcast Software (OBS) Studio yazılımlarıyla gerçekleştirilen 22 çevrim içi canlı toplantının içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmesi sonucu elde edildi. Çalışma sonuçları, çevrim içi canlı toplantılarda en fazla kullanıcı kaynaklı, ortam kaynaklı, sistem kaynaklı ve harici etken kaynaklı olmak üzere dört kategoride toplanan sorunlarla karşılaşıldığını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• canlı yayın
• toplantı
• webinar

Abstract

Digital meeting environments have been increasing in terms of preferability, especially in recent months due to the impact of the global epidemic. Just as the global epidemic process affects almost all functioning operations and forced transformation, education processes have been reformed by this imposition so that sustainability can continue. Like previous times of crisis in the world, new structures and solution approaches that are rapidly changing in almost every area and that have to adapt to the new and temporary order have emerged. Although this crisis period has forced some companies and institutions economically or services that offer alternative business life and remote isolation to society have presented a rising trend. Companies that provide the web-based meetings have increased their market values many folds. In this study, the problems encountered in online live meetings used in the epidemic process were evaluated and solution proposals were presented accordingly. The study was conducted as a study based on the action research model. The data of the study were obtained by examining 22 online live meetings organized by OSTIM Technical University with Zoom, Teams, StreamYard and Open Broadcast Software (OBS) Studio software with the content analysis method.

Keywords

• live broadcast
• meeting
• webinar

References

1. Amhag, L. (2015). Learner centered experiences with flipped classroom and mobile online webinars in distance higher education program. In International Conference on Mobile Learning, Madeira, Portugal (2015) (pp. 99-103). IADIS, International Association for Development of the Information Society.
2. Baskerville, R. L. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the association for information systems, 2(1), 19.
3. Billon, M., Lera-Lopez, F., & Marco, R. (2010). Differences in digitalization levels: a multivariate analysis studying the global digital divide. Review of World Economics, 146(1), 39-73.
4. Boateng, J. K. (2016). Accessibility Considerations for e Learning in Ghana. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 3(4): 124- 129.
5. Bradbury-Huang, H. (2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest?. Action Research, 8(1), 93-109.
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E. K. (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
7. Caestello, P. J. M. (2007). Action Research. London: Continuum Books.
8. Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in human behavior, 49, 272-281.

9. Ferraro, F. V., Ambra, F. I., Aruta, L., & Iavarone, M. L. (2020). Distance Learning in the Covid-19 Era: Perceptions in Southern Italy. Education Sciences, 10(12), 355.
10. Gegenfurtner, A. & Ebner, C. (2019). Webinars in higher education and professional training: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Educational Research Review, 28, 100293.
11. Gómez, P., Semmler, M., Schützenberger, A., Bohr, C., & Döllinger, M. (2019). Low-light image enhancement of high-speed endoscopic videos using a convolutional neural network. Medical & biological engineering & computing, 57(7), 1451-1463.
12. Gray, J. and Rumpe, B. (2015). Models for digitalization. Softw Syst Model, 14, 1319–1320.
13. Grewal, D., Janakiraman, R., Kalyanam, K., Kannan, P. K., Ratchford, B., Song, R., & Tolerico, S. (2010). Strategic online and offline retail pricing: a review and research agenda. Journal of interactive marketing, 24(2), 138-154.
14. Gülbahar, Y. (2017). E-öğrenme. [E-learning] Ankara: Pegem Academy Publishing.
15. Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, M. B., & Taşğın, A. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma: teorik çerçeve-pratik öneriler-7 farklı nitel araştırma yaklaşımı-kalite ve etik hususlar. [Qualitative research in social sciences: theoretical framework-practical suggestions-7 different qualitative research approaches-quality and ethical considerations]. Ankara: Seçkin Publising.
16. Hagberg, J., Sundström, M., & Nicklas, E. Z. (2016). The digitalization of retailing: an exploratory framework. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44(7), 694-712.
17. Holmes, B. & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. SAGE Publications.
18. Levy, A. (2020, September). Zoom’s stock surges 41% after earnings beat, adding over $37 billion in market cap. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/zooms-stock-surges-41percent-on-earnings-adding-over-37-billion-in-value.html adresinden elde edildi.
19. Li, J., Zhang, P., & Yang, L. (2021). An unsupervised approach to detect review spam using duplicates of images, videos and Chinese texts. Computer Speech & Language, 68, 101186.
20. McRoy, C., Patel, L., Gaddam, D. S., Rothenberg, S., Herring, A., Hamm, J., Chelala, L., Weinstein, J., Smith, E., & Awan, O. (2020). Radiology Education in the Time of Covid-19: A Novel Distance Learning Workstation Experience for Residents. Academic radiology, 27(10), 1467-1474.
21. Mertler, C. A. (2012). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. SAGE Publications.
22. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action Research: A guide for the teacher research. Boston: Pearson Education.
23. Noh, Y. (2017). A study on the effect of digital literacy on information use behavior. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(1), 26-56.
24. Parida, V., Sjödin, D., & Reim, W. (2019) Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability, 11, 391.
25. Prior, D. D., Mazanov, J., Meacheam, D., Heaslip, G., & Hanson, J. (2016). Attitude, digital literacy and self efficacy: Flow-on effects for online learning behavior. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 91-97.
26. Saban, A., Ersoy, A. (2019). Eğitimde nitel araştırma desenleri. [Qualitative research patterns in education]. Ankara: Anı Publishing.
27. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.