-

Abstract

The overall objective of this study with which the single-factor intergroup experimental pattern was used is to introduce the effects of different interaction tools utilized in online learning environments on academic achievements and social presence perceptions of students. The research was conducted with the contributions of 57 students from the Ahi Evran University, Faculty of Education, Elementary Science Education Department in the 2008-2009 Spring term. To be used in the experimental process of the research, two online learning environments whose unique difference was the different interaction tools used were designed. To provide the interaction in one of the environments, ‘Within-group Blog’, ‘Inter-group Blog’, and ‘Chat’ tools were used and in the other, ‘Messaging’, ‘Forum’ and ‘Chat’ tools were utilized. For determination of the achievements of the students, data in the assessment module integrated to the learning material and the works of the students in the learning environments were used. In addition, at the end of the experimental process a posttest, which is the same with the pretest, was conducted to determine the achievements of the students. For determination of the social presence perceptions of the students, a scale of social presence perception, whose validity and reliability were proved, was used. According to the findings obtained using one-way-ANOVA, the social presence perceptions and achievements of the students did not vary meaningfully with respect to the learning environment they used

Keywords

• social presence, online learning, formative evaluation, summative evaluation

Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Ortamlarında Kullanılan Farklı Etkileşim Araçlarının Öğrencilerin Başarılarına ve Sosyal Bulunuşluk Algılarına Etkisi

Öz

Tek faktörlü gruplar arası deneysel desenin kullanıldığı bu araştırmanın genel amacı, çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında kullanılan farklı etkileşim araçlarının öğrencilerin başarılarına ve sosyal bulunuşluk algılarına etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Araştırma lisans düzeyindeki 57 öğrencinin katılımlarıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın deneysel işlem sürecinde kullanılmak üzere, aralarındaki tek farkın kullanılan farklı etkileşim araçları olduğu iki çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamı tasarlanmıştır. Ortamlardan birinde etkileşimi sağlamak için ‘Grup İçi Blog’, ‘Gruplar Arası Blog’ ve ‘Sohbet’ araçları kullanılmışken, diğerinde ise ‘Mesajlaşma’, ‘Forum’ ve ‘Sohbet’ araçları kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilerin başarılarının belirlenmesinde öğrenme materyaline entegre edilen değerlendirme modülündeki verilerden ve öğrencilerin öğrenme ortamlarındaki çalışmalarından yararlanılmıştır. Ayrıca deneysel işlemin sonunda uygulanan son test de öğrencilerin başarılarının belirlenmesinde kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilerin sosyal bulunuşluk algılarının belirlenmesinde ise geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği kanıtlanmış olan bir sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeği kullanılmıştır. İlişkisiz örneklemler için tek faktörlü varyans analizi (one way ANOVA) kullanılarak elde edilen bulgulara göre; öğrencilerin başarıları ve sosyal bulunuşluk algıları kullandıkları öğrenme ortamına göre anlamlı bir fark göstermemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sosyal bulunuşluk, çevrimiçi öğrenme, sürece dayalı değerlendirme, sonuca dayalı değerlendirme.

References

1. Abrami, P. Bernard, M., Lou, Y. Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P., Fiset, M., and Euang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.
2. Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N., and Mabry, E. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis.
3. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83–97.
4. Allen, E., and Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States 2010. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
5. Aragon, S. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100(3).
6. Bibeau, S. (2001). Social presence, isolation, and connectedness in online teaching and learning: From the literature to real life. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 15(3), 35-39.
7. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K., Kromey, J. Hess, M., and Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
8. Conceição, S. C., & Schmidt, S. W. (2010). How non-content related forums influence social presence in the online learning environment. Indian Journal of Open Learning, 19(2), 73–85.

9. Çağıltay, K., Graham, C. R., Lim, B., and Craner, J. (2001). The seven principles of good practice: A practical approach to evaluating online courses. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20.
10. Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Jl. of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
11. Gunawardena, C. N. (2002). Social presence and the sociocultural context of online education. In Symposium on Open/Distance Education: New Horizons in Educational Communications and Technology. Eskisehir, Turkey.
12. Gülbahar, Y. (2009). E-öğrenme. Pegem Akademi. ISBN 978-605-4282-09-8.
13. Kang, M., Choi, H., and Park, S. (2007). Construction and validation of a social presence scale for measuring online learners’ involvement. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale(Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1829-1833). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
14. Khan, B.H. (1997). Web-based instruction: What is it and why is it? In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
15. Khan, B.H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
16. Kurubacak, G. (2002). Accomplishing access & equity in education: Using the web to design and deliver courses online. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 3(4).
17. Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D., and Karakaya, İ. (2009). Öğrenci başarısının belirlenmesi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. 2. Baskı.
18. Lehman, R. M., & Conceição, S. C. O. (2010). Creating a sense of presence in online teaching: How to“ be there” for distance learners. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
19. Lewis, D. J. A., & Sewell, R. D. E. (2007). Instructional design and assessment: Providing formative feedback from a summative computer-aided assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(2), Article 33.
20. Li, Q. (2004). Knowledge building community: Keys for using online forums. TechTrends, 48(4), 24–29.
21. Lu Y., Huang, W., Ma, H., and Luce, T. (2007). Interaction, social presence in technology mediated learning - A partial least square model. Proceedings of Wireless Communication, Networking, Mobile Computing, WiCOM Management Track: Information System & Management,China.
22. Marriott, P., & Lau A. (2008). The use of on-line summative assessment in an undergraduate financial accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education, 26, 73-90.
23. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
24. Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. In Webnet 2001: World Conference on the WWW and Internet Proceedings (Orlando, FL, October 23-27).
25. Olpak, Y. Z., ve Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (2009). E-Öğrenme ortamları için sosyal bulunuşluk ölçeğinin uyarlama çalışması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 142-160.
26. QAA (2006). Section 6: Assessment of students, code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section6/COP_AOS.pdf adresinden 20.12.2009 tarihinde ulaşılmıştır.
27. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., and Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50-71.
28. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285–297.
29. Rovai, A. P. (2001). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 3(2000), 285-297.
30. Shea, P., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valtcheva, A. V., Hayes, S., and Vickers, J. (2011). The Community of Inquiry framework meets the SOLO taxonomy: a process-product model of online learning. Educational Media International, 48(2), 101-113.
31. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.
32. Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Thomas, J.A., Lan, W.Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T.C., Shaw, S.M., and Xiaoming Liu. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135.
33. Trotter, E. (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(5), 505-521.
34. Tu, C.-H. (2000). On-line learning migration: From social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23, 27-37.
35. Tu, C.-H., and McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.
36. Valasek, T. (2001). Student persistence in web-based courses: Identifying a profile for success. Produced as part of a Raritann Valley Community College Center for the Advancement of Innovative Teaching and Learning (CAITL) In-College Sabbatical.
37. Vrasidas, C., and McIsaac, M. S. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.
38. Vrasidas, C., and McIsaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for web-based learning. Educational Media International, 37(2), 105–111.
39. Waltonen-Moore, S., Stuart, D., Newton, E., Oswald, R., and Varonis, E. (2006). From virtual strangers to a cohesive online learning community: The evolution of online group development in a professional development course. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 287-311.
40. Weiss, R. E. (2000). Humanizing the online classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(84), 47–51.
41. Wheeler, S. (2005). Creating social presence in digital learning environments: A presence of mind. In In TAFE Conference. Mooloolaba, QLD: TAFE Queensland.
42. Whiteman, J. A. M. (2002). Interpersonal communication in computer mediated learning.
43. Woods, R. H., and Baker, J. D. (2004). Interaction and immediacy in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).
44. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., and Tan, H.S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.