BibTex RIS Cite

Investigating Students’ Perceptions On Feedback In Distance Education Program: A Case Study In Turkey

Year 2013, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 513 - 528, 01.06.2013

Abstract

Feedback in distance education plays a crucial role as it gives one of the few opportunities for teacher student interaction Since the effectiveness of distance education can be improved by enhancing the quality of feedback which significantly affects students’ subsequent learning teachers need to acknowledge the importance of students’ involvement and place room for their needs and expectations in formulating their feedback Hyland 2010 Jara Mellar 2010 In this respect the study attempts to serve the first step toward understanding students’ perceptions on feedback in order to open a room for negotiation between students and instructors and subsequently to be able to shape the feedback process in our institution accordingly The data for the study were gathered from 304 volunteering students studying at different programs in distance education utilizing a Likert Type questionnaire The results of the study are meant to bring valuable insights to students’ opinions regarding the nature of feedback in distance education and to provide implications for learning process in our context Keywords: Distance Education Feedback Feedback in Distance Education Özet Uzaktan eğitimdedönüt öğretmen öğrenci etkileşimin epek çok fırsatlar sunması nedeniyle önemli bir rol oynamaktadır Uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği öğrencilerins onraki öğrenmelerine anlamlı bir şekilde etki eden dönütün kalitesinin arttırılmasıyla geliştirilebileceğinden öğretmenlerin öğrenci katılımını kabuletmesi ve dönütlerini oluştururken öğrencilerin gereksinimlerine ve beklentilerine yer vermeleri gerekir Bu bağlamda çalışma öğrencilerile öğretmenler arasında uzlaşmaya yer verme ve bunun sonucunda kurumumuzda dönüt sürecini buna göre şekillendirme amacıyla öğrencilerin dönüt algılarını anlama konusunda ilk adımı oluşturmaya çalışmaktadır Çalışmadaki veriler likert tipi bir anket kullanılarak üniversitenin uzaktaneğitim veren meslek yüksekokulundaki farklı bölümlerinde eğitim gören 304 gönüllü öğrenciden toplanmıştır Çalışma sonuçları uzaktan eğitimde uygulanan dönüt süreci hakkındaki öğrenci görüşlerini ortaya koyarak öğrenme sürecine yönelik çıkarımlar sağlamaktadır AnahtarKelimeler:Uzaktan Eğitim Dönüt Uzaktan Eğitimde Dönüt

References

  • Alkan, C. (1996), Uzaktaneğitimintarihselgelişimi. Türkiye UluslararasıUzaktanEğitimSempozyumu (12-15 Kasım) Ankara: MEB-FRTEB. Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (1998).Assessment and classroom learning.Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7-74.
  • Boling, E.C., Hough, M. , Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences.Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118–126.
  • Carless, D. (2006).Differing perceptions in the feedback process.Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.
  • Chang, N., &Pertersen, N. J. (2006).Cybercoaching: An emerging model of personalized online assessment. In D. D. Williams, S. L. Howell, & M. Hricko (Eds.), Online assessment, measurement, and evaluation: Emerging practices. (pp. 110–130). Hershey, PA: the Idea Group.
  • Clariana, R., &Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593–602.
  • Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from aresearch perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3),241–254.
  • Costa, D., Mullan, B. A., Kothe, E. J., &Butow, P. (2010). A web-based formative assessment tool for Masters students: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1248-1253.
  • Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students‟ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5),571–581.
  • Cullen, M. (1994).Weighing it up: a case study of discontinuing access students.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379406.Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh.
  • Desai, M., Hart, J., & Richards, T. (2009). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Education, 129(2), 327–334.
  • Draper, S. (2009). What are learners actually regulating when given feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 306–315.
  • Fetherston, T. (2001). Pedagogical challenges for the World Wide Web. EducationalTechnology Review, 9, 1[Available at: http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/fetherston.cfm]. Retrieved in March, 2009.
  • Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992).Principles of instructional design. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
  • Goge, N. L., & Broiler, D. C. (1992).Educational psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning & Technology 1(2), 55-70.
  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-Learning: Pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4 (2002) 287 – 299.
  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interactionand collaborative learning in computer conferences.International Journal ofEducational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.
  • Gunawardena, C. N., &Zittle, F. J. (1997).Social presence as a predictor ofsatisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment.TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
  • Gülbahar, Y. (2009).E-öğrenme. Ankara: PegemAkademi.
  • Güneş, E. P. U. (2009). Learners‟ opinions toward structuring a graduate program in distance education.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1017–1022.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). Fourth generation writing assessment. In: T. Silva & P. K.Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.117–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.
  • Hughes, M., Ventura, S., &Dando, M. (2007).Assessing social presence in onlinediscussion groups: A replication study.Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 44(1), 17–29.
  • Hwang, K and Yang, C. (2008). A synchronous distance discussion procedure with reinforcement mechanism: Designed for elementary school students to achieve the attending and responding stages of the affective domain teaching goals within a class period. Computers & Education, 51, 1538–1552.
  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing andinterpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback insecond language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda.International Journal of English studies.[Available at www.um.es/ijes].
  • Inoue, A. B. (2005). Community-based assessment pedagogy.Assessing Writing, 9 (3), 208–238.
  • Jara, M. and Mellar, H. (2010). Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback. Computers & Education, 54, 709–714.

Investigating Students’ Perceptions On Feedback In Distance Education Program: A Case Study In Turkey

Year 2013, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 513 - 528, 01.06.2013

Abstract

Uzaktan eğitimdedönüt, öğretmen-öğrenci etkileşimin epek çok fırsatlar sunması nedeniyle önemli bir rol oynamaktadır.Uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği, öğrencilerins onraki öğrenmelerine anlamlı bir şekilde etki eden dönütün kalitesinin arttırılmasıyla geliştirilebileceğinden,öğretmenlerin, öğrenci katılımını kabuletmesi ve dönütlerini oluştururken öğrencilerin gereksinimlerine ve beklentilerine yer vermeleri gerekir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, öğrencilerile öğretmenler arasında uzlaşmaya yer verme ve bunun sonucunda, kurumumuzda dönüt sürecini buna göre şekillendirme amacıyla öğrencilerin dönüt algılarını anlama konusunda ilk adımı oluşturmaya çalışmaktadır.Çalışmadaki veriler likert-tipi bir anket kullanılarak, üniversitenin uzaktaneğitim veren meslek yüksekokulundaki farklı bölümlerinde eğitim gören 304 gönüllü öğrenciden toplanmıştır. Çalışma sonuçları, uzaktan eğitimde uygulanan dönüt süreci hakkındaki öğrenci görüşlerini ortaya koyarak öğrenme sürecine yönelik çıkarımlar sağlamaktadır.

References

  • Alkan, C. (1996), Uzaktaneğitimintarihselgelişimi. Türkiye UluslararasıUzaktanEğitimSempozyumu (12-15 Kasım) Ankara: MEB-FRTEB. Black, P., &Wiliam, D. (1998).Assessment and classroom learning.Assessmentin Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7-74.
  • Boling, E.C., Hough, M. , Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences.Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118–126.
  • Carless, D. (2006).Differing perceptions in the feedback process.Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.
  • Chang, N., &Pertersen, N. J. (2006).Cybercoaching: An emerging model of personalized online assessment. In D. D. Williams, S. L. Howell, & M. Hricko (Eds.), Online assessment, measurement, and evaluation: Emerging practices. (pp. 110–130). Hershey, PA: the Idea Group.
  • Clariana, R., &Wallace, P. (2002). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment: key factors associated with test mode effect. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 593–602.
  • Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from aresearch perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3),241–254.
  • Costa, D., Mullan, B. A., Kothe, E. J., &Butow, P. (2010). A web-based formative assessment tool for Masters students: A pilot study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1248-1253.
  • Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students‟ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5),571–581.
  • Cullen, M. (1994).Weighing it up: a case study of discontinuing access students.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED379406.Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh.
  • Desai, M., Hart, J., & Richards, T. (2009). E-learning: Paradigm shift in education. Education, 129(2), 327–334.
  • Draper, S. (2009). What are learners actually regulating when given feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 306–315.
  • Fetherston, T. (2001). Pedagogical challenges for the World Wide Web. EducationalTechnology Review, 9, 1[Available at: http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/fetherston.cfm]. Retrieved in March, 2009.
  • Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992).Principles of instructional design. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
  • Goge, N. L., & Broiler, D. C. (1992).Educational psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • González-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning & Technology 1(2), 55-70.
  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-Learning: Pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 4 (2002) 287 – 299.
  • Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interactionand collaborative learning in computer conferences.International Journal ofEducational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147–166.
  • Gunawardena, C. N., &Zittle, F. J. (1997).Social presence as a predictor ofsatisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment.TheAmerican Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26.
  • Gülbahar, Y. (2009).E-öğrenme. Ankara: PegemAkademi.
  • Güneş, E. P. U. (2009). Learners‟ opinions toward structuring a graduate program in distance education.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1017–1022.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). Fourth generation writing assessment. In: T. Silva & P. K.Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.117–128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: reconsidering the role of assessment feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.
  • Hughes, M., Ventura, S., &Dando, M. (2007).Assessing social presence in onlinediscussion groups: A replication study.Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 44(1), 17–29.
  • Hwang, K and Yang, C. (2008). A synchronous distance discussion procedure with reinforcement mechanism: Designed for elementary school students to achieve the attending and responding stages of the affective domain teaching goals within a class period. Computers & Education, 51, 1538–1552.
  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing andinterpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback insecond language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda.International Journal of English studies.[Available at www.um.es/ijes].
  • Inoue, A. B. (2005). Community-based assessment pedagogy.Assessing Writing, 9 (3), 208–238.
  • Jara, M. and Mellar, H. (2010). Quality enhancement for e-learning courses: The role of student feedback. Computers & Education, 54, 709–714.
There are 29 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Dr.meral Şeker This is me

Yrd.doç.dr.m. Emre Sezgin This is me

Publication Date June 1, 2013
Submission Date December 29, 2013
Published in Issue Year 2013 Volume: 22 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Şeker, D., & Sezgin, Y. E. (2013). Investigating Students’ Perceptions On Feedback In Distance Education Program: A Case Study In Turkey. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(1), 513-528.